The human body is a marvelously user-friendly device. If you desire accessibility to a greater level of strength in any particular body part, all you have to do is use that body part repeatedly, and that alone signals to your internal command center that you want to increase the aptitude in that specific place. Analogously, if you wish to improve your ability to perform a physical task, you can simply practice that task repeatedly, and your body will respond by funneling strength into the collection of muscles needed. And as you perform that task more and more, you become more physically apt to perform that task well. But let's compare the case of the physical skill mentioned thus far, to its mental counterpart, the acquisition of know-how.
Learning a mental skill is analogous to becoming physically adept at a physical task, because the repeated execution of the task leads to a greater skill that allows one to perform it with ever-increasing ease. If you want to know how to do something well, you try at it repeatedly until it feels like second nature. As humans, this might seem obvious, but it doesn't necessarily have to be this way. In fact, some people resist this method of learning, choosing instead to treat the acquisition of knowledge as something far more abstract and random.
Here, I really want to discuss the difference between two types of people: the intuitive and the sensing. These words, "intuitive" and "sensing," are in reference to the popular Myers-Briggs system of personality tests and classifications. (While I believe that the Myers-Briggs personality types fail to cover most of what is important about a person, they do lead to some conclusions that are fascinating and important in my eyes.) What I want to focus on is the second letter in the type, which deals with the intake of information, or perception. Intuition and sensing are two opposite functions that deal with a person's perception of reality-- simply, sensing is to take the world literally, for what it is, while intuition is an abstract, theoretical view of the happenings in the world. Sensing-type individuals are the ones who live in the moment and see things for what they are, questioning relatively little about what they perceive. The motto of a sensing-type person is "what you see is what you get." Intuitive people will question beyond what they see, extrapolating on their findings with little or no provocation. Rather than simply seeing what is there, and intuitive person will consider its past and future, or perhaps how a certain thing could be changed or improved.
These two different types of people are defined by their own default method of how knowledge is acquired, and I'm finding that one of these is much more useful than the other. For sensing-type individuals, learning is primarily done in the way I first outlined-- through practice. Repetition leads to an ability to apply their skills more and more smoothly until it becomes rudimentary. This is the learning style that relates clearly to the acquisition of physical strength; use your triceps to lift something many times, and the body will respond by increasing the muscle mass in your triceps. Do something more, and you get better at it. It's a really simple and highly convenient system, but even so, the intuitive people living in dreamland forsake it for an abstract approach.
By my nature, I am one of these dreamers, but I have started to resent it in a way, because my priorities are learning more than ever toward application. It seems to me that knowledge gained as a bank of abstract theory is harder to apply than knowledge gained through practice. Knowledge gained through practice and repetition is granted purpose inherently during its acquisition; if you're doing a thing, you are learning that thing in the process, and the purpose of that process is to continue doing that thing with greater effectiveness. So learning that thing already has purpose--to do that thing better! But the acquisition of theoretical, abstract knowledge, has a theoretical, abstract purpose that's often harder to see. It's harder for me to guarantee that I will use a piece of theoretical knowledge later in life, when learning a bit of practical knowledge through an action I'm committing already has an application--and I'm witnessing its application as I learn it! When do I witness the application of a theoretical nugget of wisdom that I read in a book, hear by word of mouth, or hypothesize based on observation? I can't ever answer this question quickly and easily, and that's why my grades in college started to decline.
When you learn theory in school, you ask yourself questions like, "when in my life am I ever going to use this?" And as I've matured, I've found that I have little time for ideas that I don't use, now that it's my own responsibility to take care of myself. Before, when I encountered a person without a desire to learn a particular thing, I would scorn them as an anti-intellectual, but now, when I encounter such a person ignoring someone's convoluted argument about something, I consider that person wise about the allocation of their own time and effort.
When it comes down to it, it's unnatural to be cramming a bunch of complex theory into your brain without witnessing its application. The analogy I made comparing exercise to the acquisition of practical knowledge can't be made for the absorption of theory. Because unlike the process of learning a tidbit of knowledge for the sake of doing it, the human body doesn't randomly decide to strengthen a muscle in preparation for a physical task that you might have to perform at some point.
This isn't to say that learning theoretical knowledge is useless-- in fact, this couldn't be farther from the truth, now that we live in a society that thrives on particular abstract constructs. Three of the most important theoretical, intangible ideas that we live with are time, love, and monetary worth. These concepts meant nothing to homo sapiens ten thousand years ago, but with the advancement of civilization to the point such as it is today, having a grasp on them is fundamental to everyday acts of survival. We need to understand manmade concepts like time, love, and money, as functioning in society requires us to plan our schedules, commit to relationships, and budget our earnings. But even these actions can be learned by doing, rather than studying. If you aren't sure what you can get away with spending, you find out by trying to spend certain amounts, in certain ways, and on certain things; then you learn from the results. If you aren't sure what actions will please your relationship partner, you try them and see if he or she approves. If you aren't sure how much action you can handle in your schedule, you will find out by measuring your own stress levels as you busy yourself to particular extents.
What I'm starting to discredit is when people make life decisions according to pure theory. This may be a cliche, but it's one of the truest statements I can imagine: you don't know if you'll like something until you try it. Usually, this statement is used as an argument against someone who simply refuses to try something; but, it also applies to people who decide they like the idea of something before they actually get involved in it. Some people look at their list of likes and dislikes as a large part of their identity; there's a reason why Facebook has an entire section on their personality profiles for "Likes." And for some such people, the existence of a certain something on their list is more a statement of self-identity than an actual emotional affinity for that thing. For example, there are lots of men who claim to be into metal and hard rock, not because they actually enjoy it, but because of the statement of toughness it makes. And lots of other people read lots of books, not because they actually enjoy reading, but so that they feel like others will see them as well-read and assume them to be intelligent. In fact, the things people claim to like can be just for the sake of SELF-image; for example, an avid reader might be trying to convince HIMSELF that he is intelligent because he read some books. Or a patron of "gangsta-rap" might be trying to convince himself that he is tough enough to handle a tough life on the city streets. In any case, some people like to subscribe to the idea of things before actually experiencing them.
Some people say things like "I would love to go to this place I've never been to," and "I would love to meet this person I've never met." But what these people should really be saying is "I would love to try these things"-- the speaker, in this case, doesn't actually have any experience yet, from which to opine. And trying things is great-- imperative, in fact. But can we please give a little more thought to the distinction between "trying" and "doing?" "Trying," in this case, indicates exploration: trying to gain familiarity with the unknown. This is fundamental for the human experience; this is how we develop any sort of understanding, from the blank slate we begin with at infancy. However, when you deal with subjects with which you haven't come into direct contact, banking on unverified hypotheses is a fatal choice. You don't know that marrying Josh will be the best choice if you haven't even gotten to know him yet. You don't know that moving to Spain will lead to unbridled happiness if you've never even been to Spain. You don't know that majoring in photography will be a good choice if you don't know what it's like to enter the workforce with a degree in that field. And in some cases, like these, you need to make decisions about your future, but you can't possibly make decisions based on experience because you can't experience the future yet! But you do have the power to make the most informed decision possible within your means-- date Josh and find out what he's like. Stay in Spain for several weeks and see if you enjoy life there. Get to know some people who graduated with photography degrees and find out where it took them (likely, not far). But most of all, stop giving priority to preconceived notions of things, and instead, default on the tried and true facts if they already exist in front of you.
When we launch ourselves into a new territory
No comments:
Post a Comment