What fascinates me is that most often the best learning conversations come from the questions and discussions contributed by those with the least formal math and physics experience.
And the reason is stimulating.
The "pros" talk in disciplined code, acronyms, and serious language, while the "not-so-pros" talk in more general terms, sometimes stories, but always in simpler language. More engaging, more curiosity, more open.
For many years we have understood the power of stories, and while our culture has very moved away from story telling as an art and a science, with language shortened and truncated into "btw" and "lol", most people still respond to a good yarn.
It seems to be embedded in our Race memory, and if you think about it, it stands to reason because for the first few thousand years of our evolution, oral history is all we had.
But my observation would be that in a story there is more than just a series of facts or statements, unless it is pure fiction.
There's a context, fabric, sometimes some seemingly irrelevant words that somehow enlarge our comprehension and engage our thinking processes making it easier for us to grasp the point or issue the story is telling us.
The other great attribute of a well told story is that it is less threatening that a "hard" statement of fact(s).
If I nod my head, smile, or shake my head, I am not understanding the story. If I shake my head at a bucket of facts, I am not understanding the facts, which might make me out to be a little less "smarter" than everyone else.
Also, stories can "wander" a little in the telling, allowing us to catch up if we don't understand something at the first bite.
In the modern world, blogs are rapidly becoming the story-telling media of the masses.
It will be very interesting to see where this all goes, because unlike traditional stories, a blog can change course based on the feedback the blogger gets, and the very essence of participation actually shapes the collaborative outcome.
So, fact or fiction? You choose, I know what I'll respond to!!
1 comment:
Reading your thoughts here Pete causes me to wonder if the difference between fact and fiction isn't so much about veracity as it is about one's posture in the face of reality: For those who only want to see a few trees, facts are preferred. While for those who like to see their trees in forests, fictional "style" is needed.
In reference to blogs, I watched James Carville, Clinton's campaign manager, comment a number of years ago about the rise of conservative "talking heads" and their rabid audiences. He said "they look to me like a drunk leaning against a Street lamp at night: they're not so much looking for illumination as they are for support".
As one of those "non-professional" thinkers in the topics you mention, I think we're making the blog format work because the professionals involved, such as yourself, are interested in real illumination and understanding in the first place, and in the second, you're interested in being illuminating more than being "professional".
Post a Comment