When I was in high school we studied Irish as a second language. By the age of 16 I was able to have complete conversations in the language and read and write in it. Since leaving High School however, over the last 12 years I've never had need to use the language. After 12 years without speaking, reading, or writing the language, I am at a level that I would consider a complete beginner again. While the thought of returning to it is somewhat appealing, I think it would be a wasted effort for the simple reason that I never used it before and I am unlikely to use it again.
This isn't the only piece of knowledge that I've lost over the years. I recently had a discussion with a few friends about our ideas for national curriculum reform which led to a debate about how useful and how necessary the subject were that we studied when we were at school. On the subject of Maths there were quite a few things which we could once do which we now can't. For example, simultaneous equations, quadratic equations, and trigonometry. There has long been a point raised in debate here in the UK that our modern school system teaches students to pass an exam rather than teaching the subject matter. To an extent I agree with that point because although you can argue in 12 years if you never used something then you would probably be rusty at it anyway, I would hasten to add that in respect of some subjects as little as 6 months would be enough for me to forget it completely. My Summer Holidays in High School lasted 3 months and in that time returning to some subjects would be difficult as the 3 month gap without ever thinking about it caused me to forget quite a bit - and I know I wasn't alone as September was often a month of revision of the previous year's topics in school.
Coming forward in time a few years to my University days, next month it will be 10 years ago that I started University and last month it was 7 years since I graduated. In that time a lot has changed in my life and a lot of what I learned I never used. From the first year of my degree when I studied Maths for Computing there are several topics I once knew inside out, such as predicate logic, set theory, vector math, and combinatorics among others. Now though if I was asked to do an exam on any of these subjects I likely would not pass. In my time at University I saw a ridiculous about of students "cram" for their exams the night before which to me always seemed alien. I never did that and the reason was because I was adamant if you did not know it by the night before the exam then you shouldn't pass the exam. 3 months later when someone asks you to do something you passed an exam to say you could do what would you actually do? Go and desperately try and revise everything to be able to do it? What if you don't have the time?
It makes you wonder what the point of education is, if the focus is a glorified memory exercise rather than actually teaching the subject matter. What is the point of having a piece of paper that says you can do something if you can't actually do what it says you can? When I graduated, the field I wanted to enter into was game design and the first question every employer asked was "Can we see your portfolio?" - they did not care about education at all. While the games industry is particularly ruthless in this regards, asking for proof that you can do what you say and ignoring for the most part your education, other industries aren't so. Most other industries take your education at face value which begs the question, how much time in the UK is spent by workers googling how to do what they said they could do?
When it comes to recruitment I am of the mindset of many banks - it should involve an interview and an assessment centre stage where you progress through a series of assessments to determine whether you can actually do what you say you can. When I stop and think about that however it does make me think about people in this country who have been unemployed for a long time, and people who have been in the same job for a long time and suddenly find themselves having to look for another. In both these cases you will be seeking a job where your skill-set has cracks in its foundations for the simple reason that you never fully understood anything you learnt in the first place, all you did was remember what to say and when to say it to pass the exam.
Maybe the real point of education is to teach people how to bullshit their way through life. Maybe the only point of education is to teach you how to lie convincingly with enough scraps of truth to make it seem like you know what you are talking about, to get a job where you don't actually know what you are doing. That does make you rather depressed when you think about the number of people in jobs who are wholly unqualified to do those jobs.
How do you judge intelligence?
Language is a wonderful thing. I have been studying Spanish through Duolingo.com and I am enjoying the learning process. I have used other reference materials to learn Spanish in the past including a game for Nintendo DS called 'My Spanish Coach' and a website that provides Spanish podcasts called Notes In Spanish
Throughout my studies though one thing has become quite clear to me: I have to dumb myself down when learning. That may sound a bit arrogant and to be honest it probably is to an extent, but if you have read any of my posts on this blog or the others that I have had before, you'll know that my level of articulation is high and my vocabulary is extensive as far as English is concerned. What I want to say when I speak in Spanish is often something in English which I would consider "higher" but I have to find a way of lowering that to fit my level of ability in Spanish.
For example here are 3 sentences that all more or less say the same thing, with some slight variations on meaning; I have split them into three levels that illustrate what I mean:-
[remember you can double click any word on this blog for a definition]
High:
Obsequious deterioration of civilisation approaching segregation in consternation is incongruous to proclamations of cultural harmonisation.
Medium:
Willingness to drag civilisation downward separating and dividing people through animosity and extremism countermands claims of desiring peace.
Low:
The fact you want to divide people and turn them against each other makes any claim of wanting peace laughable.
The general sentiment of these 3 sentences is the same throughout, but the vocabulary used varies quite a bit. In English I'm able to adapt to the person I am talking to based on the language they use. What I am finding as I learn to speak more in Spanish is that I have to lower my thoughts first and then translate that before I can express what I want to say. I should point out here this isn't for conversational interaction right now this is for writing and for things I think about when I am contemplating various ideas.
It rather embarrassingly comes down to the thought you want to say which again sounds arrogant - "I'm smarter in my own language" - which really makes you realise that we gauge intelligence most of the time from the level of communication someone is capable of demonstrating. Although that's not exactly fair when you stop and think about it because the inability to express an idea doesn't mean you don't understand that idea. I think one of the reasons people are often surprised when they see what others are actually capable of is because the level of communication they have demonstrated isn't the level that you "expect" from someone who would be capable of the same.
That leaves you with a lingering question - can intelligence ever be communicated? Even people who are able to demonstrate a very high level of communication won't necessarily possess the level of intelligence you expect. Admittedly for me this has proven problematic when younger as on more than one occasion I had lecturers doubt I had actually written the coursework I submitted for various courses for the simple reason that I did not behave in a social setting that was in any way indicative of the level of understanding I actually possessed on the subjects that were being discussed. From a young age I learned that people don't like you when you are the one that always knows the answer so you learn to sit back in school type settings and let other people answer, you will perform when it matters, in the actual exam.
Throughout my studies though one thing has become quite clear to me: I have to dumb myself down when learning. That may sound a bit arrogant and to be honest it probably is to an extent, but if you have read any of my posts on this blog or the others that I have had before, you'll know that my level of articulation is high and my vocabulary is extensive as far as English is concerned. What I want to say when I speak in Spanish is often something in English which I would consider "higher" but I have to find a way of lowering that to fit my level of ability in Spanish.
For example here are 3 sentences that all more or less say the same thing, with some slight variations on meaning; I have split them into three levels that illustrate what I mean:-
[remember you can double click any word on this blog for a definition]
High:
Obsequious deterioration of civilisation approaching segregation in consternation is incongruous to proclamations of cultural harmonisation.
Medium:
Willingness to drag civilisation downward separating and dividing people through animosity and extremism countermands claims of desiring peace.
Low:
The fact you want to divide people and turn them against each other makes any claim of wanting peace laughable.
The general sentiment of these 3 sentences is the same throughout, but the vocabulary used varies quite a bit. In English I'm able to adapt to the person I am talking to based on the language they use. What I am finding as I learn to speak more in Spanish is that I have to lower my thoughts first and then translate that before I can express what I want to say. I should point out here this isn't for conversational interaction right now this is for writing and for things I think about when I am contemplating various ideas.
It rather embarrassingly comes down to the thought you want to say which again sounds arrogant - "I'm smarter in my own language" - which really makes you realise that we gauge intelligence most of the time from the level of communication someone is capable of demonstrating. Although that's not exactly fair when you stop and think about it because the inability to express an idea doesn't mean you don't understand that idea. I think one of the reasons people are often surprised when they see what others are actually capable of is because the level of communication they have demonstrated isn't the level that you "expect" from someone who would be capable of the same.
That leaves you with a lingering question - can intelligence ever be communicated? Even people who are able to demonstrate a very high level of communication won't necessarily possess the level of intelligence you expect. Admittedly for me this has proven problematic when younger as on more than one occasion I had lecturers doubt I had actually written the coursework I submitted for various courses for the simple reason that I did not behave in a social setting that was in any way indicative of the level of understanding I actually possessed on the subjects that were being discussed. From a young age I learned that people don't like you when you are the one that always knows the answer so you learn to sit back in school type settings and let other people answer, you will perform when it matters, in the actual exam.
Pre-tech, Intra-tech, and Post-tech
How many people pursue what they dreamt of when they are young? How many people settle for something less? The older you get the more cynical this world can make you. The question dwells, as our fantasies of the world are torn down one by one, does the world tear down our idea of a perfect world?
The first thought many older readers will have is to take issue with me calling it "perfect" - beginning a tirade into a dissection of the idea that a perfect world can exist but by doing that aren't you just confirming the idea that the world has made you cynical? There's a fine line to be drawn between generational interpretations of one another. The older you get the more you begin to realise that younger generations are ridiculed as naieve, and on the obverse when you are young and optimistic you think of older generations as cynical and lacking vision.
How much truth to these criticisms is there? If you take a step back from both views and look at them from an objective point of view there are a few things that can be deduced. Primarily that the more you endure within a given environment the more you adapt to it, likewise the longer you are exposed to a lie the more you begin to believe it. There is some validity to the judgement that those who are older and hold a given view, do so not because of any evidence but simply because it's what they have always known and what they have always believed. Add in cognitive bias and you end up with an individual who looks for and remembers everything that cements their belief. Two people can go through life both expecting very different things and end up at the other side having gone through the exact same experiences with different opinions of what they endured.
On the other side of this generational divide, secondarily, you have a generation filled with the belief that they can do things differently and that they can change the world. Is it fair for older generations to say they can't? After all just because you did not manage to do it does not mean they won't. You had your chance, and you failed, so why stand in the way of the next generation having their chance? The more you assert the idea that they must do what you say the more you reinforce the same barriers that prevented you from ever making a difference - you have become the barrier to change that you once fought against - as the rebels would say, you have become the establishment.
Right now the world is in a very tumultuous state, and arguably that is being caused by something which we as a race are experiencing for the first time - a tripartite generational divide. 50 to 100 years ago there was a clear distinction between young and old - not least for the fact that life expectancies were shorter. These two sides existed at odds with each other and were top heavy - the older generation outnumbered the young. That created a system we live in today where age equates authority; you can see this from the large numbers of politicians who are quite old, and the specific example that to be President of the United States you have to be at least 35 years old. That system worked for a world that was split in two, it had it's problems but it worked for the simple reason that you would always eventually have "your time" when it would be your turn.
The world today is filled with people who live much longer, and it is filled with 3 distinct generations:
The "Pre-tech" generation that lived before the advent of the Internet or to be more precise the world wide web. "When I was young we didn't have Internet"
The "Intra-tech" generation who grew up on the fringe who grew with technology and experienced the world before and the world after. "When I was young we had to use dial-up Internet and downloading a Movie would take days"
The "Post-tech" generation who grew up in the world we now live in. "The iPhone was released before I was born"
These three generations have distinct attitudes to the world. The problem is the middle generation is the largest, because of the "baby boom" that the top generation created after the second world war. The birth rate of most of the developed world is falling. The number of people being born to the youngest generation is significantly lower than the generation that preceded them, but it matches the one before. The oldest generation still holds power however, despite the fact it is in the minority now, it still rules, and that power is largely due to the fact the middle is responsible for giving them it.
In essence the oldest metaphorically represents 30%, the middle represents 40%, and the youngest represents the final 30%. The problem here is that despite the middle being the largest, the old guard still holds power and it is the top 30% that rules. As that top 30% dwindles, the bottom 30% grows and the 40% remains constant. The end point of this transition is once again a divide of two generations, with the middle being the new top with 40% and the bottom being the remaining 60%.
In recent years many key events have been slowly changing the opinion of those in the middle. Successive financial disasters and efforts to fuck over future generations has slowly eroded their loyalty. The problem that arises now is that the middle wants to rule, but they aren't a majority, the other two generations combined outnumber them and always will. For the first time the fact three generational levels exist diminishes their capacity to seize that control. This middle generation will be the "lost generation" that never sees power and never has a government that ever represented them.
So we are brought back to the original question. How many people still chase the world they dreamt of, and how many have settled? The oldest generation has decidedly settled, and the youngest generation decidedly hasn't. Those in the middle now pose a problem because they must decide which generation they want to back. The middle must now accept they will never have control and never have the power that those before them had. They must decide whether to back that older generation now in an attempt to preserve a world that they never wanted to live in when they were young, or side with the younger generation, who have a new vision of the world that isn't the one they dreamt of either. The question remains, have you given up on the world and settled? Have you reached the cynical point where you don't believe the world can or will ever change, or do you still believe change is possible? Your answer will tell you which generation you should be siding with.
The first thought many older readers will have is to take issue with me calling it "perfect" - beginning a tirade into a dissection of the idea that a perfect world can exist but by doing that aren't you just confirming the idea that the world has made you cynical? There's a fine line to be drawn between generational interpretations of one another. The older you get the more you begin to realise that younger generations are ridiculed as naieve, and on the obverse when you are young and optimistic you think of older generations as cynical and lacking vision.
How much truth to these criticisms is there? If you take a step back from both views and look at them from an objective point of view there are a few things that can be deduced. Primarily that the more you endure within a given environment the more you adapt to it, likewise the longer you are exposed to a lie the more you begin to believe it. There is some validity to the judgement that those who are older and hold a given view, do so not because of any evidence but simply because it's what they have always known and what they have always believed. Add in cognitive bias and you end up with an individual who looks for and remembers everything that cements their belief. Two people can go through life both expecting very different things and end up at the other side having gone through the exact same experiences with different opinions of what they endured.
On the other side of this generational divide, secondarily, you have a generation filled with the belief that they can do things differently and that they can change the world. Is it fair for older generations to say they can't? After all just because you did not manage to do it does not mean they won't. You had your chance, and you failed, so why stand in the way of the next generation having their chance? The more you assert the idea that they must do what you say the more you reinforce the same barriers that prevented you from ever making a difference - you have become the barrier to change that you once fought against - as the rebels would say, you have become the establishment.
Right now the world is in a very tumultuous state, and arguably that is being caused by something which we as a race are experiencing for the first time - a tripartite generational divide. 50 to 100 years ago there was a clear distinction between young and old - not least for the fact that life expectancies were shorter. These two sides existed at odds with each other and were top heavy - the older generation outnumbered the young. That created a system we live in today where age equates authority; you can see this from the large numbers of politicians who are quite old, and the specific example that to be President of the United States you have to be at least 35 years old. That system worked for a world that was split in two, it had it's problems but it worked for the simple reason that you would always eventually have "your time" when it would be your turn.
The world today is filled with people who live much longer, and it is filled with 3 distinct generations:
The "Pre-tech" generation that lived before the advent of the Internet or to be more precise the world wide web. "When I was young we didn't have Internet"
The "Intra-tech" generation who grew up on the fringe who grew with technology and experienced the world before and the world after. "When I was young we had to use dial-up Internet and downloading a Movie would take days"
The "Post-tech" generation who grew up in the world we now live in. "The iPhone was released before I was born"
These three generations have distinct attitudes to the world. The problem is the middle generation is the largest, because of the "baby boom" that the top generation created after the second world war. The birth rate of most of the developed world is falling. The number of people being born to the youngest generation is significantly lower than the generation that preceded them, but it matches the one before. The oldest generation still holds power however, despite the fact it is in the minority now, it still rules, and that power is largely due to the fact the middle is responsible for giving them it.
In essence the oldest metaphorically represents 30%, the middle represents 40%, and the youngest represents the final 30%. The problem here is that despite the middle being the largest, the old guard still holds power and it is the top 30% that rules. As that top 30% dwindles, the bottom 30% grows and the 40% remains constant. The end point of this transition is once again a divide of two generations, with the middle being the new top with 40% and the bottom being the remaining 60%.
In recent years many key events have been slowly changing the opinion of those in the middle. Successive financial disasters and efforts to fuck over future generations has slowly eroded their loyalty. The problem that arises now is that the middle wants to rule, but they aren't a majority, the other two generations combined outnumber them and always will. For the first time the fact three generational levels exist diminishes their capacity to seize that control. This middle generation will be the "lost generation" that never sees power and never has a government that ever represented them.
So we are brought back to the original question. How many people still chase the world they dreamt of, and how many have settled? The oldest generation has decidedly settled, and the youngest generation decidedly hasn't. Those in the middle now pose a problem because they must decide which generation they want to back. The middle must now accept they will never have control and never have the power that those before them had. They must decide whether to back that older generation now in an attempt to preserve a world that they never wanted to live in when they were young, or side with the younger generation, who have a new vision of the world that isn't the one they dreamt of either. The question remains, have you given up on the world and settled? Have you reached the cynical point where you don't believe the world can or will ever change, or do you still believe change is possible? Your answer will tell you which generation you should be siding with.
Relevance
As a writer there is a fine balance you have to strike between rambling, and relevance. When you are trying to write something, whatever it is, there is inevitably an objective you wish to a achieve. Whether it be to tell a story, or present a point of view, or deliver a message, or simply to share an observation and your interpretation of that observation, the objective is often the easiest thing to define. The heavy lifting comes when you actually try to achieve that objective. While writer's block can be seen as the inability to write anything, to even start the process, on the opposite end of the spectrum, rambling can be just as much of a threat to a writer.
I just wrote and scrapped a post that was 500 words long reflecting on the blogs I have deleted over the years and the audiences I had attempted to target with them. In writing the post however I got side tracked and went off on a tangent about marketing and defining a niche. I scrapped the post in the end because the content was inconsistent and amounted to a random collection of thoughts rather than having a clear message. Consistency is key and without it you're really just talking to yourself and writing down what you have to say. They say when we write great narratives we live out conversations between people in our heads, and that might be true, but if it is, then most people probably wouldn't be interested in the mundane conversations those voices share, would they?
When you read works of fiction, one thing that you inevitably come across is dialogue between characters. When you read that dialogue however and break it down by how much is said and how long is spent saying it there is a question that arises for some, while others simply make an assumption as to the answer and give it no further thought - "Is that all they said?" - by this I mean, when reading a book with dialogue, or even when watching a TV show and seeing characters interact, do you ever stop and wonder what the characters say to each other beyond what is written, or do you assume every single thing they say to one another is written down?
If someone was to novelise your life, which conversations would they document in the story, and which conversations would they discard? How accurate would the depiction of your character be with the omission of certain conversations? Have you ever had a conversation that changed your life? Or one that would go on to shape the character of the person you are today? Which interactions would you consider worthy of note, and how do you determine that?
As my English teacher once said to me, you can spend fifteen pages describing the intricate details of a flower but if it's not important to the story it's a waste of time for you and for the reader. There is a balance to be found between setting a scene, and going into excessive detail when it is not needed. Rambling by extension is the bane of a writer's existence because it is the exploration in detail of thoughts and ideas that aren't relevant to the message you are trying to convey. Which brings us back to the message of this post, in drawing a line between rambling and relevance, how do you determine what is relevant to your life and your character? Would you be the same person you are today if any given conversation was omitted from your past?
I just wrote and scrapped a post that was 500 words long reflecting on the blogs I have deleted over the years and the audiences I had attempted to target with them. In writing the post however I got side tracked and went off on a tangent about marketing and defining a niche. I scrapped the post in the end because the content was inconsistent and amounted to a random collection of thoughts rather than having a clear message. Consistency is key and without it you're really just talking to yourself and writing down what you have to say. They say when we write great narratives we live out conversations between people in our heads, and that might be true, but if it is, then most people probably wouldn't be interested in the mundane conversations those voices share, would they?
When you read works of fiction, one thing that you inevitably come across is dialogue between characters. When you read that dialogue however and break it down by how much is said and how long is spent saying it there is a question that arises for some, while others simply make an assumption as to the answer and give it no further thought - "Is that all they said?" - by this I mean, when reading a book with dialogue, or even when watching a TV show and seeing characters interact, do you ever stop and wonder what the characters say to each other beyond what is written, or do you assume every single thing they say to one another is written down?
If someone was to novelise your life, which conversations would they document in the story, and which conversations would they discard? How accurate would the depiction of your character be with the omission of certain conversations? Have you ever had a conversation that changed your life? Or one that would go on to shape the character of the person you are today? Which interactions would you consider worthy of note, and how do you determine that?
As my English teacher once said to me, you can spend fifteen pages describing the intricate details of a flower but if it's not important to the story it's a waste of time for you and for the reader. There is a balance to be found between setting a scene, and going into excessive detail when it is not needed. Rambling by extension is the bane of a writer's existence because it is the exploration in detail of thoughts and ideas that aren't relevant to the message you are trying to convey. Which brings us back to the message of this post, in drawing a line between rambling and relevance, how do you determine what is relevant to your life and your character? Would you be the same person you are today if any given conversation was omitted from your past?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)