Writing papers doesn’t come easy to me because I’m what they call a “big picture” thinker. I just figured out this existed a few weeks ago. It was a special moment for me. I’d never read such an accurate description of the way I think. Here’s an excerpt from the original source:
Big picture thinking really is a sort of upside-down thinking style, but if it is truly understood, it has many ramifications for education. Many big picture thinker struggle with time management problems and underachievement (poor written output) in their school years. When we ask many of these kids why it is hard for them to start writing, it becomes clear that the problem is more that they know too much (and have trouble narrowing their subject) than than they know too little. Many confess to us that they read more the assigned reading because they feel they need to understand things better if they are to understand a thing at all. Many of them are seeking the overarching framework inside which they can put their new bit of knowledge. Often these are 'why' kids - who need to know why something is true, not just that something is true. For those of us who are content to be 'little picture' thinkers when called for, the drive seems a little arbitrary and perhaps fatuous- but if you see enough of these kids, it seems more than a preference, it is a necessary requirement for learning at least in some people.
Goddamn, that's so me! But this is an aside. What I really wanted to blog about tonight are my thoughts related to the paper I'm writing. For some reason I thought that it would be easier to express my thoughts through blogging than through paper writing. But I feel about just as stuck. Basically there are the Enlightenment thinkers and their advocacy of critical thinking and denunciation of superstition. And then there are the non-intellectual uncritical and unreflective thinkers that f**k everything up. In the colonial and young republic eras religion was a huge barrier to critical thinking, but it wasn't the core of the barrier, since religious beliefs are just one category of beliefs. It seems that imposed beliefs are the real problem. Really, any social communication is either critical or not. If mom says X is true and son unhesitatingly accepts, that is uncritical communication. If mom asks son, "What do you think?" and son says Y and then mom asks "Why do you think that?" that is critical communication. And so if pattern A persists through a persons life he will most likely end up becoming an uncritical thinker, and if pattern B persists then the opposite will most likely occur.
But where do I go from here? Why didn't it become obvious to everyone that critical thinking is superior to uncritical thinking? Was it because there were so few actually preaching critical thinking? Was the problem that most of the intellectuals could not get passed certain ideologies? Were they really nothing more than clever folk with a knack for theory and abstractions? Were most of the people we consider to have been intellectuals really critical thinkers? Obviously this is not a black or white issue. Yet how can I move forward in my investigation of this? I'd have to analyze each intellectual on a case by case basis . . . and meticulously so. So you see how projects just inflate and inflate for me as I advance toward their solution? And thus I always end up needing more time. 'Tis life for a "big picture" thinker. But really, it would all be fine if only the educational institutions would let me work on one big all-encompassing project throughout my whole career. Eh, well those of you who know me know that that's what I'm gonna do whether they "let me" or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment