Men Are Tone Deaf:
Why teaching English privately will always be a stable thing
(as long as the K-12 institutions insist on doing things their way)
I.
The Thai-trained pugilist-PhD in anthropology-with-a-quick-memory-who-liked-to-talk told a story. The young Dr. Kickass told a story about how one of his peers, who was probably also qualified as a linguist, recalled objectively eavesdropping on an exchange of words between two female students. The gist of it was that they, the women, didn’t really say anything. There was no data exchange.
“Breaking down what they said,” he observed, “they made no sense at all. It was just noise.” *
Uh-huh.
 |
| Dunning-Kruger Effect |
II.
A Jury of Her Peers, by Susan Glaspell, was used to demonstrate or show how people can often overlook the obvious. Or simply not be tuned in. Flaccid dick-thinkers. Or whatever.
 |
| Doh! |
III.
The numbers at the top are pulled from memory (along with a little help from the electronic collective). A woman once wrote a book about communication while a Chihauhau named Yoda sat on her lap.
 |
| Cousin? |
Despite possibly misspelling the first part of a professor’s last name (M-E-H-R not M-O-R), her work (see the book) introduced me to the idea that words, in and of themselves, don’t really communicate as much as we (okay, maybe just I) might think. Looking for meaning only in words, according to the Armenian, will give us about as much information as the first digit, that lucky number 7.
So, when it comes to communication, understanding, and perhaps even teaching, there’s a heck of a lot going on that people might overlook, just the kind of people who are certifiable, judged 'highly intelligent' by institutional standards. To them, I give thanks.
* Although this may scream STRAW MAN, I do fuzzily recall the conversation. My success in addressing the issue(s) is demonstrated through an excellent choice in visual elements.
So, when it comes to communication, understanding, and perhaps even teaching, there’s a heck of a lot going on that people might overlook, just the kind of people who are certifiable, judged 'highly intelligent' by institutional standards. To them, I give thanks.
* Although this may scream STRAW MAN, I do fuzzily recall the conversation. My success in addressing the issue(s) is demonstrated through an excellent choice in visual elements.
Pragmatics. Always amused me that by most people's definitions what linguists refer to as pragmatics aren't.
ReplyDeleteSee also; Claude Shannon, information theory, efficiency and redundancy. Also Eddie Izzard and JFK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=JP&v=5mu02xUgE4k
Kicking around a post which touches on this myself. Don't hold your breath...
Claude Shannon and Vegas. From David Choe (rumored to have made his first million in Sin City by the time he hit just 30-ish), the Steady Rollin' Joker, and a recent learning of a man who knew how to roll dice.
DeleteChoe got arrested on his visit to Japan. While his Howard Stern interview was entertaining, I felt I learned a lot. Refreshing. Honest.
The Steady Roller... my outlook expands in ways I have yet to realize. No, I don't gamble; the voice is helpful.
The man who could roll dice was almost invisible. Almost. He knew his system.
Most important:
What I gleaned from Eddie is that my L1 pragmatic awareness is contingent on the understanding that I'm a fucking doughnut.
There are a lot in fact most folks are frighteningly ignorant. Not stupid. They choose to ignore the things around them while a small group runs circles around them and basically control everyone's lives. They are called the "Shot Callers" in Prisons. Just a micro version of the macro
ReplyDeleteStumbling along in an incoherent fog of self-medication, one can at a time of so-called fermented bliss... the control factor here runs deep. The depth of my ignorance frightens me at times. Thank you for the reality check.
Delete