[ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning

[Lee Corbin]

PJ and Natasha speak out:

From: "pjmanney" <pj at pj-manney.com>


> Why do Lee and company think that multimedia presentations
> were made for the likes of them and then rain on others' parades
> when they don't respond to them?

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I told my story, how it
affects me, and I was just *wondering* how alone I was. Yes,
for all I knew (or know) it is a strictly generational thing; on the
other hand, perhaps diversity as Anne said.

> Why do people well versed in neurology and psychology not
> understand people learn through different perceptions?  Not
> all people learn best through text.

Oh, quite right. Even "sight" vs. "phonics" methods of teaching
reading are probably --- so I've always surmized --- something
that should be determined for each child. (But that's a *very*
old thought of mine, no doubt decades behind what is known
now.)

> Why can't you get that it IS, in part, generational.  Old language
> = words.  New language = moving pictures.  But it is also a
> function of education level.  If you are someone who excelled
> at tertiary education, the odds are you can cope with text.
> If you didn't, my guess is philosophy wasn't your best subject.

Doubtless there are a *lot* of areas that weren't one's best subject
if one had a hard time with linear thought, or with symbols on a 
page. Note that "function of education level" works both as
cause and effect.  Intellectually challenged people really are
going to have harder times of all kinds of learning, but especially
the text-based.

(And I hope that I do not have to correct anyone's logic should
they attempt to infer that I'm saying that people who have trouble
with text are necessarily dumb.)

> Get a grip, people.  The rest of the world isn't like you.

Ah, that I already knew, though thanks for the reminder.  In fact,
I admire those such as yourself who are so in tune that you are
able to speak for the rest of the world.  :-)

Natasha writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > I am afraid that music and animation for
> > the most part add nothing to my learning. 
> 
> Add nothing?  Well, I suppose there is indeed truth to unique
> differences in learning styles. Visuals have always added to my
> learning, and in great part.

To be differentiating between "visuals" and "music & animation", soft
one. 

I was today in fact at lunch describing to colleagues how my own
understanding of the fate of the Japanese aircraft carriers in the battle
of Midway was *enormously* and very efficiently enhanced by 
a documentary.  In fact, <blush> one could even say it had animation
to a very limited degree:  the damage wrought by the American dive-
bombers was so devasstating because of the depth within the various
levels of the aircraft carriers the explosions went off.  Together with
the *timing* of which bombs landed where and when, something
indeed was accomplished that would have been a bit harder with
pictures only, but exceedingly difficult without pictures at all.

Lee

P.S.  Not to give unnecessary offense, but the term "soft ones" is
from the science-fiction writer Keith Laumer, whose Groaci 
characters always started their sentences with the present
participle or whatever it is, and who, having shells, regarded
mammals as soft, e.g., "To be putting up your arms, soft ones!"
Hoped that readers of old SF would enjoy that.