4 ms·

If you understand it (that is, study its writer's themes, methodologies, culture, etc..) you generalize the information and integrate it with your decision-maki

by Retra 11y ago

If you understand it (that is, study its writer's themes, methodologies, culture, etc..) you generalize the information and integrate it with your decision-making abilities. Your question is a bit like asking "When's the last time eating ham was relevant to a decision I've made." You can't trace the source of relevance through those kinds of generalizations. You can only know your own personal history: that you've previously integrated the information. It's the same way you can't look at someone and say "your decisions don't directly involve ham. Maybe you shouldn't eat ham anymore." Shakespeare isn't strictly necessary for this, but there is value to be gained from studying literature, and Shakespeare is just the most accessible and popular academic literature. Addendum: For what it's worth, I use my experiences studying shakespeare quite frequently, particularly when analyzing things like tragedy, taboo, or social conflict like drugs and politics. If there were some better way to deliver that experience, I would support it as well.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Lets approach this via another tack, since you seem to want to drop more platitudes. Suppose you have two humans - one who integrated shakespeare, one who didn't. (Or make it two samples of humans to reduce statistical noise, if you prefer.) Beyond quizzing them on lines from plays, what measurement can you make to determine which human/group of humans "integrated" and "generalized" shakespeare and which didn't? If no such measurement exists, I'd assert that rather than shakespeare, we need invisible dragons to breath the fire of knowledge. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
- Retra 11y ago
  I don't think you know what a platitude is. > what measurement can you make to determine which human/group of humans "integrated" and "generalized" shakespeare and which didn't? What measurement can you make to determine if someone is intelligent or not? You solve that, and I'll get back to you.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    What measurement can you make to determine if someone is intelligent or not? Any of a variety of IQ tests, to measure directly. But that might be cheating, analogous to asking directly about Hamlet. So instead, ask them to perform any of the variety of real world tasks that are highly correlated with IQ (e.g., "here is a device you've never seen before, figure it out"). Measure their income - the theory of IQ claims income will be higher in the more intelligent group. Measure their criminality, risky sexual behavior or drug use; these will also be lower in the high IQ group. I wouldn't claim intelligence existed if I couldn't make claims of this sort. Your turn.
SamReidHughes 11y ago
So, being unable to trace it, you don't really know whether studying Shakespeare, or other literature, affects your decision-making at all -- and if it does, how much. I agree that much of knowledge you pick up is something you can't trace. But do you get any from studying literature? On the other hand, I can think of plenty of ways reading books (and watching movies, etc) has changed my decision-making abilities. I could name examples. Likewise with playing sports, playing musical instruments, getting really sunburnt, interacting with old people, etc -- some of which I've spent less time doing. Studying literature, on the other hand, and finding out, oh, its themes are X, Y, and Z (because duhhh) making up some completely nonsensical psychoanalysis has not, in any identifiable way. There are other things you could do with your time. Is it better to study Shakespeare, or to watch reality TV?
- Retra 11y ago
  Studying Shakespeare is not "finding out, oh, its themes are X, Y, and Z (because duhhh) making up some completely nonsensical psychoanalysis." That's like saying studying math is "finding out, oh, number can be manipulated, and making up some completely nonsensical rules for manipulating them." It largely constitutes a controlled dataset. Like shooting at bull's eye's rather than random shit. > Is it better to study Shakespeare, or to watch reality TV? You have to do both to know that, don't you?
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    But I'm not arguing that learning how to do math is useful for making decisions later in life (aside, obviously, from e.g. financial decisions that involve making calculations). I would argue that classes that study literature actually harm peoples' abilities to make decisions later in life. Letting people make pretend arguments without a testable standard of truth is a terrible idea. You can see people act in public today that do not care one bit about whether what they believe, or what they say, is true or not, and you can see them claim that there are "multiple perspectives" on matters that are, in fact, questions of fact. Some people are quite good at writing stuff in a way that gives them 2^n directions in which they might equivocate, should somebody argue with them. They are a product of this system.

by Retra 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Lets approach this via another tack, since you seem to want to drop more platitudes. Suppose you have two humans - one who integrated shakespeare, one who didn't. (Or make it two samples of humans to reduce statistical noise, if you prefer.) Beyond quizzing them on lines from plays, what measurement can you make to determine which human/group of humans "integrated" and "generalized" shakespeare and which didn't? If no such measurement exists, I'd assert that rather than shakespeare, we need invisible dragons to breath the fire of knowledge. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Retra 11y ago
I don't think you know what a platitude is. > what measurement can you make to determine which human/group of humans "integrated" and "generalized" shakespeare and which didn't? What measurement can you make to determine if someone is intelligent or not? You solve that, and I'll get back to you.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  What measurement can you make to determine if someone is intelligent or not? Any of a variety of IQ tests, to measure directly. But that might be cheating, analogous to asking directly about Hamlet. So instead, ask them to perform any of the variety of real world tasks that are highly correlated with IQ (e.g., "here is a device you've never seen before, figure it out"). Measure their income - the theory of IQ claims income will be higher in the more intelligent group. Measure their criminality, risky sexual behavior or drug use; these will also be lower in the high IQ group. I wouldn't claim intelligence existed if I couldn't make claims of this sort. Your turn.

SamReidHughes 11y ago

So, being unable to trace it, you don't really know whether studying Shakespeare, or other literature, affects your decision-making at all -- and if it does, how much. I agree that much of knowledge you pick up is something you can't trace. But do you get any from studying literature? On the other hand, I can think of plenty of ways reading books (and watching movies, etc) has changed my decision-making abilities. I could name examples. Likewise with playing sports, playing musical instruments, getting really sunburnt, interacting with old people, etc -- some of which I've spent less time doing. Studying literature, on the other hand, and finding out, oh, its themes are X, Y, and Z (because duhhh) making up some completely nonsensical psychoanalysis has not, in any identifiable way. There are other things you could do with your time. Is it better to study Shakespeare, or to watch reality TV?

Retra 11y ago
Studying Shakespeare is not "finding out, oh, its themes are X, Y, and Z (because duhhh) making up some completely nonsensical psychoanalysis." That's like saying studying math is "finding out, oh, number can be manipulated, and making up some completely nonsensical rules for manipulating them." It largely constitutes a controlled dataset. Like shooting at bull's eye's rather than random shit. > Is it better to study Shakespeare, or to watch reality TV? You have to do both to know that, don't you?
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  But I'm not arguing that learning how to do math is useful for making decisions later in life (aside, obviously, from e.g. financial decisions that involve making calculations). I would argue that classes that study literature actually harm peoples' abilities to make decisions later in life. Letting people make pretend arguments without a testable standard of truth is a terrible idea. You can see people act in public today that do not care one bit about whether what they believe, or what they say, is true or not, and you can see them claim that there are "multiple perspectives" on matters that are, in fact, questions of fact. Some people are quite good at writing stuff in a way that gives them 2^n directions in which they might equivocate, should somebody argue with them. They are a product of this system.