3 ms·

How so? Crudely generalising; wouldn't engineering types be more susceptible to conclude that there is only one sanctioned way interpreting some text rather tha

How so? Crudely generalising; wouldn't engineering types be more susceptible to conclude that there is only one sanctioned way interpreting some text rather than someone with a humanities background? (I happen to be both. Poetry to me seems almost by definition something that will evoke different responses and insights for each reader.)

zo1 10y ago
Spoken languages are inherently vague and open to interpretation and context. As an "engineering type", I would conclude that language is not a good mechanism for communicating concrete details without a lot of scaffolding around it to alleviate the ambiguity. Hence programming, mathematics, diagrams, etc. On top of that, poems are meant to be "artsy". I.e. They specifically use certain words in odd ways as part of the artistry of it. It's actually a step in the opposite direction of what "engineering types" would want to do to language in order to make it less ambiguous.
- magic_beans 10y ago
  The beautiful and fun thing about written language is just how subjective or intentionally vague it is.
obstinate 10y ago
There's a large debate in humanities about whether authorial intent matters which has been roiling for decades. I think it was either kicked off or summarized by an essay called "The Death of the Author." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
Spooky23 10y ago
An engineer is unlikely to have spent a lot of time around humanities academia. The university that I attended was going through a power struggle at the time that resulted in a feminist takeover of the English and other departments. In my case, a professor in a course required by the general education requirements took issue with an essay I was required to read in front of the class (which was a story about my families experiences as immigrants), shouted me down and said that I would fail the class and there was nothing that I could do to change that. That was putting my major's GPA requirements at risk, so I had to pursue action with the administration. That wasn't an uncommon event. My takeaway is to STFU around these topics.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Ah I see, I thought you meant a more general comparison of how someone with a humanities or engineering background experiences poetry. I have no experience with US academics (which I presume you are referring to).
- littletimmy 10y ago
  Why was (s)he so offended by it?
WalterBright 10y ago
After failing an exam, I was told by an upperclassman that the secret to a good grade in humanities classes was regurgitating the opinions of the professor. My solution to that was I never took another humanities class.
- int_19h 10y ago
  I can definitely relate to that. I did reasonably well in literature classes in high school, but every now and then I'd turn in a what-did-the-author-mean essay on some subject that deviated from what we've been told to expect... and every time I got a (local equivalent of) B from the teacher for "writing well and trying to make an argument", but not an A because "you're just wrong". I had several arguments with teachers over it which went nowhere, and they were never particularly interested in making their case beyond "No-one else wrote that in their essay, so why do you think you're special? You're not.". Eventually I concluded the same thing - that the purpose of the class is not to have me actually think, form opinions, structure arguments and express them - despite what they kept telling us! - but rather to find out what the established interpretation is, and express that in a way that looks like I'm convinced by it. Armed with that knowledge, I proceeded with future essays, and what do you know? They were all As. That whole experience really soured me up on that business, though, because whatever I was submitting for my assignments, I knew it was all bullshit from my perspective. And you know what? In retrospect, some of my opinions I strongly held then may well have been wrong in part or entirely... but they were my thoughts and my opinions, the real thing, and backed by real arguments. And if I were that 15 year old kid, with the experiences and the mindset formed by them that I had, not a single thing would have changed about them. So, instead of teaching how to think and argue and express myself, they taught me that you conform to what someone else expects from you, and hide your deviations; or else. It's a good thing they weren't the only teachers... But that experience definitely steered me away from humanities, and towards math and sciences. There, at least, there was clear right and wrong, and any occasional ambiguity would be clearly highlighted as such and acknowledged by everyone explicitly. And if you were right, you could be as obstinate as you wanted about it; and if you were wrong, you'd be shown a very clear and objective reason as to why.
  - deleted 10y ago
forgottenpass 10y ago
Crudely generalising; wouldn't engineering types be more susceptible to conclude that there is only one sanctioned way interpreting some text rather than someone with a humanities background? Sure, but only to the extent that phrasing around "interpreting text" implies that the meaning sought exists in the text, rather than the cascade reactions taking place in readers upon their careful observation of the piece.

zo1 10y ago

Spoken languages are inherently vague and open to interpretation and context. As an "engineering type", I would conclude that language is not a good mechanism for communicating concrete details without a lot of scaffolding around it to alleviate the ambiguity. Hence programming, mathematics, diagrams, etc. On top of that, poems are meant to be "artsy". I.e. They specifically use certain words in odd ways as part of the artistry of it. It's actually a step in the opposite direction of what "engineering types" would want to do to language in order to make it less ambiguous.

magic_beans 10y ago
The beautiful and fun thing about written language is just how subjective or intentionally vague it is.

obstinate 10y ago

There's a large debate in humanities about whether authorial intent matters which has been roiling for decades. I think it was either kicked off or summarized by an essay called "The Death of the Author." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

Spooky23 10y ago

An engineer is unlikely to have spent a lot of time around humanities academia. The university that I attended was going through a power struggle at the time that resulted in a feminist takeover of the English and other departments. In my case, a professor in a course required by the general education requirements took issue with an essay I was required to read in front of the class (which was a story about my families experiences as immigrants), shouted me down and said that I would fail the class and there was nothing that I could do to change that. That was putting my major's GPA requirements at risk, so I had to pursue action with the administration. That wasn't an uncommon event. My takeaway is to STFU around these topics.

Freak_NL 10y ago
Ah I see, I thought you meant a more general comparison of how someone with a humanities or engineering background experiences poetry. I have no experience with US academics (which I presume you are referring to).
littletimmy 10y ago
Why was (s)he so offended by it?

WalterBright 10y ago

After failing an exam, I was told by an upperclassman that the secret to a good grade in humanities classes was regurgitating the opinions of the professor. My solution to that was I never took another humanities class.

int_19h 10y ago
I can definitely relate to that. I did reasonably well in literature classes in high school, but every now and then I'd turn in a what-did-the-author-mean essay on some subject that deviated from what we've been told to expect... and every time I got a (local equivalent of) B from the teacher for "writing well and trying to make an argument", but not an A because "you're just wrong". I had several arguments with teachers over it which went nowhere, and they were never particularly interested in making their case beyond "No-one else wrote that in their essay, so why do you think you're special? You're not.". Eventually I concluded the same thing - that the purpose of the class is not to have me actually think, form opinions, structure arguments and express them - despite what they kept telling us! - but rather to find out what the established interpretation is, and express that in a way that looks like I'm convinced by it. Armed with that knowledge, I proceeded with future essays, and what do you know? They were all As. That whole experience really soured me up on that business, though, because whatever I was submitting for my assignments, I knew it was all bullshit from my perspective. And you know what? In retrospect, some of my opinions I strongly held then may well have been wrong in part or entirely... but they were my thoughts and my opinions, the real thing, and backed by real arguments. And if I were that 15 year old kid, with the experiences and the mindset formed by them that I had, not a single thing would have changed about them. So, instead of teaching how to think and argue and express myself, they taught me that you conform to what someone else expects from you, and hide your deviations; or else. It's a good thing they weren't the only teachers... But that experience definitely steered me away from humanities, and towards math and sciences. There, at least, there was clear right and wrong, and any occasional ambiguity would be clearly highlighted as such and acknowledged by everyone explicitly. And if you were right, you could be as obstinate as you wanted about it; and if you were wrong, you'd be shown a very clear and objective reason as to why.
- deleted 10y ago

forgottenpass 10y ago

Crudely generalising; wouldn't engineering types be more susceptible to conclude that there is only one sanctioned way interpreting some text rather than someone with a humanities background? Sure, but only to the extent that phrasing around "interpreting text" implies that the meaning sought exists in the text, rather than the cascade reactions taking place in readers upon their careful observation of the piece.