Q – “Where the very thoughts of premodern villagers were circumscribed by their direct experiences, modern minds are comparatively free. This is not to say that one way of life is uniformly better than another. As Arab historiographer Ibn Khaldun, considered a founder of sociology, pointed out centuries ago, a city dweller traveling through the desert will be completely dependent on the nomad to keep him alive. So long as they remain in the desert, the nomad is a genius” (Epstein 47).
C – It’s interesting to think about how when we normally think of someone as smart, we think of someone very knowledgeable about either a lot of things or a specific things and yet these premodern people likely wouldn’t be considered “smart” by our standards, simply because they do not have the critical thinking skills we have. The only reason for this difference is because of the kind of environment people grow up in. Growing up in an illiterate village away from everything else, you are obviously going to learn different kinds of skills than you would growing up in a modern town with good education. I think the premodern villagers are just an example of those with specialized skills, and those who grow up in modern places with higher education are more generalized because they learn about things like math and science and language. Like the quote says, neither is necessarily better than the other, and both are important for different circumstances.
Q – Could an adult premodern villager still learn the critical thinking skills that they would have gotten growing up in a city? Would they even want to?
Q – “Flynn conducted a study in which he compared the grade point averages of seniors at one of America’s top state universities, from neuroscience to English majors, to their performance on a test of critical thinking. The test gauged students’ ability to apply fundamental abstract concepts from economics, social and physical sciences, and logic to common, real-world scenarios. Flynn was bemused to find that the correlation between the test of broad conceptual thinking and GPA was about zero. In Flynn’s words, ‘the traits that earn good grades at [the university] do not include critical ability of any broad significance’” (Epstein 48).
C – Part of me is surprised by these findings because I think college is more generalized than it probably used to be. We have core classes in English and Biology, etc. regardless of our majors and this can make us a little more generalized since we are all learning these different skills. But I assume that it still becomes very specialized once you get into major-specific classes and you are likely only learning information and skills related to that major and not necessarily ones that will carry over into other fields of study. It doesn’t really surprise me that the traits that earn good grades aren’t dependent on critical thinking because of my experience in high school. I didn’t really have critical thinking skills and just wrote about what was expected of me and what I thought my teacher wanted me to hear. This really set me behind because entering college now I don’t have those critical thinking skills that I need because I got perfect grades in high school by just doing what was expected of me and in college you aren’t necessarily told exactly what is expected of you.
Q – Are colleges becoming more generalized by requiring students to take different kinds of classes unrelated to their majors? Do they still need to implement more changes to make their students better generalists? Is the concept of majors themselves a specialist idea?
1. Quote: “Because the touched-by-modernity teens had constructed meaningful thematic groups, they also had far superior recall when asked later to recount the items. The more they had moved toward modernity, the more powerful their abstract thinking, and the less they had to rely on their concrete experience of the world as a reference point” (pg 44).
Comment: In this quote, the author is talking about an experiment that Russian psychologist, Alexander Luria performed on villagers in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. This experiment compared farmers and villagers who were practicing modern farming techniques versus those who were practicing class techniques, and how their mindsets differed. The modern villagers had a much easier time solving problems and understanding abstract ideas that were presented to them. This was because the villagers who only used classic techniques instead of branching out had a hard time answering questions that did not have to do with knowledge specifically gathered from their everyday life. The premodern people had a harder time understanding the “bigger picture,” while modern people were able to draw on their more expansive experiences, thus using those problem solving skills to understand many different topics.
Question: Was the collective farming in the Soviet Union’s industrial revolution harmful in the long run or did it improve the Soviet’s economy
2. Quote: “Neuroscience majors did not do particularly well on anything. Business majors performed very poorly across the board, including in economics. Econ majors did the best overall. Economics is a broad field by nature, and Econ professors have been shown to apply the reasoning principles they’ve learned to problems outside their area. Chemists, on the other hand, are extraordinarily bright, but in several studies struggled to apply scientific reasoning to non chemistry problems” (pg 48).
Comment: In this quote, the author is talking about an experiment that tested college student’s ability to take abstract concepts learned in various fields and apply them to real world scenarios. I found it really interesting because although someone might be very well versed in their own field, when asked to use logic and reasoning that does not specifically revolve around their specialty, virtually all students were unable to do so. I thought it was ironic that those in science fields like neuroscience and chemistry, which are both thought of as prestigious fields, could not think broadly. Students in economics on the other hand did this well because the subject is very broad, and they were able to critically analyze much better. I liked this section of the book because the author explains how students should not be narrowly focused on one topic, but instead should graduate with a “swiss army knife” mindset. They should be able to excel in multiple areas instead of specializing in one subject and one subject only.
Question: Is it up to students to learn to think broadly or is that the professor’s job to teach students.
Quote: “Perhaps, then, bord/rifle/dagger/bullet? You can’t possibly remove one and have a group, a remote villager insisted. The bullet must be loaded in the rifle to kill the bird, and ‘then you have to cut the bird up with the dagger, since there’s no other way to do it.’” (Epstein 42).
Comment: It is most definitely interesting how different people think, especially those of different cultures. There are still places out in the world that are un-modernized and the people live on the land. These people are completely unaware of the modern world and still have old school thinking as seen in the quote. They are only accustomed to living off the land and using their resources wisely. They are not educated in normal subjects such as math and reading but they are well versed in nature and living off the land. They have a different way of life than us and could not live the way we do. Their thinking comes from multiple ancestors finding their way in the rural places that they live. They developed systems that work for them and have embedded them in their minds. These people are unable to accept our way of thinking in categories because it is not the way that they were taught. They are thinking about surviving and using their resources.
Question: Why do these people fail to accept that there can be categories? Would this thinking be beneficial in a modernized world?
Quote: “’Even the best universities aren’t developing critical intelligence,’ he told me. ‘They aren’t giving students the tools to analyze the modern world, except in their area of specialization. Their education is too narrow.’ …everyone needs habits of mind that allow the, to dance across disciplines” (Epstein 49).
Comment: In today’s world most people are specialized in on field rather than having a vast knowledge of different subjects. This is beneficial when it comes to one specific job, but humans lack the universal knowledge of different subjects. From kindergarten to high school, we are required to take all the ‘core classes’ such as math English science history and such. We learned the basic knowledge of all these subjects to create a balanced comprehension of multiple subjects. This continues into college as well however, only the first year of college you are required to take these ‘core classes’. After you take one of each you move on to specialization of your specific major. By the time one graduates they most likely forget all the knowledge they learned in their ‘core classes’ because of the time and the need to focus on their specific major. Some people call this a brain dumb where you learn the information to pass the class and then you forget it to make space for the new information.
Question: How would universal knowledge of ‘core classes’ at a higher level benefit the person? Would this set them apart from other candidates when applying for a job?
Quote:
“Like chess masters and firefighters, pre modern villagers relied on things being the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. They were extremely well prepared for what they had experienced before, and extremely poorly equipped for everything else. Their very thinking was highly specialized in a manner that the modern world has been telling us is increasingly obsolete.” (pg. 53)
Comment:
This quote instantly caught my attention because it related back to what we previously read and discussed, regarding chess masters and firefighters. I’m a big fan of books doing this and making sure everything connects to back up the main claim/story of the book. It also helps me stay engaged while reading, hoping to find these connections either to our group conversations or earlier in the book. In addition, this quote resonated with me because it hints that this way of thinking probably isn’t best for the wicked world we live in today. It is increasingly unpredictable, and proved that people who are narrowly specialized don’t succeed as much as people who are broadly integrated in that kind of environment. I know this book is going to stress on generalists, but I am definitely noticing more negatives than positives in specialists’ approach to the world.
Question:
Do you think specialists would rather deal with the inevitable uncertainty they will face than beginning to become more broadly integrated?
Quote:
“Modern work demands knowledge transfer: the ability to apply knowledge to new situations and different domains. Our most fundamental thought processes have changed to accommodate increasing complexity and the need to derive new patterns rather than rely on familiar ones.”
Comment:
For a good chunk of this chapter, the author talked about studies from quite a while ago. This quote popped out to me because it mentions the modern world, which more directly concerns me. It’s pretty evident that the modern world is, for the most part, a wicked environment, and as we talked and read about, this is not the ideal environment for specialists. This is another big positive for generalists. This quote also talks about thought processes, which reminds me of Dweck’s TedTalk regarding fixed and growth mindsets. It talks about accommodating complex situations, which is a clear connection to a growth mindset, the most likely preferred mindset in the modern world. I think knowledge transfer draws a connection to a growth mindset. A growth mindset refers to working around tough problems. In this case, it would be using what you already know to work around said problems, which would help people flourish in the modern world.
Quote: “To put that in perspective, if an adult who scored average today were compared to adults a century ago, she would be in the 98th percentile.” pg 39
Comment: This quote captured my attention because this is the concept of Flynn’s IQ tests. Every year the overall score between countries went up because he “had asked the right question”. Even Flynn himself didn’t understand how it was possible or what was in the air to make all future generations more intelligent, but something was being done correctly. Raven’s Progressive Matrices is what kids and adults were being tested on, and even though change was least expected on this test, it was the biggest progressions after all. They were tested on common sense, basic patterns and how to solve problems, and many others. Kids have shown they are much more intelligent with basic knowledge than their grandparents would have been. Given no exposure to these questions or topics, they seem to know the answers or how to problem solve them.
Question: What will these higher scores lead to? A more intelligent generation of people again and again?
Quote 2: “Biology and English majors did poorly on everything that was not directly related to their field. None of the majors, including psychology, understood social science methods.” pg 48
Comment: Flynn wanted to test students at a university in Chicago on their variety of knowledge beyond their major also. When he did this, he was utterly disappointed in the results. Many majors did not know anything about other majors because they had the mindset of specialization. Which means for them they only focused on studying their major to succeed in it but did not pick up any broad knowledge for themselves along the way. Even chemists, who are extremely smart, struggled to apply scientific reasoning to nonchemistry problems which shows how even more specialized they are in their major. Flynn believes in universities that students are not given the tools to analyze and understand the world, except for in their area of specialization. We may be becoming more intelligent throughout generations but where is our variety of knowledge? Chicago has a two-year core curriculum on critical thinking, which is supposed to provide students with the tools to understand the world around them, other majors, and questions about life.
Question: What is Flynn getting out of all the data from these studies? Will he try to help our future generations become more generalists instead of specialists?
Quote – “Exposure to the modern world has made us better adapted for complexity, and that has manifested flexibility, with profound implications for the breadth of our intellectual world “ (46)
Comment – This quote captured my attention because it kind of reminds me about the growth mindset that Carol Dweck was talking about. The complexity of the world is similar to the challenges we face and we grow and adapt just like the growth mindset. This makes me think that the premise of the growth mindset is very important in the world. If it has shown up in very similar ways in 2 different things we have done it must be very important. That is why this quote caught my attention and I responded to the prompt with it.
Question – How can I use a growth mindset to help me out in the real world?
Quote – “Flynn’s great disappointment is the degree to which society and particularly higher education, has responded to the broadening of the mind by pushing specialization, rather than focusing early training on conceptual, transferable knowledge” (47)
Comment – I find it interesting how we are expected to specialize in a certain field or topic while we are expected to have a broad skill set. Higher education pushes specialization, so why am I learning about generalization in higher education? What makes this class different from all of the other higher education, it makes me think and it is very interesting.
Question – If most higher education pushes specialization why are we being taught about generalization and how it’s better to be a generalist?
Quote “‘They aren’t giving students the tools to analyze the modern world, except in the area of specialization. Their education is too narrow.’ He does not mean this in the way that every computer science major needs an art history class, but rather that everyone needs habits of mind that allow them to dance across disciplines”(49).
Comment I think this is super true for a lot of schools. From a young age we are taught to pick one thing we love and keep doing it because it is the only thing we can be good at. But that’s not true. If we open our minds we can learn a lot more. The world is changing, so many things that we are learning now may not help in the future.
Question Why are we teaching kids to pick one thing to do because they are good at it for the rest of their lives?
Quote “Like chess masters and firefighters, premodern villagers relied on things being the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. They were extremely well prepared for what they had experience before and extremely poorly equipped it for everything else”(53).
Comment The future holds a lot of uncertainty and by not teaching how to learn or open our minds to new things, we aren’t going to get anywhere later in life
Question What can we do to help with the uncertainty of not know what tomorrow holds?
Quote
“Like chess masters and firefighters, pre modern villagers relied on things being the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. They were extremely well prepared for what they had experienced before and extremely poorly equipped for everything else. Their very thinking was highly specialized in a manner that the modern world has been telling us is increasingly obsolete.”
Comment
This quote intrigues me because it is a very generalist approach to the situation. They say it is a highly specialized way of thinking but to me it seems very generalist. A specialist would be ready for anything at anytime, and they would over prepare. This generalist approach probably is not the smartest approach because every day, everything changes. Nothing you do ever goes exactly as planned there is always something that changes or goes wrong. This generalist approach is a dangerous one.
Question
What are the benefits of expecting everything to be going to plan?
Quote
“Flynn conducted a study in which he compared the grade point averages of seniors at one of Americas top state universities from neuroscience to english majors, to their performance on a test of critical thinking. The test gauged students ability to apply fundamental abstract concepts from economics, social and physical sciences, and logic to common, real world scenarios. Flynn was bemused to find that the correlation between the test of broad conceptual thinking and GPA was about zero. in Flynn’s words, “the traits that earned good grades at [the university] do not include critical ability of any broad significance.”
Comment
I found it intriguing that there is no correlation between the test of broad conceptual thinking ang GPA. This is almost saying that regardless of their GPA they are all more than capable of handing critical thinking.
Question
What would happen if the same test was applied to students at a lower university and students from a higher university.
Journal 8
“ Those findings have been repeated in the other traditional societies, and scientists have suggested it may reflect the fact that premodern people are not as drawn to the holistic context- the relationship of the various circles to one another- so their perception is not changed by the presence of nextra circles.” (43-44)
Comment; This quote captured my attention from the way they described how premodern people are not drawn to the holistic context compared to modern people. It really interested me how they use the circles as an example for what they’re trying to show. The difference in perception for the two groups of people shows how our brain can automatically assume something. The question was, Which one is bigger? The two different groups of people saw two different things; one group sees the group of circles that are larger in size and the other sees how the smaller one is bigger by the amount of circles it has.
Question; How can one shift their perspective of thinking and try to focus on many different concepts within the question?
“Exposure to the modern world has made is better adapted for complexity, and that has manifested as flexibility, with profound implications for the breadth of our intellectual world” ( 46)
Comment; This quote captured my eye for a couple reasons. This quote made me ask questions and think about how our brains adapted to modern thinking. Modern thinking is more complex which by exposure to this world, did help us adapt to more complex thinking. This has been able to help us in different parts of the world, because our brains are able to help us think and use our knowledge in many situations.
Question: If it wasn’t for how we are able to adapt as a society would we still be able to adapt to different things if we were never exposed to the modern world?
Quote: “To use a common metaphor, premodern people miss the forest for the trees; modern people miss the trees for the forest” (Epstein 44)
Comment: Though Epstein states that this metaphor is common, this was my first time ever hearing it, hence why I chose this quote specifically. I had to read this metaphor several times before I felt that I truly understood its meaning. In this example, the premodern villagers often missed the bigger picture for the small details, as they had never been exposed to information that was not directly necessary for their lives. They couldn’t begin to tell you how to solve an algebraic problem, or use an Iphone, yet if they were asked about something they needed for survival, they would likely give you a more detailed explanation then you could ever receive from a Google search. This discrepancy in type of knowledge between groups of people is fascinating to me, and this chapter was one of the only times i’ve thought deeply about it.
Question: What causes this? Why is it so easy for people in modern societies to gain such expansive knowledge when it’s not necessary for them to survive? When did our two societies separate from each other? Which is the correct way for us to live?
Quote: “As Arab historiographer In Khaldun, considered a founder of sociology, pointed out centuries ago, a city dweller traveling through the desert will be completely dependent on a nomad to keep him alive. So long as they remain in the desert, the nomad is a genius.” (Epstein 47)
Comment: I think that this concept is interesting, and it made me think about people’s roles in society in a unique way. Though the city dweller may possess significantly more knowledge than the nomad, he’s incapable of surviving in the desert. His knowledge is expansive, but it’s not practical for his situation. This resembles the generalist/specialist contrast that has thus far been the theme of the book, with the city dweller being the generalist and the nomad being the specialist. For the nomad, the most important knowledge to possess is that which will help him succeed in his environment, as he is not interested in anything outside of the desert. Whereas with the city dweller, knowing how to make it through the desert is likely at the bottom of his list of essential knowledge to possess.
Question: In a similar nature to the last quote, what has caused this division in the prioritization of knowledge between groups of people? Why have we not all progressed together as a species?
Quote: “No amount of cajoling, explanation, or examples could get remote villagers to use reasoning based on any concept that was not a concrete part of their daily lives.” (Epstein 41)
Comment: This quote caught my attention because it reminds me of a fixed mindset from Dweck. This is because the villagers were unable to think past what they already knew and would not try to understand a different way of thinking.
Question: How could someone so stuck onto their fixed mindset learn to have a growth mindset?
Quote: “Three-quarters of American college graduates go on to a career unrelated to their major—a trend that includes math and science majors—after having become competent only with the tools of a single discipline.”(Epstein 48)
Comment: This quote caught my attention because I think its funny how almost all young adults have it embedded into their brain that they need a degree, but then don’t even end up using the degree they received. It almost relates to having a fixed mindset because most of us for some reason believe that to be successful in life we need to get a degree and that is the only way of being successful. I’m not saying college is bad in any way, but I feel a lot of us didn’t think we had a choice between going to college and not going. We just went because it is expected of us in today’s society.
Question: What are the benefits of being an undecided student in college? Why is it better than taking a gap year and trying out new things to learn more about yourself? Is it actually better?
Quote: Modern work demands knowledge transfer: the ability to apply knowledge to new situations and different domains. Our most fundamental thought processes have changed to accommodate increasing complexity and the need to derive new patterns rather than rely on familiar ones. (Epstein 45)”
Comment (150-200 words): Our mindset and general views on society and work have changed over the years. To go into something you need to apply the knowledge you already have to learn something new, general complexity in our day-to-day lives has increased and we need not rely on certain patterns if we are to adjust to this rapid change in society. Many times in society we rely on certain patterns and familiarities whether in work, school, or in day-to-day life, its what makes us feel safe and secure with our lives and surroundings. But moving forward in the future this quote makes me realize that I cannot always count on these things, as change is a part of our day-to-day lives, and this demand for new knowledge and the ability to adapt to new situations and apply these pieces of knowledge increases as I grow older.
Question: When change is such a common occurrence in our lives, why have we addepted to stick to certain patterns and familiarities?
Quote: The study he conducted at the state university convinced him that college departments rush to develop students in a narrow specialty area while failing to sharpen the tools of thinking that can serve them in every area. This must change, he argues, if students are to capitalize on their unprecedented capacity for abstract thought. They must be taught to think before being taught what to think about. Students come prepared with scientific spectacles, but do not leave carrying a scientific reasoning Swiss army knife. (Epstein 50)”
Comment (150-200 words): Personally this quote stood out to me because it reminded me of a quote from the reading “coddling of the American minds” talking about the ways colleges teach us how to think, and how it is often geared towards topics that will ultimately not help us in the future. When processing this quote to myself more, I think he makes a very good point, classes, and college teachers narrow our mindsets to one thing, they do not give us tools to help in the real world or in every aspect, especially in certain majors and classes. Yes, you gain independence but up to this point, you are not taught how to properly use this independence and are essentially thrown in blind. Being taught a wider variety of skills would give students the ability to thrive in the future that awaits them.
Question: How do we make this overall shift in colleges to teach students this essential part of knowledge?
Quote
“Our most fundamental thought processes have changed to accommodate increasing complexity and the need to derive new patterns rather than rely on familiar ones.” Page 45
Comment
This quote caught my attention because this chapter was mostly about how our brains and thought processes differentiate from “pre-modern” civilizations. Each generation is growing up in an ever-changing environment. For example, my parents didn’t have phones until they were almost through with college, and even then, they were brick-shaped with an antenna sticking out. These days, it’s not uncommon to see a 5 year old with their own ipad or a 7 year old with their own smartphone. Having access to so much information– literally right at your fingertips at such a young age must have an effect on how young minds adapt and function.
Question
Could this fast-paced change in society and the increase in accessibility to information lead to kids with more imaginative minds? Or might it rob them of the ability to function without technology at-hand when given real-world problems?
Quote
“I rushed into extremely specialized scientific research without having learned scientific reasoning. (And then I was rewarded for it with a Master’s Degree, which made for a very wicked learning environment.)” Page 51
Comment
This quote stuck out to me because of the way David Epstein viewed his own Degree– A reward for something he felt he was icompetent in without Scientific Reasoning. Most people who specialize in a very narrow area would be proud of their accomplishments, but the author felt he was thrown into a very ‘wicked’ learning environment, and that things should have been done differently. This leads me to believe that the way society is structured is meant to normalize these ‘one-trick-pony’ types of career paths and studies, while condemning versatility. Universities reward students with specialties in specific areas, when in reality, they would flounder when being exposed to minor changes, which we all know is inevitable.
Question
What might society look like if schools and Universities applied the ‘Scientific Reasoning’ mindset to the way their system is structured? How might the world be different if more people were able to flourish in multiple areas and career paths instead of being encouraged to specialize in only one thing.
Quote: “To use a common metaphor, premodern people miss the forest for the trees; modern people miss the trees for the forest” (Epstein 44)
Comment: Though Epstein states that this metaphor is common, this was my first time ever hearing it, hence why I chose this quote specifically. I had to read this metaphor several times before I felt that I truly understood its meaning. In this example, the premodern villagers often missed the bigger picture for the small details, as they had never been exposed to information that was not directly necessary for their lives. They couldn’t begin to tell you how to solve an algebraic problem, or use an Iphone, yet if they were asked about something they needed for survival, they would likely give you a more detailed explanation then you could ever receive from a Google search. This discrepancy in type of knowledge between groups of people is fascinating to me, and this chapter was one of the only times i’ve thought deeply about it.
Question: What causes this? Why is it so easy for people in modern societies to gain such expansive knowledge when it’s not necessary for them to survive? When did our two societies separate from each other? Which is the correct way for us to live?
Quote: “As Arab historiographer In Khaldun, considered a founder of sociology, pointed out centuries ago, a city dweller traveling through the desert will be completely dependent on a nomad to keep him alive. So long as they remain in the desert, the nomad is a genius.” (Epstein 47)
Comment: I think that this concept is interesting, and it made me think about people’s roles in society in a unique way. Though the city dweller may possess significantly more knowledge than the nomad, he’s incapable of surviving in the desert. His knowledge is expansive, but it’s not practical for his situation. This resembles the generalist/specialist contrast that has thus far been the theme of the book, with the city dweller being the generalist and the nomad being the specialist. For the nomad, the most important knowledge to possess is that which will help him succeed in his environment, as he is not interested in anything outside of the desert. Whereas with the city dweller, knowing how to make it through the desert is likely at the bottom of his list of essential knowledge to possess.
Question: In a similar nature to the last quote, what has caused this division in the prioritization of knowledge between groups of people? Why have we not all progressed together as a species?
Journal 8
“Those findings have been repeated in the other traditional societies, and scientists have suggested it may reflect the fact that premodern people are not as drawn to the holistic context- the relationship of the various circles to one another- so their perception is not changed by the presence of extra circles.” (43-44)
Comment: This quote captured my attention from the way they described how premodern people are not drawn to the holistic context compared to modern people. It really interested me how they use the circles as an example for what they’re trying to show. The difference in perception for the two groups of people shows how our brain can automatically assume something. The question was, which one is bigger? The two different groups of people saw two different things; one group sees the group of circles that are larger in size and the other sees how the smaller one is bigger by the number of circles it has.
Question: How can one shift their perspective of thinking and try to focus on many different concepts within the question?
“Exposure to the modern world has made is better adapted for complexity, and that has manifested as flexibility, with profound implications for the breadth of our intellectual world” (46)
Comment: This quote captured my eye for a couple reasons. This quote made me ask questions and think about how our brains adapted to modern thinking. Modern thinking is more complex which by exposure to this world, did help us adapt to more complex thinking. This has been able to help us in different parts of the world, because our brains are able to help us think and use our knowledge in many situations.
Question: If it wasn’t for how we are able to adapt as a society would we still be able to adapt to different things if we were never exposed to the modern world?
15 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 8”
Q – “Where the very thoughts of premodern villagers were circumscribed by their direct experiences, modern minds are comparatively free. This is not to say that one way of life is uniformly better than another. As Arab historiographer Ibn Khaldun, considered a founder of sociology, pointed out centuries ago, a city dweller traveling through the desert will be completely dependent on the nomad to keep him alive. So long as they remain in the desert, the nomad is a genius” (Epstein 47).
C – It’s interesting to think about how when we normally think of someone as smart, we think of someone very knowledgeable about either a lot of things or a specific things and yet these premodern people likely wouldn’t be considered “smart” by our standards, simply because they do not have the critical thinking skills we have. The only reason for this difference is because of the kind of environment people grow up in. Growing up in an illiterate village away from everything else, you are obviously going to learn different kinds of skills than you would growing up in a modern town with good education. I think the premodern villagers are just an example of those with specialized skills, and those who grow up in modern places with higher education are more generalized because they learn about things like math and science and language. Like the quote says, neither is necessarily better than the other, and both are important for different circumstances.
Q – Could an adult premodern villager still learn the critical thinking skills that they would have gotten growing up in a city? Would they even want to?
Q – “Flynn conducted a study in which he compared the grade point averages of seniors at one of America’s top state universities, from neuroscience to English majors, to their performance on a test of critical thinking. The test gauged students’ ability to apply fundamental abstract concepts from economics, social and physical sciences, and logic to common, real-world scenarios. Flynn was bemused to find that the correlation between the test of broad conceptual thinking and GPA was about zero. In Flynn’s words, ‘the traits that earn good grades at [the university] do not include critical ability of any broad significance’” (Epstein 48).
C – Part of me is surprised by these findings because I think college is more generalized than it probably used to be. We have core classes in English and Biology, etc. regardless of our majors and this can make us a little more generalized since we are all learning these different skills. But I assume that it still becomes very specialized once you get into major-specific classes and you are likely only learning information and skills related to that major and not necessarily ones that will carry over into other fields of study. It doesn’t really surprise me that the traits that earn good grades aren’t dependent on critical thinking because of my experience in high school. I didn’t really have critical thinking skills and just wrote about what was expected of me and what I thought my teacher wanted me to hear. This really set me behind because entering college now I don’t have those critical thinking skills that I need because I got perfect grades in high school by just doing what was expected of me and in college you aren’t necessarily told exactly what is expected of you.
Q – Are colleges becoming more generalized by requiring students to take different kinds of classes unrelated to their majors? Do they still need to implement more changes to make their students better generalists? Is the concept of majors themselves a specialist idea?
1. Quote: “Because the touched-by-modernity teens had constructed meaningful thematic groups, they also had far superior recall when asked later to recount the items. The more they had moved toward modernity, the more powerful their abstract thinking, and the less they had to rely on their concrete experience of the world as a reference point” (pg 44).
Comment: In this quote, the author is talking about an experiment that Russian psychologist, Alexander Luria performed on villagers in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. This experiment compared farmers and villagers who were practicing modern farming techniques versus those who were practicing class techniques, and how their mindsets differed. The modern villagers had a much easier time solving problems and understanding abstract ideas that were presented to them. This was because the villagers who only used classic techniques instead of branching out had a hard time answering questions that did not have to do with knowledge specifically gathered from their everyday life. The premodern people had a harder time understanding the “bigger picture,” while modern people were able to draw on their more expansive experiences, thus using those problem solving skills to understand many different topics.
Question: Was the collective farming in the Soviet Union’s industrial revolution harmful in the long run or did it improve the Soviet’s economy
2. Quote: “Neuroscience majors did not do particularly well on anything. Business majors performed very poorly across the board, including in economics. Econ majors did the best overall. Economics is a broad field by nature, and Econ professors have been shown to apply the reasoning principles they’ve learned to problems outside their area. Chemists, on the other hand, are extraordinarily bright, but in several studies struggled to apply scientific reasoning to non chemistry problems” (pg 48).
Comment: In this quote, the author is talking about an experiment that tested college student’s ability to take abstract concepts learned in various fields and apply them to real world scenarios. I found it really interesting because although someone might be very well versed in their own field, when asked to use logic and reasoning that does not specifically revolve around their specialty, virtually all students were unable to do so. I thought it was ironic that those in science fields like neuroscience and chemistry, which are both thought of as prestigious fields, could not think broadly. Students in economics on the other hand did this well because the subject is very broad, and they were able to critically analyze much better. I liked this section of the book because the author explains how students should not be narrowly focused on one topic, but instead should graduate with a “swiss army knife” mindset. They should be able to excel in multiple areas instead of specializing in one subject and one subject only.
Question: Is it up to students to learn to think broadly or is that the professor’s job to teach students.
Quote: “Perhaps, then, bord/rifle/dagger/bullet? You can’t possibly remove one and have a group, a remote villager insisted. The bullet must be loaded in the rifle to kill the bird, and ‘then you have to cut the bird up with the dagger, since there’s no other way to do it.’” (Epstein 42).
Comment: It is most definitely interesting how different people think, especially those of different cultures. There are still places out in the world that are un-modernized and the people live on the land. These people are completely unaware of the modern world and still have old school thinking as seen in the quote. They are only accustomed to living off the land and using their resources wisely. They are not educated in normal subjects such as math and reading but they are well versed in nature and living off the land. They have a different way of life than us and could not live the way we do. Their thinking comes from multiple ancestors finding their way in the rural places that they live. They developed systems that work for them and have embedded them in their minds. These people are unable to accept our way of thinking in categories because it is not the way that they were taught. They are thinking about surviving and using their resources.
Question: Why do these people fail to accept that there can be categories? Would this thinking be beneficial in a modernized world?
Quote: “’Even the best universities aren’t developing critical intelligence,’ he told me. ‘They aren’t giving students the tools to analyze the modern world, except in their area of specialization. Their education is too narrow.’ …everyone needs habits of mind that allow the, to dance across disciplines” (Epstein 49).
Comment: In today’s world most people are specialized in on field rather than having a vast knowledge of different subjects. This is beneficial when it comes to one specific job, but humans lack the universal knowledge of different subjects. From kindergarten to high school, we are required to take all the ‘core classes’ such as math English science history and such. We learned the basic knowledge of all these subjects to create a balanced comprehension of multiple subjects. This continues into college as well however, only the first year of college you are required to take these ‘core classes’. After you take one of each you move on to specialization of your specific major. By the time one graduates they most likely forget all the knowledge they learned in their ‘core classes’ because of the time and the need to focus on their specific major. Some people call this a brain dumb where you learn the information to pass the class and then you forget it to make space for the new information.
Question: How would universal knowledge of ‘core classes’ at a higher level benefit the person? Would this set them apart from other candidates when applying for a job?
Quote:
“Like chess masters and firefighters, pre modern villagers relied on things being the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. They were extremely well prepared for what they had experienced before, and extremely poorly equipped for everything else. Their very thinking was highly specialized in a manner that the modern world has been telling us is increasingly obsolete.” (pg. 53)
Comment:
This quote instantly caught my attention because it related back to what we previously read and discussed, regarding chess masters and firefighters. I’m a big fan of books doing this and making sure everything connects to back up the main claim/story of the book. It also helps me stay engaged while reading, hoping to find these connections either to our group conversations or earlier in the book. In addition, this quote resonated with me because it hints that this way of thinking probably isn’t best for the wicked world we live in today. It is increasingly unpredictable, and proved that people who are narrowly specialized don’t succeed as much as people who are broadly integrated in that kind of environment. I know this book is going to stress on generalists, but I am definitely noticing more negatives than positives in specialists’ approach to the world.
Question:
Do you think specialists would rather deal with the inevitable uncertainty they will face than beginning to become more broadly integrated?
Quote:
“Modern work demands knowledge transfer: the ability to apply knowledge to new situations and different domains. Our most fundamental thought processes have changed to accommodate increasing complexity and the need to derive new patterns rather than rely on familiar ones.”
Comment:
For a good chunk of this chapter, the author talked about studies from quite a while ago. This quote popped out to me because it mentions the modern world, which more directly concerns me. It’s pretty evident that the modern world is, for the most part, a wicked environment, and as we talked and read about, this is not the ideal environment for specialists. This is another big positive for generalists. This quote also talks about thought processes, which reminds me of Dweck’s TedTalk regarding fixed and growth mindsets. It talks about accommodating complex situations, which is a clear connection to a growth mindset, the most likely preferred mindset in the modern world. I think knowledge transfer draws a connection to a growth mindset. A growth mindset refers to working around tough problems. In this case, it would be using what you already know to work around said problems, which would help people flourish in the modern world.
Quote: “To put that in perspective, if an adult who scored average today were compared to adults a century ago, she would be in the 98th percentile.” pg 39
Comment: This quote captured my attention because this is the concept of Flynn’s IQ tests. Every year the overall score between countries went up because he “had asked the right question”. Even Flynn himself didn’t understand how it was possible or what was in the air to make all future generations more intelligent, but something was being done correctly. Raven’s Progressive Matrices is what kids and adults were being tested on, and even though change was least expected on this test, it was the biggest progressions after all. They were tested on common sense, basic patterns and how to solve problems, and many others. Kids have shown they are much more intelligent with basic knowledge than their grandparents would have been. Given no exposure to these questions or topics, they seem to know the answers or how to problem solve them.
Question: What will these higher scores lead to? A more intelligent generation of people again and again?
Quote 2: “Biology and English majors did poorly on everything that was not directly related to their field. None of the majors, including psychology, understood social science methods.” pg 48
Comment: Flynn wanted to test students at a university in Chicago on their variety of knowledge beyond their major also. When he did this, he was utterly disappointed in the results. Many majors did not know anything about other majors because they had the mindset of specialization. Which means for them they only focused on studying their major to succeed in it but did not pick up any broad knowledge for themselves along the way. Even chemists, who are extremely smart, struggled to apply scientific reasoning to nonchemistry problems which shows how even more specialized they are in their major. Flynn believes in universities that students are not given the tools to analyze and understand the world, except for in their area of specialization. We may be becoming more intelligent throughout generations but where is our variety of knowledge? Chicago has a two-year core curriculum on critical thinking, which is supposed to provide students with the tools to understand the world around them, other majors, and questions about life.
Question: What is Flynn getting out of all the data from these studies? Will he try to help our future generations become more generalists instead of specialists?
Quote – “Exposure to the modern world has made us better adapted for complexity, and that has manifested flexibility, with profound implications for the breadth of our intellectual world “ (46)
Comment – This quote captured my attention because it kind of reminds me about the growth mindset that Carol Dweck was talking about. The complexity of the world is similar to the challenges we face and we grow and adapt just like the growth mindset. This makes me think that the premise of the growth mindset is very important in the world. If it has shown up in very similar ways in 2 different things we have done it must be very important. That is why this quote caught my attention and I responded to the prompt with it.
Question – How can I use a growth mindset to help me out in the real world?
Quote – “Flynn’s great disappointment is the degree to which society and particularly higher education, has responded to the broadening of the mind by pushing specialization, rather than focusing early training on conceptual, transferable knowledge” (47)
Comment – I find it interesting how we are expected to specialize in a certain field or topic while we are expected to have a broad skill set. Higher education pushes specialization, so why am I learning about generalization in higher education? What makes this class different from all of the other higher education, it makes me think and it is very interesting.
Question – If most higher education pushes specialization why are we being taught about generalization and how it’s better to be a generalist?
Quote “‘They aren’t giving students the tools to analyze the modern world, except in the area of specialization. Their education is too narrow.’ He does not mean this in the way that every computer science major needs an art history class, but rather that everyone needs habits of mind that allow them to dance across disciplines”(49).
Comment I think this is super true for a lot of schools. From a young age we are taught to pick one thing we love and keep doing it because it is the only thing we can be good at. But that’s not true. If we open our minds we can learn a lot more. The world is changing, so many things that we are learning now may not help in the future.
Question Why are we teaching kids to pick one thing to do because they are good at it for the rest of their lives?
Quote “Like chess masters and firefighters, premodern villagers relied on things being the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. They were extremely well prepared for what they had experience before and extremely poorly equipped it for everything else”(53).
Comment The future holds a lot of uncertainty and by not teaching how to learn or open our minds to new things, we aren’t going to get anywhere later in life
Question What can we do to help with the uncertainty of not know what tomorrow holds?
Quote
“Like chess masters and firefighters, pre modern villagers relied on things being the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. They were extremely well prepared for what they had experienced before and extremely poorly equipped for everything else. Their very thinking was highly specialized in a manner that the modern world has been telling us is increasingly obsolete.”
Comment
This quote intrigues me because it is a very generalist approach to the situation. They say it is a highly specialized way of thinking but to me it seems very generalist. A specialist would be ready for anything at anytime, and they would over prepare. This generalist approach probably is not the smartest approach because every day, everything changes. Nothing you do ever goes exactly as planned there is always something that changes or goes wrong. This generalist approach is a dangerous one.
Question
What are the benefits of expecting everything to be going to plan?
Quote
“Flynn conducted a study in which he compared the grade point averages of seniors at one of Americas top state universities from neuroscience to english majors, to their performance on a test of critical thinking. The test gauged students ability to apply fundamental abstract concepts from economics, social and physical sciences, and logic to common, real world scenarios. Flynn was bemused to find that the correlation between the test of broad conceptual thinking and GPA was about zero. in Flynn’s words, “the traits that earned good grades at [the university] do not include critical ability of any broad significance.”
Comment
I found it intriguing that there is no correlation between the test of broad conceptual thinking ang GPA. This is almost saying that regardless of their GPA they are all more than capable of handing critical thinking.
Question
What would happen if the same test was applied to students at a lower university and students from a higher university.
Journal 8
“ Those findings have been repeated in the other traditional societies, and scientists have suggested it may reflect the fact that premodern people are not as drawn to the holistic context- the relationship of the various circles to one another- so their perception is not changed by the presence of nextra circles.” (43-44)
Comment; This quote captured my attention from the way they described how premodern people are not drawn to the holistic context compared to modern people. It really interested me how they use the circles as an example for what they’re trying to show. The difference in perception for the two groups of people shows how our brain can automatically assume something. The question was, Which one is bigger? The two different groups of people saw two different things; one group sees the group of circles that are larger in size and the other sees how the smaller one is bigger by the amount of circles it has.
Question; How can one shift their perspective of thinking and try to focus on many different concepts within the question?
“Exposure to the modern world has made is better adapted for complexity, and that has manifested as flexibility, with profound implications for the breadth of our intellectual world” ( 46)
Comment; This quote captured my eye for a couple reasons. This quote made me ask questions and think about how our brains adapted to modern thinking. Modern thinking is more complex which by exposure to this world, did help us adapt to more complex thinking. This has been able to help us in different parts of the world, because our brains are able to help us think and use our knowledge in many situations.
Question: If it wasn’t for how we are able to adapt as a society would we still be able to adapt to different things if we were never exposed to the modern world?
Quote: “To use a common metaphor, premodern people miss the forest for the trees; modern people miss the trees for the forest” (Epstein 44)
Comment: Though Epstein states that this metaphor is common, this was my first time ever hearing it, hence why I chose this quote specifically. I had to read this metaphor several times before I felt that I truly understood its meaning. In this example, the premodern villagers often missed the bigger picture for the small details, as they had never been exposed to information that was not directly necessary for their lives. They couldn’t begin to tell you how to solve an algebraic problem, or use an Iphone, yet if they were asked about something they needed for survival, they would likely give you a more detailed explanation then you could ever receive from a Google search. This discrepancy in type of knowledge between groups of people is fascinating to me, and this chapter was one of the only times i’ve thought deeply about it.
Question: What causes this? Why is it so easy for people in modern societies to gain such expansive knowledge when it’s not necessary for them to survive? When did our two societies separate from each other? Which is the correct way for us to live?
Quote: “As Arab historiographer In Khaldun, considered a founder of sociology, pointed out centuries ago, a city dweller traveling through the desert will be completely dependent on a nomad to keep him alive. So long as they remain in the desert, the nomad is a genius.” (Epstein 47)
Comment: I think that this concept is interesting, and it made me think about people’s roles in society in a unique way. Though the city dweller may possess significantly more knowledge than the nomad, he’s incapable of surviving in the desert. His knowledge is expansive, but it’s not practical for his situation. This resembles the generalist/specialist contrast that has thus far been the theme of the book, with the city dweller being the generalist and the nomad being the specialist. For the nomad, the most important knowledge to possess is that which will help him succeed in his environment, as he is not interested in anything outside of the desert. Whereas with the city dweller, knowing how to make it through the desert is likely at the bottom of his list of essential knowledge to possess.
Question: In a similar nature to the last quote, what has caused this division in the prioritization of knowledge between groups of people? Why have we not all progressed together as a species?
Quote: “No amount of cajoling, explanation, or examples could get remote villagers to use reasoning based on any concept that was not a concrete part of their daily lives.” (Epstein 41)
Comment: This quote caught my attention because it reminds me of a fixed mindset from Dweck. This is because the villagers were unable to think past what they already knew and would not try to understand a different way of thinking.
Question: How could someone so stuck onto their fixed mindset learn to have a growth mindset?
Quote: “Three-quarters of American college graduates go on to a career unrelated to their major—a trend that includes math and science majors—after having become competent only with the tools of a single discipline.”(Epstein 48)
Comment: This quote caught my attention because I think its funny how almost all young adults have it embedded into their brain that they need a degree, but then don’t even end up using the degree they received. It almost relates to having a fixed mindset because most of us for some reason believe that to be successful in life we need to get a degree and that is the only way of being successful. I’m not saying college is bad in any way, but I feel a lot of us didn’t think we had a choice between going to college and not going. We just went because it is expected of us in today’s society.
Question: What are the benefits of being an undecided student in college? Why is it better than taking a gap year and trying out new things to learn more about yourself? Is it actually better?
Quote: Modern work demands knowledge transfer: the ability to apply knowledge to new situations and different domains. Our most fundamental thought processes have changed to accommodate increasing complexity and the need to derive new patterns rather than rely on familiar ones. (Epstein 45)”
Comment (150-200 words): Our mindset and general views on society and work have changed over the years. To go into something you need to apply the knowledge you already have to learn something new, general complexity in our day-to-day lives has increased and we need not rely on certain patterns if we are to adjust to this rapid change in society. Many times in society we rely on certain patterns and familiarities whether in work, school, or in day-to-day life, its what makes us feel safe and secure with our lives and surroundings. But moving forward in the future this quote makes me realize that I cannot always count on these things, as change is a part of our day-to-day lives, and this demand for new knowledge and the ability to adapt to new situations and apply these pieces of knowledge increases as I grow older.
Question: When change is such a common occurrence in our lives, why have we addepted to stick to certain patterns and familiarities?
Quote: The study he conducted at the state university convinced him that college departments rush to develop students in a narrow specialty area while failing to sharpen the tools of thinking that can serve them in every area. This must change, he argues, if students are to capitalize on their unprecedented capacity for abstract thought. They must be taught to think before being taught what to think about. Students come prepared with scientific spectacles, but do not leave carrying a scientific reasoning Swiss army knife. (Epstein 50)”
Comment (150-200 words): Personally this quote stood out to me because it reminded me of a quote from the reading “coddling of the American minds” talking about the ways colleges teach us how to think, and how it is often geared towards topics that will ultimately not help us in the future. When processing this quote to myself more, I think he makes a very good point, classes, and college teachers narrow our mindsets to one thing, they do not give us tools to help in the real world or in every aspect, especially in certain majors and classes. Yes, you gain independence but up to this point, you are not taught how to properly use this independence and are essentially thrown in blind. Being taught a wider variety of skills would give students the ability to thrive in the future that awaits them.
Question: How do we make this overall shift in colleges to teach students this essential part of knowledge?
Quote
“Our most fundamental thought processes have changed to accommodate increasing complexity and the need to derive new patterns rather than rely on familiar ones.” Page 45
Comment
This quote caught my attention because this chapter was mostly about how our brains and thought processes differentiate from “pre-modern” civilizations. Each generation is growing up in an ever-changing environment. For example, my parents didn’t have phones until they were almost through with college, and even then, they were brick-shaped with an antenna sticking out. These days, it’s not uncommon to see a 5 year old with their own ipad or a 7 year old with their own smartphone. Having access to so much information– literally right at your fingertips at such a young age must have an effect on how young minds adapt and function.
Question
Could this fast-paced change in society and the increase in accessibility to information lead to kids with more imaginative minds? Or might it rob them of the ability to function without technology at-hand when given real-world problems?
Quote
“I rushed into extremely specialized scientific research without having learned scientific reasoning. (And then I was rewarded for it with a Master’s Degree, which made for a very wicked learning environment.)” Page 51
Comment
This quote stuck out to me because of the way David Epstein viewed his own Degree– A reward for something he felt he was icompetent in without Scientific Reasoning. Most people who specialize in a very narrow area would be proud of their accomplishments, but the author felt he was thrown into a very ‘wicked’ learning environment, and that things should have been done differently. This leads me to believe that the way society is structured is meant to normalize these ‘one-trick-pony’ types of career paths and studies, while condemning versatility. Universities reward students with specialties in specific areas, when in reality, they would flounder when being exposed to minor changes, which we all know is inevitable.
Question
What might society look like if schools and Universities applied the ‘Scientific Reasoning’ mindset to the way their system is structured? How might the world be different if more people were able to flourish in multiple areas and career paths instead of being encouraged to specialize in only one thing.
Quote: “To use a common metaphor, premodern people miss the forest for the trees; modern people miss the trees for the forest” (Epstein 44)
Comment: Though Epstein states that this metaphor is common, this was my first time ever hearing it, hence why I chose this quote specifically. I had to read this metaphor several times before I felt that I truly understood its meaning. In this example, the premodern villagers often missed the bigger picture for the small details, as they had never been exposed to information that was not directly necessary for their lives. They couldn’t begin to tell you how to solve an algebraic problem, or use an Iphone, yet if they were asked about something they needed for survival, they would likely give you a more detailed explanation then you could ever receive from a Google search. This discrepancy in type of knowledge between groups of people is fascinating to me, and this chapter was one of the only times i’ve thought deeply about it.
Question: What causes this? Why is it so easy for people in modern societies to gain such expansive knowledge when it’s not necessary for them to survive? When did our two societies separate from each other? Which is the correct way for us to live?
Quote: “As Arab historiographer In Khaldun, considered a founder of sociology, pointed out centuries ago, a city dweller traveling through the desert will be completely dependent on a nomad to keep him alive. So long as they remain in the desert, the nomad is a genius.” (Epstein 47)
Comment: I think that this concept is interesting, and it made me think about people’s roles in society in a unique way. Though the city dweller may possess significantly more knowledge than the nomad, he’s incapable of surviving in the desert. His knowledge is expansive, but it’s not practical for his situation. This resembles the generalist/specialist contrast that has thus far been the theme of the book, with the city dweller being the generalist and the nomad being the specialist. For the nomad, the most important knowledge to possess is that which will help him succeed in his environment, as he is not interested in anything outside of the desert. Whereas with the city dweller, knowing how to make it through the desert is likely at the bottom of his list of essential knowledge to possess.
Question: In a similar nature to the last quote, what has caused this division in the prioritization of knowledge between groups of people? Why have we not all progressed together as a species?
Journal 8
“Those findings have been repeated in the other traditional societies, and scientists have suggested it may reflect the fact that premodern people are not as drawn to the holistic context- the relationship of the various circles to one another- so their perception is not changed by the presence of extra circles.” (43-44)
Comment: This quote captured my attention from the way they described how premodern people are not drawn to the holistic context compared to modern people. It really interested me how they use the circles as an example for what they’re trying to show. The difference in perception for the two groups of people shows how our brain can automatically assume something. The question was, which one is bigger? The two different groups of people saw two different things; one group sees the group of circles that are larger in size and the other sees how the smaller one is bigger by the number of circles it has.
Question: How can one shift their perspective of thinking and try to focus on many different concepts within the question?
“Exposure to the modern world has made is better adapted for complexity, and that has manifested as flexibility, with profound implications for the breadth of our intellectual world” (46)
Comment: This quote captured my eye for a couple reasons. This quote made me ask questions and think about how our brains adapted to modern thinking. Modern thinking is more complex which by exposure to this world, did help us adapt to more complex thinking. This has been able to help us in different parts of the world, because our brains are able to help us think and use our knowledge in many situations.
Question: If it wasn’t for how we are able to adapt as a society would we still be able to adapt to different things if we were never exposed to the modern world?