Guest guest Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Alain wrote: >next issue (actually, the issue I'm working on at the moment) I'm >putting to test is: does books and texts are the best way to efficiently >learn about something ? as well as which way do we learn best ? Who is " we " ? Are you assuming " we " all have the same best learning style? Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 > Who is " we " ? Are you assuming " we " all have the same best learning style? Actually, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just trying to have an idea if some conclusion can be drawn from learning style (and as for learning style I can think of right now is books, classroom meeting as well as hand-on practice). Alain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Alain wrote: >Actually, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just trying to have an idea if >some conclusion can be drawn from learning style (and as for learning >style I can think of right now is books, classroom meeting as well as >hand-on practice). Some learn (some things) best if taught aurally (e.g., learning a new language through hearing it spoken), while other people learn (the same things) best if taught visually (e.g., seeing the written language). Some can learn by hearing a complex process described, others need to have the steps written down. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 " It has often being mentioned that we where thinking in images and sometime, it can be hard to describe such images, which lead me to think that a " language development disorder " could be explained by this theory, is it possible that graphics language might be our primary language and that " verbal " ones are secondaries ones ? after all we often say that it take 1000 words to describe an image, sometime, the problem is coming up with those 1000 words... " Damn, that makes a LOT of sense to me. I have a degree in Linguistics, btw (which I finished at the age of 50, it took me that long to be able to get to where I could function in school) because I have always been fascinated by language and the process of turning thoughts into language and how language shapes thinking processes, etc. Now you have given me an interesting insight, that that may be because verbal language is not " native " to me the way it is to NTs, so as a result I have been more conscious of it and interested in how it works in the human mind. Gayle __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 > The human being is able to speak from 0 to 6 languages on average, > he's > also able to assimilate information in various form (video, textual, > sound, tastes, etc..) but did we assert that a verbal language be it > French, English, or any other languages are able to to fully describe > our thought ? isn't there thought for which we are unable to > describe in > such language ? > > It has often being mentioned that we where thinking in images and > sometime, it can be hard to describe such images, which lead me to > think > that a " language development disorder " could be explained by this > theory, is it possible that graphics language might be our primary > language and that " verbal " ones are secondaries ones ? I read in _The Language Instinct_ by Pinker that all people think in what Pinker calls " mentalese " which is NOT verbal language. Pinker says that verbal language is something that is laid over the mentalese. Pinker doesn't discuss autism in his book, perhaps oddly, but he does discuss deaf people and makes the point that people who have never heard or spoken verbal language have no trouble conceptualizing the same things as people who do have verbal language. My theory is that most people find it so easy to lay verbal language over their mentalese that they don't even realize there's something other than verbal language going on. I think in visual/spatial landscapes and some images, and have to " find " the words to put with those thoughts as a conscious, extra step. I theorize that I just have a hard time translating my mentalese into verbal language, and am also far more in touch with my mentalese than most people (I find this a useful thing :-). What I wrote above is not " real science " --it's just stuff I think about. (well, Pinker's work may be real science, but my mumbling about Pinker's work is not) -Dora ladyd@... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The only war that matters is the war against the imagination -Diane DiPrima, Rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Dora wrote: " My theory is that most people find it so easy to lay verbal language over their mentalese that they don't even realize there's something other than verbal language going on. I think in visual/spatial landscapes and some images, and have to " find " the words to put with those thoughts as a conscious, extra step. I theorize that I just have a hard time translating my mentalese into verbal language, and am also far more in touch with my mentalese than most people (I find this a useful thing :-). " Gosh, Dora, that makes a LOT of sense to me. You have articulated one of the important strengths I think that autism can give. I also feel that I am more in touch (MUCH more) with how my thoughts are formed and translated into language than NTs are. Plus, think about this. This really seems to explain a lot to me about why my thinking processes go in different directions or patterns than NTs. Our thinking processes go in chains of associations. People who think primarily in words will think by forming association-chains based on those words. For example, the word " apple " might bring forth associations like " comparing apples with oranges, " " Eve eating the apple, " " the apple of my eye, " " apple cheeked, " NYC as " the Big Apple, " etc. Whereas, an image will have a different set of association-chain. An image of an apple might bring forth associations of things that are roundish and colored like an apple. Or, to my mind at this moment, the first image that comes to my mind is apples all over the ground under an apple tree, and that leads to chains of thinking of animals that eat those fallen apples, and yellow jackets covering the apples, and encounters with yellow jackets. All " image " association chains. So the word " apple " might lead an NT to think of New York, a word-based association chain, while it might lead me to think of yellow jackets, an image-based association chain. This is just a very simplified example of how image-based association chains can lead to very different thinking processes than word-based association chains. The " images " that are my " proto-thoughts " can be very abstract, like patterns of how things are interacting -- like ripples in a pond intermingling, patterns like that. And " image-based " doesn't have to be literally visual either, as I have heard of autistics who are not so visual and get still have the same " image-based " thinking processes. I think that visual images are just a way of translating something from a deeper level (the " mentalese " you refer to) and words are another way. In a way, it's like we are doing a double translation if we go from underlying intuition to image and from there to words. But it isn't necessarily a handicap -- being in touch with how your thoughts form can be a strength. Gayle __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 > Gosh, Dora, that makes a LOT of sense to me. You have > articulated one of the important strengths I think > that autism can give. I also feel that I am more in > touch (MUCH more) with how my thoughts are formed and > translated into language than NTs are. I feel that the way I think is a huge strength too, although not because of being conscious of language translation, more because of being able to see my thoughts concretely so I can examine them, and also because I can think very quickly about certain kinds of very complex things because I don't think linearly. I am most strong at things that don't require translation into verbal language. I see abstract things--like computer code and mathematical equations and patterns in complex systems--concretely in my thinking and can manipulate those abstract things in a very " direct " way because of how I see/think about it. This makes me very good at certain things I am also very interested in. How my thoughts happen is also frustrating b/c I feel like all my words are just a flattening of the actual ideas I want to express, which would require n-dimensional space and a dictionary to my symbolic mental images for someone else to understand. I don't even know if what I just typed makes any sense at all :-/ > People who think primarily in words will think by > forming association-chains based on those words. For > example, the word " apple " might bring forth > associations like " comparing apples with oranges, " > " Eve eating the apple, " " the apple of my eye, " " apple > cheeked, " NYC as " the Big Apple, " etc. Whereas, an Really? I never would have those associations! Those associations are very far away from the word " apple " in my mindspace. > image will have a different set of association-chain. > An image of an apple might bring forth associations of > things that are roundish and colored like an apple. > Or, to my mind at this moment, the first image that > comes to my mind is apples all over the ground under > an apple tree, and that leads to chains of thinking of > animals that eat those fallen apples, and yellow > jackets covering the apples, and encounters with > yellow jackets. All " image " association chains. So After the primary red, central (in the middle of all levels slightly toward the right) solidity (evenly-weighted, not fully circular) of conceptual apple, I saw the apple tree in my parent's back yard (which is always the first image I see when told " apple " ) and then my computer (Apple Powerbook) and then an overlay of orchards near where I grew up and apples in the store I go to now and the sound of biting into an apple along with the rest of the sensory information of eating an apple and a bunch of other Apple computer images. Uh... sometimes the association chains can get really tangled up on top of each other if I don't have a reason for accessing them or context for why I'm thinking about them. I will often get a mass of associations all at once. > And " image-based " doesn't have to be literally > visual either, as I have heard of autistics who are > not so visual and get still have the same > " image-based " thinking processes. I think that visual > images are just a way of translating something from a > deeper level (the " mentalese " you refer to) and words > are another way. In a way, it's like we are doing a > double translation if we go from underlying intuition > to image and from there to words. But it isn't > necessarily a handicap -- being in touch with how your > thoughts form can be a strength. Wow--what you say is totally what it feels like to me! My thoughts are images in space, but they are not literal images. However, literal images are on a " level " that is closer to the thought-images, and I get the literal pictures before I get the words. I was explaining to my sister just a few months ago that there are three larger levels in my thinking: actual thought (visual/spatial, quite symbolic), literal image, word. I have to translate thought into literal image to get at word, and I have to translate words into literal images in order to understand them as thoughts. I like activities that only require me to use the thought and/or picture level and not deal so much with having to bring it all the way up to the word level. It's so cool that someone else can describe things I thought I was the only one who experienced! Neat-o! -Dora ladyd@... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The only war that matters is the war against the imagination -Diane DiPrima, Rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 > > > Gosh, Dora, that makes a LOT of sense to me. You have > > articulated one of the important strengths I think > > that autism can give. I also feel that I am more in > > touch (MUCH more) with how my thoughts are formed and > > translated into language than NTs are. > I feel that the way I think is a huge strength too, although not > because of being conscious of language translation, more because of > being able to see my thoughts concretely so I can examine them, and > also because I can think very quickly about certain kinds of very > complex things because I don't think linearly. I am most strong at > things that don't require translation into verbal language. I see > abstract things--like computer code and mathematical equations and > patterns in complex systems--concretely in my thinking and can > manipulate those abstract things in a very " direct " way because of > how I see/think about it. This makes me very good at certain things > I am also very interested in. > > How my thoughts happen is also frustrating b/c I feel like all my > words are just a flattening of the actual ideas I want to express, > which would require n-dimensional space and a dictionary to my > symbolic mental images for someone else to understand. I don't even > know if what I just typed makes any sense at all :-/ > > People who think primarily in words will think by > > forming association-chains based on those words. For > > example, the word " apple " might bring forth > > associations like " comparing apples with oranges, " > > " Eve eating the apple, " " the apple of my eye, " " apple > > cheeked, " NYC as " the Big Apple, " etc. Whereas, an > Really? I never would have those associations! Those associations > are very far away from the word " apple " in my mindspace. > > image will have a different set of association-chain. > > An image of an apple might bring forth associations of > > things that are roundish and colored like an apple. > > Or, to my mind at this moment, the first image that > > comes to my mind is apples all over the ground under > > an apple tree, and that leads to chains of thinking of > > animals that eat those fallen apples, and yellow > > jackets covering the apples, and encounters with > > yellow jackets. All " image " association chains. So > After the primary red, central (in the middle of all levels slightly > toward the right) solidity (evenly-weighted, not fully circular) of > conceptual apple, I saw the apple tree in my parent's back yard > (which is always the first image I see when told " apple " ) and then my > computer (Apple Powerbook) and then an overlay of orchards near where > I grew up and apples in the store I go to now and the sound of biting > into an apple along with the rest of the sensory information of > eating an apple and a bunch of other Apple computer images. Uh... > sometimes the association chains can get really tangled up on top of > each other if I don't have a reason for accessing them or context for > why I'm thinking about them. I will often get a mass of associations > all at once. > > And " image-based " doesn't have to be literally > > visual either, as I have heard of autistics who are > > not so visual and get still have the same > > " image-based " thinking processes. I think that visual > > images are just a way of translating something from a > > deeper level (the " mentalese " you refer to) and words > > are another way. In a way, it's like we are doing a > > double translation if we go from underlying intuition > > to image and from there to words. But it isn't > > necessarily a handicap -- being in touch with how your > > thoughts form can be a strength. > Wow--what you say is totally what it feels like to me! My thoughts > are images in space, but they are not literal images. However, > literal images are on a " level " that is closer to the thought-images, > and I get the literal pictures before I get the words. I was > explaining to my sister just a few months ago that there are three > larger levels in my thinking: actual thought (visual/spatial, quite > symbolic), literal image, word. I have to translate thought into > literal image to get at word, and I have to translate words into > literal images in order to understand them as thoughts. > > I like activities that only require me to use the thought and/or > picture level and not deal so much with having to bring it all the > way up to the word level. > > It's so cool that someone else can describe things I thought I was > the only one who experienced! Neat-o! > > -Dora > > > ladyd@... > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > The only war that matters is the war against the imagination -Diane > DiPrima, Rant > Hi Gayle, Dora & all, This kinda reminds me of that game from a few years back " Six Degrees Of Separation " where the object was you were to tie/associate people/things, etc. to Bacon. Am I on the right path here regarding ACs?? Wanda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 > Hi Gayle, Dora & all, > This kinda reminds me of that game from a few years back " Six > Degrees Of Separation " where the object was you were to tie/ > associate people/things, etc. to Bacon. Am I on the right > path here regarding ACs?? > Wanda Possibly, but I don't really know. I wasn't thinking about " Bacon networks " specifically when I typed my response, but there is definitely a connection / association between the two topics on some levels in my brain. The " Bacon Game " is all about Small Worlds ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_world_phenomenon ). I'm very interested in Small Worlds, and am reading _Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks Between Order and Randomness_ ( http:// www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=0691117047 ) in the next few months. I'm curious myself as to whether Small World-type network theories could be used to explain the organization and retrieval of knowledge in an animal brain. The Bacon Game is neat! :-) -D. ladyd@... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The only war that matters is the war against the imagination -Diane DiPrima, Rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.