Another from the Parents' Review Articles 'archive' - still working on the subject of science.
The article that we are planning to read/discuss is "A Note on the Teaching of School Science" from 1928. Come over and participate in the conversation!
The article is fairly short, only taking a few minutes to read. I've recorded it as well. You can find it here.
Where do I start to explain this meshing of ideas happening in my mind? Well, here are the reads/listens that have encouraged this post (not in order of appearance):
Other than Gough's and Dickson's books, the others I have read/listened to recently or am reading/listening to now. Honestly, I've not fleshed out how these all play together, or what the theme is, but "personality" is something I am encountering at every turn. There have been a myriad of definitions of personality and just as many opinions about those definitions.
But honestly, what's personality got to do with it anyway?
I'm terrible at defining my terms but it is important to be sure I am thinking along the same lines as others when trying to work through the ideas they present. This is one thing for which I am very thankful to Mystie Winckler of the Schole Sisters (or you might know her at Simply Convivial). She always demands that we define our terms. Sometimes what one person thinks a word or idea 'means' is quite different than how they are using it.
Personality: a characteristic way of feeling, thinking, and behaving (Britannica); individual differences in patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving (American Psychological Association); traits and thought patterns (Psych Central)
To this I add my definition of "personality": "the state of being a person, with the common attributes known to be exhibited by people, in general, having character and intelligence." Although I understand that some people would say that is "personhood." Personhood is the legal definition of what is considered a person. Since the government seems to think they can make decisions about everything, I might change my definition to: "the legal status of being a person, with the common attributes to be exhibited by people, in general, having character and intelligence." But that does open a whole 'nother can of worms, does it not?
Character: the combination of mental characteristics and behavior that distinguishes a person or group; distinguishing nature of something; moral strength (American Heritage Dictionary); the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing (Dictionary.com); the good qualities of a person that usually include moral or emotional strength, honesty, and fairness (Britannica)
It would seem that 'personality' and 'character' are almost the same thing.
Nerve: courage that allows you to do something dangerous, difficult, or frightening; the rude attitude of someone who says or does things that make other people angry or upset (Britannica); the power of endurance or control (Merriam-Webster)
Intelligence: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations (Merriam-Webster)
Those are the ones that come to mind right away with my trying to wrestle with the above-mentioned reads/listens.
As I think about personality, character, nerve, and intelligence, different theories of how people learn and behave come to mind. Multiple Intelligence theory (Gardner) and one I've found more recently called Big Five Personality traits (Goleman) remind me of my college days' learning. I am sure there was much I let pass me by but tailoring the teaching and material to the students was something that was very pushed. It is very interesting however that the ideas and agenda pushed were not tailored to the students. (Oh, that's another can of worms.)
But honestly, what's personality got to do with it anyway?
If we know how a person is, their preferred syle of learning, their preferred mode of communication, their this-or-that, and tailor our way of doing things to suit them, how does that benefit them? Or us? And, what about our personality? What if their way is contrary to our way? Should we simply put our foot down and say, "hey, I don't like that so you need to do it differently"? Do we put our 'differences' aside and work through it? Should they have to cater to our way of doing things?
We all have preferences and some things will bother us more than others. But at what point is it okay to either let our preferences have the right-of-way (or the only way) or someone else's to dictate what we do?
This is the meshing of ideas from all of those readings/listenings: we all need to realize that we are people who are all in this together. In whatever situation we find ourselves in, we have to work together. There is no point when one person's 'personality' should take center stage to dictate to everyone else how things are to be done, because it will not be necessarily the best for everyone, or the situation.
I really want to think more about the idea of 'coddling' (aka: negative empathy) based on those preferences and its effect on relationships but I think that'll come as I read more of Friedman's book. Also, none of the links I put in earlier have stuck so if you just do some googling you'll easily find what I've referenced here in terms of reads and listens.
Today's post will be what a lot of my posts will be like unless I am somehow able to finish an entire book very quickly. That does not happen very often. (This was originally penned in June.)
This book is called Sovietistan: Travels in Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan by Erika Fatland and I am listening to it on audio. I have the ebook on my phone as well but I've not actually used it. One reason I decided to start this blog was so that I could write down what I'm hearing. There is a higher tendency for me to space out while I'm listening to a book than when I'm reading one, but time is short (I drive a lot) and the reading simply doesn't get done.
But I digress.
The start of the book, as I recall, is an introduction of the author into what I will call, though I do not recall if she does, the 'Stans. She is a journalist but in order to get into these places she has been granted a student visa. She's a bit paranoid (albeit probably justifiably) of authority figures in the areas she is visiting. The start though is in a place where there is a crater that continues to burn. I believe it is called the Gates of Hell. (An obvious issue with listening rather than reading, the names may not be at all like you think they are.)
At one time gas was discovered in this particular area and that was a great thing. The necessary companies became coming in to get it all set up to 'mine' and therefore profit from the gas. Apparently the ground opened up and the process had to be halted. The escaping gas was horrid for the locals; smelly and I'm guessing just generally unsafe. The decision was made to burn it off so that the gas wouldn't continue to leak out. Well, that was close to 50 years ago! The whole town was evacuated as well but it was because they didn't want tourists coming in to gawk at the burning hole.
There are maps in the physical (and digital) books, which is great for this type of book. But I didn't have that when I was listening.
She recounts her adventure getting to the 'Stans. At the airport in Istanbul many people ask her to carry packages or their luggage for her. She pretends not to understand them and finally she is told the reason she's being asked by just about everyone. There is a limit on luggage/packages that can be brought by each individual. But these people go to other places, buy lots of stuff, and bring it back to their own place to sell. Apparently women stuff things in their dresses and people tape stuff to their bodies.
Just about everything sold in Turkmenistan was brought from Turkey.
The states that Erika will visit and detail are ones that were created after the fall of the USSR in 1991. I guess it's probably better called 'dissolution' than fall as it's still there, unlike the Ottoman Empire. Anyway, each of the states she'll visit were made independent for the first time in their histories.
I'll have to come back to add more later.
As I will be speaking on Art for Set Your Feet 2023, I am scouring the Parents' Review Articles for any and all things related. I had come across an article regarding nursery artwork years ago but this one I had not read. I think this is helpful for those who focus on the picture study so much that they neglect the instruction of drawing. Granted, Mrs. Steinthal is talking about starting children young with instruction in drawing, but the appreciation for good art should be presented from their very beginning.
Mrs. Steinthal doesn't take a lot of time on the "how" of training (she doesn't set out a lesson plan here) but gives good advice for those who don't want to be lamenting later that their kids don't want to participate in art making. Start 'em young, she says! Give them things that they care about to draw and paint- their toys are excellent pieces to begin with. We all like when we create something that resembles reality (or even just what we had envisioned) and kids even more so, I think.
In the nursery, in the entire house really, good art needs to be chosen; not an over abundance of it. It doesn't need to be overwhelming, just worthy.
I love the example of the three-year-old who commented on the complementary colors in the painting of "The Betrothal of the Virgin" by Lorenzo di Viterlo!
Over at the AmblesideOnline Forum we are reading through some of the Parents' Review Articles.
The first article that we are planning to read/discuss (2023) is Cultural Value of Science from 1920. Come over and participate in the conversation!
I have recorded this in sections for those who would like to hear, perhaps while you read. (I am very much an amateur at recording.)
I listen to my Bible reading as I head to work in the mornings. This morning the reading was from Matthew and Kings (I believe). Doing these narrations is fun but it definitely gives more appreciation (and grace) to my students' narrations! One reading... phew!
In Matthew what I recall is that Jesus was healing the lame and blind, and a lady with a blood issue, all on the way to a man's house whose daughter had died. The religious leaders were angry (of course) because they didn't like how He said your sins are forgiven. He asked if it was better to say take up your cot and walk? So He said that- but either way He is the only way that sin is forgiven.
I think I may have gotten that a bit muddled. Was this all in the same reading? He healed the daughter as well.
In Kings it covered Solomon's son's dealings with the people. I get Rehoboam and Jeroboam confused but I believe this is Rehoboam... the people came to him and asked for him to deal with them less harshly than his father had. He consulted with the older men who agreed that the best plan was to deal with them less harshly. Their reasoning was that the people would then be loyal to him as ruler. Rehoboam then asked his own peers, those he had grown up with, what they thought. They thought that the best idea was to deal even more harshly with the people. I don't recall why they thought this or what the outcome would be. Rehoboam took their advice and said you think you had it bad before? It'll be way worse now. The people did not like that at all and they decided to split the kingdom. The LORD was not happy either and told Rehoboam that because he had dealt so despicably with His people, the kingdom would be torn away from him.
I am reminded of the LORD telling Solomon that He would take the kingdom from him, but not during his lifetime. I believe Rehoboam was told that none of his house would remain- the men would be eaten by dogs on the road or birds in the field. Actually there have been a few that He said it would be taken from their line, but not in their lifetime.
There was also a prophet that was given a message by the LORD but he was told not to eat or drink anything in the location he was going to give the message. The first prophet was going to follow through with that directive but then another prophet came after him and falsely told him that a message from the LORD had come to him that contradicted the original message. So the first prophet turned in with the second, ate some bread and drank. The LORD said, since you've gone against what I told you, you're going to die and your bones will not be laid to rest with your fathers. It happened just as was said: a lion attacked him and killed him. A donkey and the lion stood over the body as people passed by. The lying prophet heard that he'd been killed and came to collect his remains. He laid them in his own burial and told his son that when his turn came to die that his bones were to be buried alongside the bones of this first prophet.
Rehoboam had a son that was fallen ill. He told his wife to disguise herself and go to a prophet/seer to ask if the boy would survive. The LORD told the prophet/seer that she was coming, and disguised, and to relay the message that the son would die as soon as her feet went back into the house. It happened just as he said it would.
Another from the Parents' Review Articles 'archive' - still working on the subject of science. Over at the AmblesideOnline Fo...
