I think there is a bit of cognitive dissonance hiding out in the barracks here. This took me a while to figure out. Hence the issue of cognitive dissonance.
A lot of middle-class white kids still seem to think that abstract subjects such as communications and philosophy demand *more* rigorous brain power than the concrete discourses of science and mathematics.
[[[[dutiful, honor, loyalty,, being true to ::as in not swaying being weak:: steadfast heartiness]]]] [[[[attention, servitude__]]] steadfastness
It appears that this is their only takeaway upon having a cursory grazing with any one of the mathematics, science, technology, or engineering fields. They think that because this deals in facts, absolutes, and practical matter, that this is not a worthy challenge to grasp.
In the field of physics, there is such a thing as a right or wrong answer. It either is or it isn't. That is because it is a concrete, solid discipline.
Whereas regarding the liberal arts are more wishy-washy, flowy, fluid, elusive__[[[how describing Egyptian gods]]]]
Thereby middle-class white kids interpret the liberal arts, by dint of this difficulty to pin down, as being automatically more demanding of intellectual vigor. [[[intelligence, thinking, etc]]] Back in the '90s, I had also read about some supermodel person that was studying psychology. She picked that major specifically because she had heard it was tremendously difficult.
And they think that the concrete sciences, because those deal in facts, somehow require less cerebellar devotion. "How intellectually stimulating could it possibly be?" How much further of a higher order, how many [[orders]]] of magnitude of evolutional development could it possibly take up?"
"Oh well it is__
[[[dedication, intellectual demand, devotion, focus]]]
"So how [[[lofty]]] could it possibly be??
Even I once fell for this, but only briefly and shallowly, thank goodness.
For a brief moment, I pondered this. I doubted my own choice of major in Biochemistry. (For the record, I was originally Microbiology but later switched to Biochemistry.) I seriously considered that notion for a few moments-- that a liberal arts major might truly be harder to complete than a major in math or science. Could it be? Is Psychology perhaps more difficult than Biochemistry?
I even tried to justify this somehow. Due to my scientific nature, I always try to find a reasonable explanation for everything. I tried to make sense of this notion that was put forth.
I came up with something that sort of fit the bill. I thought, hmm, perhaps... maybe because, because psychology is a lot of interpretation of situations. There is no definite right or wrong answer, which is what we hear in popular culture all the time. Therefore perhaps a scholar of this field would have to try extra hard to defend their stance on a topic.
Perhaps the following is applicable. I came up with a quote that sounded like wisdom worthy of any plaque that one might hang on a wall. "The level of difficulty of a subject is determined by the following: what percentage of it *can* be taught inside the classroom, as opposed to what percentage of it *cannot* be taught inside the classroom."
Sounds pretty inspirational and lofty, doesn't it? I certainly thought so. The percentage aspect applies accurately to the instances of math/science fields versus psychology/philosophy/etc.
But hang on second.
A lot of middle-class white kids still seem to think that abstract subjects such as communications and philosophy demand *more* rigorous brain power than the concrete discourses of science and mathematics.
[[[[dutiful, honor, loyalty,, being true to ::as in not swaying being weak:: steadfast heartiness]]]] [[[[attention, servitude__]]] steadfastness
It appears that this is their only takeaway upon having a cursory grazing with any one of the mathematics, science, technology, or engineering fields. They think that because this deals in facts, absolutes, and practical matter, that this is not a worthy challenge to grasp.
In the field of physics, there is such a thing as a right or wrong answer. It either is or it isn't. That is because it is a concrete, solid discipline.
Whereas regarding the liberal arts are more wishy-washy, flowy, fluid, elusive__[[[how describing Egyptian gods]]]]
Thereby middle-class white kids interpret the liberal arts, by dint of this difficulty to pin down, as being automatically more demanding of intellectual vigor. [[[intelligence, thinking, etc]]] Back in the '90s, I had also read about some supermodel person that was studying psychology. She picked that major specifically because she had heard it was tremendously difficult.
And they think that the concrete sciences, because those deal in facts, somehow require less cerebellar devotion. "How intellectually stimulating could it possibly be?" How much further of a higher order, how many [[orders]]] of magnitude of evolutional development could it possibly take up?"
"Oh well it is__
[[[dedication, intellectual demand, devotion, focus]]]
"So how [[[lofty]]] could it possibly be??
Even I once fell for this, but only briefly and shallowly, thank goodness.
For a brief moment, I pondered this. I doubted my own choice of major in Biochemistry. (For the record, I was originally Microbiology but later switched to Biochemistry.) I seriously considered that notion for a few moments-- that a liberal arts major might truly be harder to complete than a major in math or science. Could it be? Is Psychology perhaps more difficult than Biochemistry?
I even tried to justify this somehow. Due to my scientific nature, I always try to find a reasonable explanation for everything. I tried to make sense of this notion that was put forth.
I came up with something that sort of fit the bill. I thought, hmm, perhaps... maybe because, because psychology is a lot of interpretation of situations. There is no definite right or wrong answer, which is what we hear in popular culture all the time. Therefore perhaps a scholar of this field would have to try extra hard to defend their stance on a topic.
Perhaps the following is applicable. I came up with a quote that sounded like wisdom worthy of any plaque that one might hang on a wall. "The level of difficulty of a subject is determined by the following: what percentage of it *can* be taught inside the classroom, as opposed to what percentage of it *cannot* be taught inside the classroom."
Sounds pretty inspirational and lofty, doesn't it? I certainly thought so. The percentage aspect applies accurately to the instances of math/science fields versus psychology/philosophy/etc.
But hang on second.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment