Any ideas?

[Dick Smith]

No, to tell people that is to allow them to have unrealistic aspirations, which are corrosive. There has to be ability as well.

The trick is to know what people's potential actually is, which may involve setting them tasks they fail, but preparing them for the possibility of that failure, and to understand that performance is task-related.

[Meg]

Dick doesn't ability develop through commitment and passion of doing something? Isn't it that which drives people to learn and progress? To think someone has a set amount of potential is wrong, in my opinion.

I believe people can do anything if they really put their heart and soul into it.

[Dick Smith]

A blind man can never see colours. Potential is limited, that's what the word means. Even an Einstein or Da Vinci has limitations.

Believe me, there are people who are unable to do things they want to do. I would agree that there are not as many as there seem to be at first sight, and that passion and commitment can move mountains, but to tell people they can do anything they want, when they can't, is cruel.

[Meg]

Ok, i take your point.

People sometimes give up too easily, believing they can't do something.

Why is it cruel?

Edit: Do you think that, If some people didn't believe anything was possible, they wouldn't bother trying it and therefore discovery, invention and creation would be limited??

Also is there some confusion here between unlikely and impossible?

[Jonzjob]

Hi Dick, still here, just enjoying the lovely weather here in the Aude. Well I would if it would stop raining!! Not sure what it's called on a guitar, but on a violin it's called perfulling (sorry I have not the faintest idea of the spelling?). I have watched a mate of mine making a violin and the perfulling is a work of art in it's own right. It isn't there for decoration, it strengthens the edge of the instrument, but still looks wonderful!!

Chris, the idea behind cutting and putting it back together again is that you can cut the slots acurately. Then you put it back exactly as it was and do the carving. It is still one piece of wood [8-|]... But the CDs will fit properly.

I would also guess that you don't want the holes right through for 2 reasons  1. the CDs would be able to fall right through and   2. the slots would be deeper than the 5 1/2 inch depth of the CD case... (OK 14 cm if you want forigne measurements. After all a meter is only a yard with 10% inflation![:-))]?).

[Dick Smith]

Meg, I see the cruelty of it in this way.

If I tell a kid they can do anything they want, they just have to try hard enough, that has to be based on my assessment of whether or not they actually have the capability to do what they desire. If I think that the kid can't do it, but encourage them anyway, that is first of all dishonest, but is also setting them up for failure and disappointment when their belief is tested. And that failure can be crushing, I don't want to do that to anybody, not even - well, never mind that for the moment.

Better to guide that person to do things by stages, to achieve what they can achieve and then assess whether or not they can go further. What Lev Vygotsky called assessing the zone of proximal development, which is knowing where you are, knowing what the next step would be and how to make it. That takes people a very long way, in most cases. It's also to do with sensible target setting and planning development.

But there are some people who are limited in some ways. It is heartbreaking to see someone trying their hardest in the belief that they will achieve some goal when you know that however hard they work they won't make the standard they want to. Much better to let them down gently and guide them into areas where they CAN succeed.

[Chris Head]

The blind were unable to read until someone with commitment and endeavour created braille.

This whole thing about ability is very confusing. How do you measure it? How does one know what abilities one has unless you push yourself to the very limits...and then beyond? Ok, you might fail or lose confidence along the way, but you pick yourself up, identify what went wrong and hit harder next time until you get it right. That saying about 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration isn't too far out in my book. One of the words my two boys dare not say in front of me by now is, CAN'T. Really, within the context of what we're talking about....anything is possible, putting imaginary blocks in front of one where they don't necessarily exist isn't the way forward.

Chris, the idea behind cutting and putting it back together again is that you can cut the slots acurately. Then you put it back exactly as it was and do the carving. It is still one piece of wood ... But the CDs will fit properly.

JJ, I really appreciate the time you've taken to help out. It has to be from one piece, of course it would be easier to make it from sections but that wouldn't be the right thing to do.

[Meg]

Dick, i don't know how this all differs when comparing adults and children, the intellectual versus the artistic.

But in this context i feel you do have to believe anything is possible. Unlike academic subjects there are no rights or wrongs. The only failure is when you fail yourself, you are your own examiner, teacher, critic, judge or whatever.

Something could be highly unlikely, but is anything actually impossible?

[Chris Head]

Good stuff Moggy.

Without meaning to be condescending, I'll bet the 'I only have so much ability' brigade never really tested themselves to the hilt. In some ways, failure is something to be aspired to because it teaches you, if you're willing to learn?

but is anything actually impossible

Who knows? I guess the worst that can happen is that it goes wrong and you have to try again.

[Dick Smith]

Chris - you are being confrontational without really understanding what I am saying. But what I am saying is fairly complex.

It is simply not true that anyone can do anything they want. That is common sense. To promise people that is lying to them. That can lead to cruel outcomes and frustration which could have been avoided.

That people can do vastly more than many of them believe I have no problem with. But I'd develop that idea and say that many people can develop unexpected skills and talents if suitably committed, often to a very high degree.

What we are actually talking about are people who are limited by ability or by physical characteristics. Some people are, and that is undeniable. It is not doing those people a favour just to feed them a simplistic line of 'you can do it if you try'. Wjat does them a favour is careful coaching and observation to establish where their zone of proximal development actually is.

No-one's true potential is known until they are in their zone of ultimate development (I made that part up - Vygotsky doesn't really discuss this). In order to find that they have to be in the company of someone who has been through their ultimate zone and progressed further than they have. That is why Vygotsky stresses that all learning happens in a social context.

[YCCMB]

Out of curiosity, if you're doing something subjective, or creative, how do you know when you've failed and who is actually setting the parameters for success? If you're doing creative work and you are the one setting yourself a challenge and defining the success parameters, only you are judging whether what you've set out to achieve or accomplish is successful or not. How can you be sure just how great the challenge was in the first place if you're both setting it and executing it?

[Chris Head]

I must admit Dick that I don't understand much of your reasoning, my instincts are that that you're quoting from an intellectual viewpoint and findind many reasons to limitation. The context of the thread is pretty specific, it's about you and people like you, and how you move your skills forward. It's not about what the textbook says, it's about you venturing into my world. You're already making major errors in that you're trying to logicise and quantify, when in fact your best ally is your heart and your soul, f**k what happened at school today or your stress levels, it's not important. Just open your mind up and lose control for a while? Do you ever get crazy? And I mean really crazy? Why don't you come here, let me give you a razor sharp axe and we could smash the living daylights out of some logs? I do, it's sooo refreshing!

That is why Vygotsky stresses that all learning happens in a social context.

That is such a load of bollox. There was nothing social about my learning curve, everything I have learned has been self taught, nobody ever showed me a thing, my passion and conviction carries me through, just as it has carried you through your carreer. Honestly Dick, you can do it. If it has to be within a social context then consider the offer made.

 

[Meg]

Such a fab question Betty.

For me i've never actually considered trying to define it, it's just a kind of instinct and you just know. Same as the idea or concept that arrives in the first place, it just happens for a variety of reasons.

Hummm you've got me thinking.........

[Dick Smith]

[quote user="Chris Head"]

That is why Vygotsky stresses that all learning happens in a social context.

That is such a load of bollox. There was nothing social about my learning curve, everything I have learned has been self taught, nobody ever showed me a thing, my passion and conviction carries me through, just as it has carried you through your carreer. Honestly Dick, you can do it. If it has to be within a social context then consider the offer made.

 

[/quote]

This is actually what Betty's question refers to. Vygotsky says, and I agree with him, that learning is not something that can be done outside of the real world - he is with Kant on that one. Reason alone is not enough. Learning is an activity which has to involve others (social context) who may be those who have greater levels of understanding or skill than the learner and who instruct, or model in order to move that learner from their 'comfort zone' into a zone where they are undertaking new activities (physical or mental) which the master over time. I think you'll find that's exactly what you mean by teaching and learning. After a certain level the individual enters a higher stage in which they may create the unique and never-before-done. That is where you find your gifted individuals up to geniuses. As I said earlier, reaching this stage does not require massive abilities, but it does require creativity and task commitment (passion).

All I am saying is that we shouldn't promise everyone that they will reach that stage - because not everyone will.

[Meg]

It's not about promising anyone anything. It's about having belief in yourself, and a belief that nothing is impossible if you really want to achieve it. That has to come from within, not by someone telling you it. It's not about trying to fool or trick others .  I disagree about learning needs to be in a social context, as far as this topic is concerned anyway. Maybe for other subjects yes, but we are not talking about them.

[Unknown]

You are all off your trolleys.

[YCCMB]

Meg, just a supplementary thought. Chris believes that in this instance and in this context ( i.e. the thing he's trying to make), it can be done. He has set himself the challenge to do it and defined the parameters within which he wants to achieve the task. However, he's come on here to ask for advice, suggestions or ideas. Isn't this a social context? Sorry, absolutely no intention of trying to be a smart***e, but coming on here just seems to me to be as much about asking for suggestions, help, call it what you will, as any other sort of learning experience which is not necessarily abstract or creative. Even the self-taught sometimes do, consciously or unconsciously, learn from others................

[Dick Smith]

No, honestly, all learning is in a social context. I don't mean it has to be done in the presence of other people, but in a context where social values apply, where there is feedback, where the learning serves a purpose within a society and so on. It means that learning means something rather than nothing. What Chris is doing is very thoroughly in a social context - if for no other reason that he uses it as an example of his knowledge in social settings like this forum. It's a matter of definitions, perhaps, but it certainly isn't bollox!

Self-guided learning requires the explicit acceptance of the zone of proximal development - "I know what I want to do, and I mostly know how to do it, and I can draw on previous experience, creativity and guided experimentation to develop my skills until I can do it well enough to satisfy the standard I have set for myself". Of course, when that skill has been mastered the gifted learner sees the way through to the next stage and applies the same process. It is analagous to scientific or technical discovery, artists developing new schools, philosophers finding new answers to old problems.

Tell you what, I'll hold a seminar!

Actually, I did, for senior civil servants. One of them told me afterwards that after working in education for 20 years he had just achieved an understanding of the teaching and learning process! But it took all day.

edit - correct, Betty, well put.

[Meg]

Yes fair point Betty. Yes it is good to have other peoples influences and other ideas.  Learning in this creative sense comes from everywhere, everything you see or do. And also people you talk to. But for example the actual process of making, i feel can possibly be best done alone, where you are free to explore the material without anyone telling you how it should be done. And learning form your own mistakes.

Edit, Dick i like the idea of a seminar though!

[YCCMB]

Kolb's learning cycle........that's where I was coming from. Nothing quite as sophisticated as Kant or Vygotsky, but even though it's possibly flawed, it seems to follow the same basic principles you're talking about, Dick. And Meg, it assumes experiential learning, which is exactly what you're talking about. But then, for me, Dick isn't saying anything that doesn't fit in either an academic or an artistic context.

[Chris Head]

Out of curiosity, if you're doing something subjective, or creative, how do you know when you've failed and who is actually setting the parameters for success?

You set the parameters Betty, and people like you. You're the consumer and buy what people like me make. I do it and you like it or not. JKs honesty is rare, but valuable.

learning is not something that can be done outside of the real world

What does that mean Dick? What's the real world? Your's is 40 hours plus of the UK education system, mine is achieving deadlines, creating, paying my social charges, researching and developing. I just wish you could drop the guard for a wee while and open yourself up to what's available to you.

The spirit of the post has moved somewhat but it's still great stuff!

[TWINKLE]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]Out of curiosity, if you're doing something subjective, or creative, how do you know when you've failed and who is actually setting the parameters for success? If you're doing creative work and you are the one setting yourself a challenge and defining the success parameters, only you are judging whether what you've set out to achieve or accomplish is successful or not. How can you be sure just how great the challenge was in the first place if you're both setting it and executing it?[/quote]

I can't speak for Chris or Lou - but for me when a person listening to me singing has tears in their eyes or happiness on their faces, then I've probably succeeded and the fact that others feel the same way I do then that's a nice bonus.

If there are people who like your work they will tell you about it and the same goes for the people who don't like what you do.  Whether other peoples reactions are positive or negative - they shouldn't really matter to an artist.  He/she does what they feel is right for them and at the end of a project/song/sculpture when they finally make it to the end result, they have succeeded.  

Succeeding is staying loyal to their idea and not geting sidetracked by what the neighbour/friend/agent prefers. 

[Dick Smith]

No, you're getting me all wrong.

Kant objected to a view of knowledge which said that everything could be known by reason alone (hence his greatest work 'The Critique of Pure Reason). He said that knowledge was acquired by experience, or partly so.

Vygotsky adds in some human imagination and creativity. We need to use reason (as in "I know I can do this, so if I act in this way I can do something I have never done before") as well as experience ("If I put together these three techniques/bits of knowledge or whatever I will have something which is new and not the sum of the parts).

You think I am hiding or repressing something - I'm not - it's knowing and using these ideas that give me a creative buzz! This is what I do - I take this knowledge and use to to design lessons and schemes of work, to train other people, to develop my craft. I use plenty of creativity in that, it is liberating - just not something that you would be happy doing! That isn't a criticism, people are different, that's all. I think I serve a useful purpose.

I'm not sure that the spirit of the thread has moved, we are now discussing processes and how we think our way through them. That is a recognised activity of the talented - it's called metacognition, thinking about how you think, After all, footballers think about how they score goals and chainsaw artists think about how they make eagles with CD racks in them!

[Meg]

Yep, agreed Twinks.

[YCCMB]

[quote user="Chris Head"]

Out of curiosity, if you're doing something subjective, or creative, how do you know when you've failed and who is actually setting the parameters for success?

You set the parameters Betty, and people like you. You're the consumer and buy what people like me make. I do it and you like it or not. JKs honesty is rare, but valuable.

[/quote]

But Chris, that assumes a commercial motive. So, another question: which is the most important challenge? The challenge to produce something saleable, the challenge to produce something creatively satisfying, or the challenge to achieve both together? And when/where would you compromise? Thing is, there are lots of people who do creative stuff which isn't done with any commercial aim in mind. Does this prevent them or restrict them in respect of the extent to which they challenge themselves? After all, they've possibly got no-one to please but themselves. So where's the incentive to push or stretch themselves?

 

Edit: If I'm reading correctly, Twinks and Meg, you seem to disagree with what Chris is saying here.....or at least, see it a bit differently