busyAnd I was just ... bewildered. It would never have occurred to me, growing up, that not knowing the words in a book might be considered a reason to stop reading the book. If the subject interested me, and I had to trot to the dictionary a second or third time, I simply lugged the dictionary back and plunked it next to the book, and alternated between the two. I have some early memories of doing that, but probably not past 8 or so. I was reading at the adult level at least by the time I was 6, possibly earlier. My vocabulary got so big, so fast, that it quickly became rare for me to find new words unless I went entirely outside my knowledge sphere. That was actually part of the reason for me bookworming my way through a substantial portion of the Danville public library in junior high and early high school, new-word-hunger. (I can understand that it wouldn't be prudent to force someone to read a book that they couldn't understand, but frankly, I never saw concern about that; if a book was assigned, you had better handle it, and if you couldn't, tough. The only books anyone ever tried to take away from me were ones I'd picked out myself.) The books that fascinate me the most are the ones that take me into new territory.
Neither would it have occurred to me to abandon a book just because it was hard to understand. If the topic was interesting, I would reread challenging sections, or look for other references and then come back to see if the hard one made more sense, or ask my parents for an explanation, or find some adult who knew about that topic and pester them (not excepting total strangers, at times).
I can even remember that kind of persistence with a few fiction books, that I just couldn't get into but for some reason seemed like they ought to be interesting. Some became interesting later; others never did. But really, there are only two things that have a high likelihood of bouncing me out of a book: it's badly written and/or it bores me. It's possible for a book to be so far over my head that I have no interest in it, but the percentage of recognized words and concepts has to be minute and far from anything I might find useful. I have puzzled my way through a page or few of writing in languages I'm not even fluent in just for the fun of hunting for English borrowings or words that are close enough to some other language or root-word for me to recognize them.
This illuminates for me some of the reasons why I'm so different from most people, if those leveling techniques are at all common as they are described to be. There is my innate fascination with words, which causes unfamiliar words to be attractive rather than off-putting. There is the looping effect of seeking books to explain things I've encountered elsewhere, and seeking people to explain books. There is the context that my parents let me read whatever I wanted, whether it was at an "appropriate" level or not; and my disgust and outrage at other adults who occasionally tried to part me from books they considered inappropriate. I think anyone with an indelible attraction to words will tend to develop a larger vocabulary, even in the absence of outside encouragement; that anyone in a supportive environment will tend to develop a larger vocabulary than they would on their own, even if they aren't especially interested in words; and that combining the two probably accounts for many of the people with the largest vocabularies. There's logic to that, when you look for it.
But still, it seems utterly alien to me that not knowing the words in a book, or not immediately understanding its content, would be reasons to put it down.
Hmm...
February 14 2009, 22:28:11 UTC 12 years ago
I've seen that too. If something is just hopelessly out of reach, yes, it tends to be boring. But I think a lot of the problem is that many students aren't taught how to figure things out. They don't know how to move themselves from not understanding to understanding. They're mostly trained for passive absorption. That's useless unless the input is excellent, and most of it is mediocre or worse. You have to know things like:
If you don't understand it the first time, reread or replay it.
If you still don't understand, check the resource for explanatory materials such as a glossary, FAQ, index, etc.
If the resource doesn't pan out, check another handy resource such as a dictionary, encyclopedia, easier-level material on same topic, etc. and/or ask the nearest person if they can shed some light on it.
If those fail, the material is a serious challenge, and library research or expert consultation may be needed.
Plus general preparation:
Keep a dictionary, thesaurus, encyclopedia, and other useful reference books handy.
Know where to find references you don't personally own.
Know which people around you are experienced with what topics, who is good at explaining things clearly, and who is patient enough to answer questions without snapping.
Know how to take notes or mark up a text to facilitate later investigation.
Be willing to ask questions, go over things repeatedly, or otherwise pursue exploration if the topic is worthy of it.
The other day I was having supper with family, some of whose computer expertise greatly exceeds my own. I mentioned something or other about blogging, and it was pointed out to me that I was raising a topic that was liable to wind up going over my head. I said, "How am I ever going to learn more about this if I never discuss it with people who know more about it than I do?" So the conversation continued, and yeah, some of it was over my head, but I still learned from it.
I can talk -- and mostly listen -- about space exploration with real rocket scientists, and hold my ground. Sometimes it's a fairly equal discussion; often it consists of me asking a question or two and then just sitting there with my ears wide open.
I actually have a rule for panel topics, that when I reach a point sitting in the audience that I have as much to say on the matter as the panelists themselves do, it's time for me to move to the other side of that table.
Re: Hmm...
February 14 2009, 22:44:29 UTC 12 years ago
I'm not sure how much of this is because, for some people, difficult thinking is never fun, and how much is foolish stuff we're saddled with as kids.
Re: Hmm...
February 14 2009, 23:32:13 UTC 12 years ago
I suspect it's a combination of both. For some people, thought challenges will never be fun, any more than physical exertion is capable of being fun for me. But if you know an activity's equivalent of warmup exercises and performance-boosting tricks, you can get a lot farther with whatever you have than without those things.
Much of what is taught in schools today is taught badly and/or is largely irrelevant to everyday life -- wholly irrelevant, in fact, if you don't know how to rig the connections. History, for example, influences everything and a knowledge of it can save your life. But if you don't know that what you're supposed to do with it is analyze patterns and compare them to current events, it's useless, because very few dayjobs require any knowledge of history.
Worse yet, almost all the training is for people to do everything alone, whether or not they're any good at it. In a real job, doing things right is almost always more important than doing them alone. How much damage and delay is caused by people not reading the directions or not asking for help, simply because they were trained throughout school that such things were "cheating" ...? They could look for a manual or ask a coworker, but a lot of times it isn't even a conscious decision; they simply don't think of doing such a thing because they had years of training in "do your own work."