Discuss:Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy:Learning-Teaching Dynamic In Friendships
From da Vinci Concept
Contents |
Learning-Teaching Dynamic In Friendships
macrocosm - Thu Dec 16 9:56:08 2004
Let us begin an analysis of learning-teaching dynamics present in friendships. Let us conceptualize a friendship which does not necessary include symmetry between the respective friends (that is symmetry in regards to learning and teaching). Firstly, what constitutes symmetry and from what do we determine whether or not a form of friendship in which learning-teaching is symmetric between friends is better or worse than alternative forms which do not include such symmetry?
Before allowing responses to populate this thread, allow elaboration on what is meant by symmetry broadly:
A relationship in which both parties accept the teachings of the other. Further, a relationship whereby such teachings are rarely one-sided.
For each situation, regardless of whether one party (friend A) may be an expert on the subject at hand, the other party (friend B) does not assume that friend A knows everything in respect to that subject (or anything else for that matter). If friend B, by logical means, comes to alternative conclusions than friend A, despite friend A's expert status, Friend A remains throughout the resulting discourse open to the opinions and understandings of Friend B.
Moreover, should the fact that A and B are friends have any weight on whether symmetry in the learning-teaching dynamic is a good thing? (A "good thing" being in this case an optimum arrangement whereby progress can be made toward some goal or securing of some set of values/principles specified or implicitly understood and agreed upon by both parties.)
[ Edited ]
--macrocosm Thu Dec 16 9:56:08 2004
henrik - Sat Dec 18 16:20:35 2004
If I understand you correctly you are asking three different questions...
1) What is symmetry in the Learning/Teaching process?
2) Is symmetry good for friendships?
3) Does friendship enhance the benefits of having symmetry in the Learning?Teaching process?
Concerning 1...
If I had to guess out of context what "symmetry" in the Language/Teaching process was, I would guess it to be referring to a similar level of expertise of the participants.
However, from the discussion you had about "symmetry", this is clearly NOT what you meant. Rather, your notion of "symmetry" is more akin to a relationship of mutual open-mindedness toward the ideas and reasoning process of the other person. I would prefer to use ther term "open-mindedness" rather than "symmetry", but I will respect the terminology you have created and assume that everybody participating in the thread is using the term "symmetry" to refer to this sort of mutual open-mindedness.
Concerning 2...
Yes, I believe symmetry is beneficial to friendships. I find it difficult to imagine a functioning friendship in which one or both of the parties were closed-minded toward each other.
Concerning 3...
I think that friendship enhances the Learning/Teaching because we usually take interest in what our friends take interest. After all, this is one of the reasons we chose these people to be our friends in the first place. Moreover, as mentioned in 2, friendships require symmetry to function properly, which sets the stage for an adequate Learning/Teaching experience.
I don't think friendship is a pre-requiste L/T.
I do think symmetry is a pre-requisite for L/T.
However, it seems that if you are in a L/T situation that has symmetry with someone who you don't consider to be your friend, you are probably not too far away from establishing a friendship with this person if you tried.
--henrik Sat Dec 18 16:20:35 2004
macrocosm - Sat Dec 18 19:52:28 2004
I thank you, Henrik, for your thoughtful reply, and allow me to clarify what precisely I am asking and so forth:
1. I will clarify my terminology by stating symmetry in the particular context to which I use the term henceforth to mean symmetry in open-mindedness between involved parties (friends in this case). Open-mindedness refers in this case to one's receptiveness to another's opinions, conclusions, self-discovered facts, interrogations of previously made conclusions and understood truths (regardless of source: whether one or the other friend), and so forth.
In other words, Henrik gleaned most accurately my meaning in using the term symmetry and I only further clarify by adding to the batter the "interrogation" ingredient. By this I mean a dynamic whereby both parties, having a discussion on topic X, both are receptive to each other's interrogations of the other's conclusions and assumptions etc., regardless of whether one or the other is considered an expert is regards to topic X. In this dynamic, friend A does not assume friend B knows not of what he speaks, nor does he assume himself superior to friend B in these discussions. I see, personally, such assumptions as component elements of arrogance.
"I don't think friendship is a pre-requiste L/T. "
2. Q: I would certainly think not, but more the question I was seeking to ask is whether symmetry is a prereq. to L/T processes in which the participants are friends. Is it necessary, benefitial, or would you say neither?
"I do think symmetry is a pre-requisite for L/T."
3. I guess this answers the above question but I will leave it for others. Q: Regardless of whether they are friends?
"friendships require symmetry to function properly"
4. Why?
5. If friend A is an expert in relation to topic X, and friend B is not but has a basic understanding of either topic X or the analytical framework from which friend A ("the expert") is perceiving and examining topic X (or particular subsets thereof), is it warranted for friend A to take offense or react viscerally to friend B's interrogation (vigorous questioning) of A's various conclusions?
To fabricate further context, let us say that A and B are discussing topic X for the purposes of achieve some agreed upon goal, Z. Say also that friend B has made it clear (through verbal statements) that he/she/it does not pursue debates for the egotistical purposes, but instead to learn (and through such a processs(es) to hopefully teach as well) and progress toward the stated goal.
Are reactionary behaviors from friend A then henceforth warranted/acceptable?
More specifically, say a misunderstanding takes place between A and B in regards to some aspect of topic X. Say also that this aspect of topic X was previously discussed and information pertaining to it was transfered from A to B (info D). Should B, A being the expert, defer to A in the sense that when a misunderstanding takes place, B must assume that he/she is the one who misunderstood (entirely so) and that friend A made no mistake in respect to how A communicated info D to friend B?
I will leave it at that for now, will add more (and similarly revelant threads) to this discussion later. Please excuse any grammatical errors as I am time strapped and typed this up rather rapidly. Thank you.
--macrocosm Sat Dec 18 19:52:28 2004
henrik - Sun Dec 19 9:03:35 2004
I do think symmetry is a pre-requisite for L/T.
Q: Regardless of whether they are friends?
Yes, I think symmetry is a pre-requisite for an effective L/T process regardless of whether the participants are friends. I don't really see why you might consider it important to distinguish between situations with friends and with non-friends.
Friendships require symmetry to function properly.
Why?
Perhaps, this statement is not quite true in full generality.
For example, I find it reasonable to say that certain people have established friendships with pets such as cats. Yet, it is unlikely you are engaging with your cat in any type of intellectual or L/T process that would require symmetry in the relationship. Moreover, I am willing to assume that we can generalize this to some extent to cases of friendships with other human beings. In other words, it does not seem completely implausible to have a human friend with whom you hardly ever engage with in an L/T setting and thus symmetry is not really that relevant. Perhaps you and your friend enjoy going to drink beers with each other but you mutually think that the other person is a fool and you both have very little interest and respect for the ideas of the other person. The friendship would be based in a sense of companionship without symmetry.
However, the moment you start engaging with your friend in any type of activity that has elements of an L/T process (chess, soccer, conversing...), then suddenly symmetry becomes highly relevant for a proper functioning of the friendship.
Given that in most human friendships people interact in an L/T setting at some point or another, it is also the case that in most human friendships, symmetry is a necessary component to make the friendship work.
More specifically, say a misunderstanding takes place between A and B in regards to some aspect of topic X. Say also that this aspect of topic X was previously discussed and information pertaining to it was transfered from A to B (info D). Should B, A being the expert, defer to A in the sense that when a misunderstanding takes place, B must assume that he/she is the one who misunderstood (entirely so) and that friend A made no mistake in respect to how A communicated info D to friend B?
I think that in this situation, B must first consider the possibility that he did not understand something properly about info D. If after seriously considering the possibility that he misunderstood D, B still cannot find a way in which to reinterpret information D according to his own understanding that would allow him to reach the same conclusions that A is reaching, then he must ask questions to A regarding the reasoning process that allowed A to reach those conclusions. At some point or another in this questioning process, it should become clear that there is either an underlying assumption with which the two parties disagree or there is an inference step in the reasoning process with which the two parties disagree.
--henrik Sun Dec 19 9:03:35 2004
macrocosm - Sun Dec 19 18:44:29 2004
"...then he must ask questions to A regarding the reasoning process that allowed A to reach those conclusions. At some point or another in this questioning process..."
What if A is resistant to the questioning process? What if A holds the notion that he/she could not have possibly communicated something contradictory to what was intended to be communicated and to what is presently believed by A? What if, even, A maintains such certainty despite the fact that A does not remember what precisely he/she relayed to B (info D). What if info D is in no written form, there are merely two memories of what info D might have been, one held by A (weak state, but backed by A's certainty on what he/she would have said) and the other by B (medium-state but backed by B's certainty in regards to particular associations)?
--macrocosm Sun Dec 19 18:44:29 2004
henrik - Tue Dec 21 9:55:19 2004
| What if A is resistant to the questioning process? What if A holds the notion that he/she could not have possibly communicated something contradictory to what was intended to be communicated and to what is presently believed by A? |
| -- macrocosm |
If A is resistant to the questioning process, then A is not really interested in the common goal of better understanding Z together. Even if A is not at fault in the sense that A was absolutely clear and it was B who misunderstood information D, A is at fault for resisting the questioning process.
If A were interested in the common goal of better understanding Z together, then A would not mind spending some time discovering what assumption or what inference step B did not understand.
--henrik Tue Dec 21 9:55:19 2004
macrocosm - Tue Dec 21 10:08:39 2004
You and I are in complete agreement in these respects. I thank you for a wonderful discourse.
--macrocosm Tue Dec 21 10:08:39 2004
