Nomenclature is a major stumbling block in any study.
You need to know what the definition means, not just the definition itself.
As we move on we find there probably could have been better nomenclature, but by this time it's too late to change (inhibits comm., puts person with old terms out of comm.).
Those people are the authorities who can get results.
We don't use psychiatry's nomenclature as (a) they don't produce results so it's not really a terminology and (b) it would carry over into Scn. some of the failure of psychiatry.
Scn. has about 472 major technical terms, c.f. 20-40,000 in the medical vocabulary "of very peculiar words that don't mean a thing".
Terminologies have a social status - ease of use implies ability. Also a snob status - e.g. carnival terms are different than circus terms for the same things.
Use of terminology acts as a signal system between people of similar knowledge.
Normally, above the snob use of terminology in a profession, there is a "slanguage" of terms (i.e. it has become less serious) - e.g. organ designers have "firewood", "noises" and the "Blackpool snarl".
Scn. has short-circuited the "pompous" stage straight into "slang" terms.
If nomenclature is all-important, you don't know the subject.
You can have an instantaneous grasp of a definition or a "fumble" grasp (which isn't good enough!)
By not knowing the nomenclature you can form the opinion that you don't know the subject, or that there's something incomprehensible about the subject.
Before studying a page it would be smart to look it over and make a list of MUs, clear them up and then study the page.
There's a danger of being thought stupid for not knowing terms and you might become reluctant to find out their meanings. You might then pretend to know to preserve your status.
"One unknown piece of nomenclature left behind you can absolutely ruin your comprehension of the whole thing you're studying."
Clearing up Definitions appears to be the slow way of studying, but it's fastest in the long run.
Several things can get in the way of understanding an idea. One is that the idea is similar (but different) to something you already know so you read it as the already-known datum.
Another thing that can get in the way of understanding is that a datum is unbelievable. Make sure you know what you are unbelieving.
90% of unbelievables are cleared up by clearing the terminology and the thing itself and finding you're unbelieving the wrong thing.
The other 10% is normally handled by setting up examples of how it is and isn't that way; applying it to yourself and life to see how it fits, have you ever seen examples of it etc.
Bypassing definitions inhibits communication between you and the book, you and other auditors, you and the PC.
Having read a history textbook, if you want to know dates, look in the book!
When there is no training available, a fairly reliable method of study is to "cover everything in sight" - i.e. read all the books etc. that are available.
There are not "bright" and "dull" students, because this classification has not led to any results in producing bright or fast students. Instead, there are careful and careless students.
Learning is not remembering the text, as this includes no understanding or application. Rote learning can be detected by asking for the definitions of words.
A slow student also shows up this way - no understanding, can't define words.
Repeated clearing of a word will eventually make it no longer a barrier to comprehension - i.e. you get an instantaneous grasp of it.
With a full grasp of the nomenclature a person with a textbook knowledge of a subject should be able to apply it. He would then gain familiarity and so improve.
Even lack of knowledge of English falls under the banner of nomenclature.
Study is really the first place you fall down due to your small inabilities in language/nomenclature.
It's easy to disregard small not-knowns in language when you are relatively high on the scale of ability in that language.
No comments:
Post a Comment