Summary is, as always, near the bottom.
To begin this post, here is an interesting idea: In older time periods, being a scribe - or knowing how to read and write at all - was considered an adult occupation, one that might well require a lengthy apprenticeship and which was a rare, extremely difficult task. Now, however, we expect each and every ten year old to read and write at least competently. Even with available training, learning to be a scribe was a long process fit only for the most skilled.
What is the difference between literacy as the rare province of extremely skilled adults, and literacy as a requirement for young children? The only two are the amount of time they can spend learning and expectations - and scribes got more time to learn, since it was an apprenticeship!
Expectations shape our lives, including mine; growing up as part of the family that has had historically good education and a love of reading has given me an inclination towards the same. On a more embarrassing note, I enjoy puns because I couldn't get away from them - and some of them were actually pretty good. And as an even less orthodox example, it was implicitly assumed that I would avoid Swarthmore because members of my family have gone there - but as I looked at it more, I've decided to apply vigorously.
Expectations fit in well with the Nature vs. Nurture debates - consider that we've discovered many genes that appear to influence traits in other animals, and to some extent in humans. Those can't be said to be expectations in the normal sense, since they're determined more or less randomly; people may choose to marry for good traits, but the chaotic mess of genes in even one person is extremely unlikely to be a perfect indicator for any single trait.
In contrast to that, we have the above example - is it likely that in that short amount of time, our entire gene pool has somehow changed to make us much smarter (and, note, very little else) - which should preclude geniuses spread throughout history, but instead indicate a steadily increasing number. Despite that, we have such people as Leonardo Da Vinci, who falls before that jump.
For the summary; Expectations shape our lives. They are not the sole determinants of our fate, but they light a path for us - it is possible, but much less likely, that we charge off into the darkness, especially if the lit path is one we like.
Comments: Please do! I feel this post to be a bit lacking.
No tropes today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posted by Rawson for Billie
ReplyDeletere: Expectations 10/11
i wonder -- was it just made “seemingly” hard because it was a “special” job -- so needed to be MADE to seem special, just as only a few got to be lords and ladies?
i wonder -- was it just that people had not “got into”
reading and writing because no “easy access”? -- again, keeping the place special, but also not really available to many until the invention of the printing press?
i wonder -- were those who etched out the drawings and glyphs on the Egyptian steles and tablets seen as special? certainly the Book of the Dead was writ by “special ones” as it is actually the scribing of the experiences of those who dared to become priests in Egyptian terms.
and one thing lost with the printing press; did you know that most people could quote a sermon word for word after hearing it in the years before the printing press? at that time in Europe and probably British Isles most everyone went to church, and no print meant their memories were more enabled, just as a blind person begins to know how to “see” with other senses.
you got me thinking and remembering, as usual, o philosopher!!
Interesting point about remembering a sermon; They had no way to recall it EXCEPT to remember, and the strict religious bent of society meant that they certainly paid attention. I don't think it's been lost, though... Like a person who isn't blind, our hearing is no worse, but since we have other paths, we simply don't use it as much. A skill, you might call it, which brings up the interesting point of what would happen if we put more emphasis on hearing in our culture (such as a language based on subtle tones.) Would we simply learn how to recognize those sounds, or whould our hearing be better-used overall - and would our eyesight suffer?
ReplyDelete