Re: tagmemics -Reply

[bobbie silk <bsilk@keller.clarke.edu>]

Like Jeanne, I've used tagmemics when I've needed to think thoroughly
about something--particularly when I've needed to jar myself loose from a
narrow point of view on a complex issue (like the English curriculum).  Of
course, I'm pretty casual about some features of the grid and I don't do
ratios (or anything else that sounds like math).  But I'm quite sure our
students don't use tagmemics or even simpler invention heuristics.  From
their perspective, it just adds a step to a paper they're producing for a
grade.  They must be saving up all that thorough thinking for "the real
world."

This brings to mind an article I read 2 or 3 years ago.  I don't have the
full reference, but I could probably get it.  The title of the article was
something like, "Thinking is an Unnatural Act."  It presented an
interesting discussion of the thesis that the mental processes which made
human beings an exceptionally successful species in the wild are opposite
the critical thinking processes we demand from students.  For (crude)
example--if our hairy ancestor, in frustration, flailed at a bunch of
bananas with a stick and the bananas fell into his hands, then his future
success in similar situations would be based on the ability to generalize.
If a stick worked on bananas, it might work on coconuts.  Generalizing is
something the human brain does well--only look at the prevalence of
prejudice.  The neurological impulse is toward repetition of patterns.
When we ask for critical thinking--such as tagmemics demand--we are asking
students to contradict their neurological survival structures.

The article does give an interesting perspective on a behavior I might
have been more inclined to just identify as intellectual laziness.
I guess that'll teach me not to generalize.

  --Bobbie
    bsilk@keller.clarke.edu