Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Against "interesting"?

#1
C C Offline
https://aeon.co/ideas/whatever-you-do-do...sting-idea

EXCERPT: [...] In practice, interesting is a synonym for entertaining. This conflation has become especially problematic in higher education. Back in 2010, an article in US News & World Reports said that the number-one sign of a bad professor is that ‘the professor is boring' [...]

In today’s data-driven educational enterprise, faculty who do not entertain frequently do not get promoted – or even retained – because of the influence of student evaluations. The same goes for information technology workshops and conferences I attend, where questions such as ‘I found the speaker interesting’ on evaluation forms help to determine who is invited back in subsequent years. TED talks are the logical conclusion of this fashion, inspiring lectures with high production values and well-rehearsed presentations. They hold one’s interest, but they convey little information. Seriously, what do you remember from the last five ‘interesting’ TED talks that you watched?

What’s the result of society’s increasing emphasis on entertainment over substance? Novelty and innovation are valued above rigour; boring truth loses out to flamboyant falsehoods. I see it in today’s click-bait headlines, and even in the practice of science.

People say interesting to convey importance – and they shouldn’t. I review papers for academic conferences and scientific journals, and I’m routinely frustrated when other reviewers write dismissively that an article under consideration ‘isn’t very interesting’. That word, it does not mean what these reviewers mean. What they’re trying to say is that the scientific findings aren’t presented effectively, or that the results are only incremental, or (heaven help us) that the findings are not new, but merely replicate work that’s been done by others. [...] The results are bad for the practice of science, because the scientific method relies on replication. Without it, it takes a lot longer for erroneous studies to be corrected. But getting things right is not interesting, it’s pedantic...
Reply
#2
Secular Sanity Offline
Interesting people are well informed and not afraid to leave their comfort zone. They like to engage people. Boring people avoid it.  

We’re humans, emotional creatures. There has to be a motivational component, an incentive salience, a want attribute, or a desire to know.

We need to think deliberately about how to convey information. We don’t want to become an impersonal collective, a conversational Wikipedia, or talking calculators. Tell me the facts, and then tell me the human-interest value.

Susskind is right. The lecturer’s expressive ability plays a huge role in how I store information. When I’m trying to recall even just a small portion of a topic, the way in which they expressed themselves is what sticks in my mind. When I’m looking for a particular lecture, I can determine within seconds if it’s the right one just by the ambiance.  Ten bucks says that the guy he thought was bad, that he's making fun of is John Stewart Bell.  

A Human Thing

Interesting article, C C.  Wink

Thanks!
Reply
#3
Syne Offline
True interest is what motivates people to study topics that are inherently or otherwise boring. It's the personally derived interest that alleviates the boredom, not the entertaining method of presentation. If you require entertainment, you probably don't have sufficient interest in the topic. This means that entertainment is great for a lay audience, who will never bother to learn much more than they can through similarly entertaining sources. But true retention and comprehension do require an investment of personal interest. It is that investment, often in the face of what anyone else would call boredom, that cements the information in the mind.

Now, you may have an emotional reaction to a good presentation that aids memory cues, but does that really contribute to comprehension, i.e. the ability to synthesize new understanding from the information.
Reply
#4
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Feb 21, 2017 01:28 AM)C C Wrote: https://aeon.co/ideas/whatever-you-do-do...sting-idea

EXCERPT: [...] In practice, interesting is a synonym for entertaining. This conflation has become especially problematic in higher education. Back in 2010, an article in US News & World Reports said that the number-one sign of a bad professor is that ‘the professor is boring' [...]

In today’s data-driven educational enterprise, faculty who do not entertain frequently do not get promoted – or even retained – because of the influence of student evaluations. The same goes for information technology workshops and conferences I attend, where questions such as ‘I found the speaker interesting’ on evaluation forms help to determine who is invited back in subsequent years. TED talks are the logical conclusion of this fashion, inspiring lectures with high production values and well-rehearsed presentations. They hold one’s interest, but they convey little information. Seriously, what do you remember from the last five ‘interesting’ TED talks that you watched?

What’s the result of society’s increasing emphasis on entertainment over substance? Novelty and innovation are valued above rigour; boring truth loses out to flamboyant falsehoods. I see it in today’s click-bait headlines, and even in the practice of science.

People say interesting to convey importance – and they shouldn’t. I review papers for academic conferences and scientific journals, and I’m routinely frustrated when other reviewers write dismissively that an article under consideration ‘isn’t very interesting’. That word, it does not mean what these reviewers mean. What they’re trying to say is that the scientific findings aren’t presented effectively, or that the results are only incremental, or (heaven help us) that the findings are not new, but merely replicate work that’s been done by others. [...] The results are bad for the practice of science, because the scientific method relies on replication. Without it, it takes a lot longer for erroneous studies to be corrected. But getting things right is not interesting, it’s pedantic...

sales have taken over scienctific data because the marketing of a theme has become the primary goal. rather than looking at scientific data.
while i think delivery is important turning brain surgery into pop science just to garner more bonuses for middle management is probably not what patients or Doctors wish to hear.
that said i find myself using the word interesting in a relative format to the topic.
if i am not interested in the topic then my evaluation of the content being delivered is irrelivant...
and there lies the issue.
those with no background knowledge or desire to study the subject or content want to be considered as having an equal say in the science of the subject.
the curse of the narcissistic child era.(power & control dysfunctional parents exerting their ego through their child to form the childs personality[call it brain washing or indoctrination or highly dysfunctional parenting etc...]).
matched with an over bearing privatisation of the education system that turns knowledge into a sales product for the career climbing middle management sales tycoon to make bonuses from in a corporatisation single mindedness.

(Feb 22, 2017 12:49 AM)Syne Wrote: True interest is what motivates people to study topics that are inherently or otherwise boring. It's the personally derived interest that alleviates the boredom, not the entertaining method of presentation. If you require entertainment, you probably don't have sufficient interest in the topic. This means that entertainment is great for a lay audience, who will never bother to learn much more than they can through similarly entertaining sources. But true retention and comprehension do require an investment of personal interest. It is that investment, often in the face of what anyone else would call boredom, that cements the information in the mind.

Now, you may have an emotional reaction to a good presentation that aids memory cues, but does that really contribute to comprehension, i.e. the ability to synthesize new understanding from the information.

Quote:But true retention and comprehension do require an investment of personal interest. It is that investment, often in the face of what anyone else would call boredom, that cements the information in the mind.
very well said and completely agree.

i wonder if there has been a lapse in parental education of children by not teaching them to knuckle down and study things that do not take their passing fancy.
the tool of learning how to apply hard work intellectually to learn something is something on the surface one would imagine every sane parent would wish for their children.
Reply
#5
Secular Sanity Offline
(Feb 22, 2017 12:49 AM)Syne Wrote: Now, you may have an emotional reaction to a good presentation that aids memory cues, but does that really contribute to comprehension, i.e. the ability to synthesize new understanding from the information.

Probably not, but it does facilitate the access to stored information.

Let's not forget, though, that curiosity itself is an emotion.
Reply
#6
Syne Offline
(Feb 22, 2017 01:08 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: i wonder if there has been a lapse in parental education of children by not teaching them to knuckle down and study things that do not take their passing fancy.
the tool of learning how to apply hard work intellectually to learn something is something on the surface one would imagine every sane parent would wish for their children.

Seems to be an increasing lack of parental responsibility in general. When teaching children to be independent, has become the social oddity of "free-range children", something's amiss.

(Feb 22, 2017 02:30 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 22, 2017 12:49 AM)Syne Wrote: Now, you may have an emotional reaction to a good presentation that aids memory cues, but does that really contribute to comprehension, i.e. the ability to synthesize new understanding from the information.

Probably not, but it does facilitate the access to stored information.  

Let's not forget, though, that curiosity itself is an emotion.

An emotional reaction to a good presentation can be the catalyst for genuine interest. This is why entertainment is good for lay audiences. Just not so much for academia.
Reply
#7
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Feb 22, 2017 02:30 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 22, 2017 12:49 AM)Syne Wrote: Now, you may have an emotional reaction to a good presentation that aids memory cues, but does that really contribute to comprehension, i.e. the ability to synthesize new understanding from the information.

Probably not, but it does facilitate the access to stored information.  

Let's not forget, though, that curiosity itself is an emotion.

My favourite tutors have been passionately gifted in their ability to inspire & entertain.
while conveying information in a wholistic dense format.
i find it needs a certain level of beleif to be established to enable the absorbtion of that data at the required speed to enable an organic like environment.
being able to weed out the disruptive ellements(people/environment/management/Authority/egos/social development baggage) is key to ensure the students who have a passion to learn can utilise the tutor at their collective peak performance.
most often it seems these leaders in creative science are viewed as radicals and non compliant risks by management(& litigious busy-body parents).
Reply
#8
Secular Sanity Offline
(Feb 22, 2017 06:26 AM)Syne Wrote: An emotional reaction to a good presentation can be the catalyst for genuine interest. This is why entertainment is good for lay audiences. Just not so much for academia.

That's not true.

"Professor Lewin typically spends 40 to 50 hours preparing for each lecture, rehearsing the 50-minute production two or three times—the last on the morning of class. His lecture notes, which are preserved and proudly displayed in a series of binders on his office shelves, reveal an intense drive for both precision and drama."

The Professor Who Brings Physics to Life

(Feb 22, 2017 03:00 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: My favourite tutors have been passionately gifted in their ability to inspire & entertain.
while conveying information in a wholistic dense format.
i find it needs a certain level of beleif to be established to enable the absorbtion of that data at the required speed to enable an organic like environment.
being able to weed out the disruptive ellements(people/environment/management/Authority/egos/social development baggage) is key to ensure the students who have a passion to learn can utilise the tutor at their collective peak performance.
most often it seems these leaders in creative science are viewed as radicals and non compliant risks by management(& litigious busy-body parents).

(Feb 21, 2017 01:28 AM)C C Wrote: The results are bad for the practice of science, because the scientific method relies on replication. Without it, it takes a lot longer for erroneous studies to be corrected. But getting things right is not interesting, it’s pedantic...

He’s capping on educational entertainment, Ted Talks, and whatnot. Educational entertainment is a good thing. His real beef is with scientific research and I agree with him on that account.

Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself

"The obligation to “publish or perish” has come to rule over academic life.

Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results. In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page.

Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists."
Reply
#9
C C Offline
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka' (I found it) but 'That's funny...'" (commonly attributed to Isaac Asimov)

"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives." --Francis Bacon

Setting aside such cases where "interesting" has an applicable role as an antecedent sign of something later being declared objectively "important"...

"Making it interesting" is significant from a salesperson and future recruitment standpoint of introducing a discipline and specific subdivisions of its activities and accomplishments to students and lay spectators. But once a person has gone past the subjective / mentally aroused stage into deciding to actually learn the background knowledge, skills, and procedures of the practice... Then its very nature unavoidably requires it to be a didactic grind at times for some who were initially attracted to the general glamour.

And the eventual job / profession itself will be swamped in monotonously repeated routines and systematic data collections which depend upon the scientist performing like a reliable and imaginatively-restrained robot or accountant. The careful rigor can be dressed-up to be fascinating to outsiders, but the execution of tasks themselves is a "formulaic doing" with little dependence upon whatever ambient stimulants the job or its immediate environment is claimed to offer. With short-term and long-time goals lethargically dragged-out over weeks, months and potential years / decades.

Nothing develops, progresses, and is achieved as ludicrously fast as it is in tv shows and movies. Especially with respect to jumping over all the protocols in place thanks to some heroic speech or "adore and excuse us because we're rebels" chest-thumping from the protagonist research team. The study of Ötzi has been tediously transpiring for over a quarter century, having to squirm through legal disputes, off and on interruptions due to preserving the Iceman, with some earlier work and hypotheses overthrown by ever more recent insights, etc. But this just makes science similar to enterprises in general (i.e., it shouldn't be seen as a downside since the same bouts of boredom, frustration, pressures, indirect routes, detours and unexpected impediments, internal politics, dead-ends and turnabouts apply universally to occupations).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)