Consider two people who read the same material, say, two years worth of books on memory. Let the study be their only activity. Let their study be in relative isolation. Let the result of their study be at the extreme ends of the vector described below.
At one end we have the ‘librarian’. This person will be able to recall each book title, author, and enough of the book to describe the contents of that book - general theme, important points and so on.
At the other extreme end we have the ‘guru’, a profound thinker who may well remember nothing of the detail of any of the books but to have built up an understanding of memory, based on the books, that is deep and profound. Only the authors of various parts of the theory or model so developed are recalled (if any).
Clearly neither of these two outcomes is useful in isolation. The ‘librarian’ has acquired nothing that can not be emulated by the standard desktop computer, assuming that information (the books) are stored on it. Reading serves no higher purpose than scanning the data into the computer.
The guru is also rather useless (to science) as, though the model so developed may be correct, there is not enough empirical knowledge supporting the theory - he can’t remember which bit of the model came from which author/book.
There are two things to consider here: 1) how does one utilise the above abilities (for the best balance); 2) how can one forget so much of what is read and still retain a cohesive picture/understanding.
I’ll look at the second point first. There is no way you can have a global picture, a universal model etc as you open the first book. At some point, when enough material has been ‘digested’, the penny drops and a vague outline of the entire picture or model can be ‘seen’. At this point it is as if all the information previously gathered is literally digested leaving behind only the model - you can't remember any of it (as details or words on the page).
You haven’t lived (intellectually) until this has happened to you at least once.
Question one can now be addressed. After the dropping of the penny, further reading will have one of two effects on one’s knowledge base: either the model grows in detail (actual data and data source lost or appended to model) or the model takes the form of information subsequently gathered.
So the model either becomes ever more hand waving and expansive and detailed or ever more specific until it could be described almost entirely in terms of papers/articles/quotes from books.
Note that the 'librarian' (and autistic savant) mind does not have any options.
There is one trick that can be utilised if resources are available: one can allow the model to evolve ad infinitum. The ‘Guru’ described above is the extreme case. In reality one remembers quite a bit of the books read, and there are always notes and annotations to jog the memory.
There is an extreme point for all models - they seem to explain everything (literally, or within the field of interest). One can then re-read the same material or read more current material (the entire process takes years) with more of a ‘librarian’ approach.
The ‘librarian’ mind gives the breadth and the ‘guru’ mind gives the depth of understanding. There is bound to be a bias toward one or the other (but extremes are probably rare). If you read in the same field over a long period of time, then the ‘librarian’ mind will gain ever more of the ‘guru’ mind (breadth gains depth) and visa versa. My observation is that this comes with the passage of years.
My guess is that the ‘librarian’ comes first and the guru later. It fits with the nature of memory in general - where recalling details from books just read becomes more difficult, but profound understanding of the subject of the book does continue, indeed, accelerates.
But my observation is that the order may well be almost as commonly reversed. Such people, however, would have little hope in completing a formal course as the expression of profound understanding tends to increase toward postgrad level, way beyond the sophomore level that would stop most of the minds I have in mind.
I note that the greatest minds had both the profound understanding and technical ability - perhaps this is why scientists like R.Feynman are both successful academically (Nobel prize) and also popular with the ‘deep’ thinkers for their insight into the underlying nature of things.
Hi Robert,
First, I don't think the word 'guru' is at all appropriate for describing the sort of person you're talking about. I would simply say 'student.' But mostly I disagree with some of your conclusions about this second person. (I agree the 'librarian' would probably be much like a computer.)
RKS: The handle was just an approximation - the person so described was the point. I used 'guru' just as a tag or handle for the opposite to the librarian mind ie the mind that processes ALL information to form a model such that the original information is no longer available for recall verses the mind that processes none of the information but is able to recall it all as perceived.
If the handles are incorrect then this is an incidental error.
Glen: I think we could consider two possibilities — the 'blank slate' and the already opinionated person — both of whom I believe would function in ways different from your description.
RKS: That's right - the level of preconception was not even considered. I only considered IF the information was processed and if so, what effect does this have on the original information eg is it still recallable if it is processed?
Glen: Unless you're assuming that all the books on some subject (like memory) are consistent with one another
RKS: The assumption is that both parties read exactly the same books.
Glen: in terms of their analyses and conclusions (which I think is unlikely), even the 'blank slate' person would probably sort through the material and develop one or more 'trees' of information using the following format:
1) Broad overviews and comprehensive works would be seen as central, like the trunk of a tree, with succeeding degrees of detail and specialization pictured as limbs and branches coming from it; and
2) Where significantly different analyses and conclusions are found, it would make sense to represent each of those sources with separate trees (of information), since they don't fit together with each other.
RKS: Yes, but I am considering only the two extreme cases (initially), so either complete processing or none. As you mention, the extreme case manifest is unlikely. I can think of one manifestation of the extreme case of non-processing - the case of the Autistic Savant (that has photographic memory).
I wasn't counting memory techniques and memory storage as processing.
Glen: People who aren't blank slates have already developed worldviews to some extent before embarking on this reading project you propose,
RKS: I picked books on memory only to keep the message on topic. I assumed that the readers knew nothing of memory. As you point out, this was probably a poor choice as everyone has some preconception on the subject of memory.
Would my story make more sense to you if the subject was calculus rather than memory? Or the periodic table? Or Relativity theory?
If I could make a modification to the last post: "let the subject of the books be one that is completely new or novel to the readers".
Glen: and will therefore view each new piece of information in the light of their existing understanding and judgements. This will result in their placing certain branches, limbs or even whole trees, using my imagery, into at least two different categories:
a) those I agree with and/or which are acceptable to me; b) those I disagree with and/or which are unacceptable to me; and maybe c) those I'm not sure about; and d) those which seem to say nothing relevant or significant.
What you seem to be talking about is the learning process. But people don't just read books and thereby automatically gain knowledge. They don't simple accept everything they read as being true (at least after they reach a certain stage in their education — I might not say this about young students), but organize and filter the information they receive. That's why I feel your ideas about this seem a little simplistic to me.
RKS: All quite true. If I change the book subject to any novel subject and let the books be read in isolation then it might make more sense.
In identifying a particular trait that is most probably never as opposite as I made out that it was, I used a simple device of considering the extreme case and considering it in isolation. This is such a standard device in physics that I mistakenly assumed that everyone was familiar with it.
I'm sure most people have encountered subjects where their reading leads to greater depth of understanding and others where only a greater breadth occurs. In the case of consciousness, a greater breadth may correspond with learning ever more facts about consciousness eg researchers and their work, studies, ever more branches of consciousness study; the greater depth leaves one with a feeling of knowing more about the nature of consciousness.
In art the difference is palpable: the breadth includes knowledge of various techniques and knowledge of the work of peers past and present. But without depth, you can't create a good artwork. That is partly why great artists sometimes come straight off the street - depth is far more important than breadth when it comes to art. One could teach art without having any depth at all (for art - for teaching, now that's a different thing altogether). That may be why very few famous artists start out as teachers?
Kind Regards, Robert Karl Stonjek.
Glen: I suppose it depends on the nature and degree of processing. Running food through a food processor often renders its original components unrecognizable, while merely chopping things up for a salad produces a whole while still allowing people to pick out (literally) those items they choose to select.
Information may be processed similarly. That is, one person might combine all the information from a variety of texts into a comprehensive, unified picture of the subject without retaining links to sources or even contexts, while another could read the same material and produce an analysis & summary (possibly including quotes) where each of the elements are distinctly discernable.
RKS: You seem to be contemplating the mechanism. I pointed out the phenomena that is to be explained. We can't be guided by logic to the degree that we filter out phenomena that don't fit current models.
The phenomena I mentioned is common enough. The two extremes are: remembering, say, a book word for word ie storing the text in memory just as it is on the page, and recalling only something deep and profound but nothing of the original. The reality is always going to be somewhere between the extremes.
Consider a simpler manifestation of what I mentioned. Instead of entire books we ask about simple sentences or even single words. Each word in your vocabulary has a denotation (by the dictionary meaning) and a connotation (by the feeling or inner meaning of the word). The connotation is contextual, so a word's connotation changes with context (as does the denotation).
Now consider the connotation and denotation of, say a poem. The words "connotation" and "denotation" are reserved for single words. There are simply no single words for the same thing at greater scales, so I'll borrow the words on the understanding that I am extrapolating for the purposes of this essay.
For the poem, then, we have a connotation and a denotation. The denotation is the words as they are on the page - their meaning by definition eg "the writer Loves some unidentified female person" is the denotation of about 90% of the poetry of the 19th century; "Many people die in the course of war" could sum up a World War One Poet's work [1]. The connotation is the feeling that the poet had in mind when writing the poem. The poet is more concerned with the feeling than the words. The poet wants you to feel what he/she is feeling at the time of taking up the quill (which thus leads to an obsession with words - thus the unhappy Love-Hate relationship that poets have with the words they are compelled to use.)
What would you say to a poet? You describe the connotation as you experienced it (if connotation can include all emotions and feelings, which, if extrapolated beyond the single word, it would). Normally we recall the words of a poem in order to evoke the connotation.
Now I extend the concept further. Not a poem but an essay giving actual statistics of the conditions of poor in some country. It is clear that even if none of the statistic so quoted is remembered, one would be left with a deep impression of the conditions.
Here we can think about the librarian and the Guru as mentioned before (in the context of previous notes). If the numbers changed so that population of the country, say, doubled, then none of the statistics that the librarian knew would be relevant any more. The librarian mind would know nothing. But the guru, having extracted the essence of the essay, would have knowledge that is still relevant. The librarian would be very surprised at the reality of the people's conditions (as statistics, say, do not indicate reality - just numbers - you have to process the numbers to get the imagery). The guru will be far less surprised.
It should be fairly obvious that I am outlining a phenomena from the top down. It is interesting to note that phenomena of memory is first considered from the top down. Researchers did not discover the memory, they assumed that it existed and then went looking for it. I believe this is an error where conscious memory is concerned.
The conscious recollection of, say, phone numbers works much like the riding of a bicycle - the vast majority of the process is done subconsciously. We think of the number that we want to recall and then hope that it shows up (unless conscious formatting of memory has been done).
The 'memory' indigenous to consciousness never recalls anything in the form in which it was perceived. In essence, there is no conscious 'memory'. If there was a conscious memory then you would be capable, with no special training, to browse the memory and select the material you wish to use.
Consider phone numbers. Most people can remember a few phone numbers and a few other numbers as well. If your memory is conscious, then take a look at your phone number collection.
The librarian-only memory is the subconscious memory that is capable of storing information in pristine condition. The Guru memory is conscious memory. When you recall the book you read last week you should be able to see the entire book at a single conscious glance. But you see no details, just a vague model. That is the conscious 'memory'. We know one is conscious and one isn't because you can consciously see one and not the other.
If you read the same book a few times you can entrain the subconscious and so draw the entire book and model into the conscious workspace together. How many times have you picked up a book and searched for a fact, number, phrase or quote? If you don't know what the number is, what are you looking for? Effectively you can see the conscious recollection but the subconscious memory has failed you. In searching your book you are entraining the subconscious - refreshing it ort perhaps even circumventing it.
Most of the cog science theory I've read to date (not enough by half) treats all memory in the same pool (of conscious-subconscious) and makes the assumption that anything that can be consciously recalled must be conscious, which is a thoroughly flawed assumption.
The other points you mention eg "personal world views" are related to conscious and subconscious recollections and storage and the strategies used to achieve such. Breaking the phenomena in the manner above is, I believe, very instructive.
Kind Regards, Robert Karl Stonjek.
[1] for Famous WWI Poet Wilfred Owen's work see http://www.hcu.ox.ac.uk/jtap/warpoems.htm eg "My soul looked down from a vague height, with Death, As unremembering how I rose or why, And saw a sad land, weak with sweats of dearth, Gray, cratered like the moon with hollow woe, And pitted with great pocks and scabs of plagues."
© Robert Karl Stonjek 2002