Understadning reading!

[Ironkettle2]

I am reading the book Understanding Reading 6th edition by Frank Smith.

Relate to what you already know establishes "Comprehension" a synonym for understanding.
How well a story is understood is and remembered depends on how well the it conforms to conventional schemes for stories and how well the reader is familiar with those schemes. Reading depends on prediction. Readers concerned with the word directly under their noses will have difficulty with prediction and have trouble comprehending. Without predictions we would have MANY alternatives and with less alternatives = more recognition. Prediction is defined as elimination of prior alternatives. Predict = questions while comprehension = answers. symbolism, and predicting (asking the questions), and once you decipher and comprehend (answer the questions) you'll fully understand the book.

What do you ask while reading?

[CoolBee]

"Prediction" is encouraged as a technique for learning another language as well. One of the things we do as English as a Foreign Language teachers (which I do here from time to time) is encourage students to predict.

This may consist of showing them a few movie stills and asking them to predict what the movie may be about, or some newspaper headlines and asking them to predict the news story.

This serves to start awakening any vocabulary they already have in a general topic area, and also gives them some questions to ask themselves when they are reading or watching the movie.

[CoolBee]

I didn't really answer your question. My question is "what is your evidence?"

I've only started reading PD books critically in the past few months (too much else to do before so I just used to zip through them on the sofa in a couple of hours).

I've found that I am becoming very conscious when reading them that they are full of fine-sounding waffle with absolutely nothing to back it up.

For example, I am just finishing off Ekhart Tolle's A New Earth. Throughout, he makes sweeping statements about consciousness etc and I find myself thinking - well where did you get that from? what evidence do you have for that claim?

I have found it with quite a few of these sorts of books now.

I'm also finding a lot of these books are just sequences of anecdotes - half the time with no 'conclusion' - eg "I advised her that she should do such a thing because of that thing" but with no follow up as to whether she did or didn't do as advised yet the 'advice' is given as a solution - as if it actually worked. Again, I find myself asking 'what is your evidence?'

[Ironkettle2]

post hoc propter hoc reasoning it sounds like. I dunno I was into the "Personal development" stage until I realized that they really aren't developing me the way I wanted.

Good question BTW, "What is the evidence?"

Similar questions like, "What will happen next' and "What is the author getting at?"

I appreciate your input.

Keep questioning everything and think for yourself.

[CoolBee]

Here's something else to consider:

sources of cognitive biases: List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here's a blog about "Overcoming Bias" Overcoming Bias this is a good post on there Overcoming Bias : Popular Fields Less Accurate which refers to this one PLoS ONE: Large-Scale Assessment of the Effect of Popularity on the Reliability of Research

Also worth considering are affective filters Affective Filter
most of the stuff relates it to second language learning - but having personally witnessed as a maths teacher how kids can do algebra so long as you use any letter but x - and how introduction of the letter x causes 95% of all known 13 year olds to get a black hole in their brains - its got greater potential than that.

[Brutha]

Basically most of what makes us human is our ability to predit.
It takes a while till a child can make accurate predictions about how it's arm will move when it activates a muscle.

Feedback then allows us to learn to make better predictions.

and here's a blog about "Overcoming Bias" Overcoming Bias this is a good post on there Overcoming Bias : Popular Fields Less Accurate which refers to this one PLoS ONE: Large-Scale Assessment of the Effect of Popularity on the Reliability of Research

The funny thing about the blog is that it very often makes statements without any evidence to back them up.

The problem with learning about cognitive biases is that it's easier to see them in others than in yourself.
If you learn about cognitive biases you therefore become more convinced in your own ideas even when those are wrong.
Robin (the author of Overcoming Bias) is really a classic example for that principle at work.

[Remiel]

Are they wrong though? Could it be that those ideas worked for that person?

[Brutha]

Are they wrong though? Could it be that those ideas worked for that person?

If you don't want new ideas, why are you reading in the first place?

[CoolBee]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Basically most of what makes us human is our ability to predit.
It takes a while till a child can make accurate predictions about how it's arm will move when it activates a muscle.

Feedback then allows us to learn to make better predictions.
The funny thing about the blog is that it very often makes statements without any evidence to back them up.

The problem with learning about cognitive biases is that it's easier to see them in others than in yourself.
If you learn about cognitive biases you therefore become more convinced in your own ideas even when those are wrong.
Robin (the author of Overcoming Bias) is really a classic example for that principle at work.

I haven't really read that blog indepth just a couple of items - so now you've made me gonna have to ;(

I don't agree that learning about cognitive biases necessarily gets you more convinced your own ideas are right - we have to realise that we ALL have biases of some sort or other. In fact there's a cognitive bias about that Bias blind spot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Brutha]

we have to realise that we ALL have biases of some sort or other.

It's very easy to say something like that.

Studies on the other hand show that educating people about their cognitive biases does little to help them doubt their own judgements.

It's always amazing to me how many people call themselves rational and in favor of evidence based procedures while advocating that people should learn about cognitive biases while having no evidence that learning about cognitive biases helps.

And people like Robin usually do this with a straight face because of domain dependent scepticism.

[CoolBee]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's very easy to say something like that.

Studies on the other hand show that educating people about their cognitive biases does little to help them doubt their own judgements.

It's always amazing to me how many people call themselves rational and in favor of evidence based procedures while advocating that people should learn about cognitive biases while having no evidence that learning about cognitive biases helps.

And people like Robin usually do this with a straight face because of domain dependent scepticism.

Well I think this has the makings of one that could run and run... I shall put it on the list of things to investigate at a later stage