Although I enjoyed the story about Crème Brûlée, it was the Data, Theory, and Humility that resonated in my mind.
I've been trying to find time to read Temple Grandin's book about visual thinking. I have managed to get a couple of chapters in. One of the things that sticks with me is her discussion of the makeup of her brain.
Temple has always wondered why she is different. How it is that she thinks in pictures? So she has submitted to MRI brain studies. One finding is that her visual cortex takes up a much larger percentage of her physical brain than average.
Is the division between data/theory really the result of fundamental differences in the physical make up of their brains? Sure, education and training (the nature/nurture debate) play a role.
But do we really understand how this impacts the talents we demonstrate. Perhaps someone has given this a lot of thought and I just missed it?
Recently I watched while a fourth grade teacher commanded the attention of a class. It solved a problem for me.
You've heard this slur -
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
As I watched this teacher I realized that:
Those who do, can't teach. Because teaching is a performance art.
I'll watch this over breakfast. Feynman is one of the characters who intrigues me the most. Plus, he went to my wife's high school (as did two other Nobelists, Joyce Brothers, Bernie and Ruth Madoff, Carl Icahn, Mel Utley, Nancy Lieberman, and lots more).
You are really lucky to have had that much time with her. I've seen her HBO biopic and recommend it to any parent struggling with an autistic child.
Her life is a reminder that while we are all similar on the surface, just below the surface there are real differences. At best we only get a glimpse of each other - I try to use that thought to suppress my judgmental nature.
My wife and I met Temple at a speech she gave in Indianapolis. She was manning her book sales. She was very personable and it's hard to understand that she had any difficulty with socialization. I'm pretty sure she could have someone else sell the books - I think she wanted to meet people and survey why they were there. Her first question was whether we our interest was family or professional - I had to admit that we'd she her biopic and wanted to hear her speak.
I'll be sure to read your interviews.
Okay - last question.
Is anyone aware of progress in defining the source of preference for data or theory?
The most prolific inventor of all time, Thomas Edison, made no secret of his contempt for theoreticians. Imagine his chagrin when his youngest son, Theodore, got a degree in physics from MIT. Thomas Edison commented, “Theodore is a good boy, but his forte is mathematics. I am a little afraid. . . he may go flying off into the clouds with that fellow Einstein.” That fellow Einstein won his first Nobel Prize for his explanation of the Edison effect. Einstein's explanation of the effect which Thomas Edison had observed but could not explain was a big advance in theoretical physics.
Fascinating! I knew of the photoelectric effect, but never realized that it originated with Edison. Nor did I know of Edison's disdain for theory or his son's path. Wonderful story.
Although I enjoyed the story about Crème Brûlée, it was the Data, Theory, and Humility that resonated in my mind.
I've been trying to find time to read Temple Grandin's book about visual thinking. I have managed to get a couple of chapters in. One of the things that sticks with me is her discussion of the makeup of her brain.
Temple has always wondered why she is different. How it is that she thinks in pictures? So she has submitted to MRI brain studies. One finding is that her visual cortex takes up a much larger percentage of her physical brain than average.
Is the division between data/theory really the result of fundamental differences in the physical make up of their brains? Sure, education and training (the nature/nurture debate) play a role.
But do we really understand how this impacts the talents we demonstrate. Perhaps someone has given this a lot of thought and I just missed it?
Recently I watched while a fourth grade teacher commanded the attention of a class. It solved a problem for me.
You've heard this slur -
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
As I watched this teacher I realized that:
Those who do, can't teach. Because teaching is a performance art.
Thanks for your thoughtful writing.
Serendipity - just after I wrote this I ran across this video of Richard Feynman:
https://youtu.be/ipRvjS7q1DI
I'll watch this over breakfast. Feynman is one of the characters who intrigues me the most. Plus, he went to my wife's high school (as did two other Nobelists, Joyce Brothers, Bernie and Ruth Madoff, Carl Icahn, Mel Utley, Nancy Lieberman, and lots more).
Great stuff. I interviewed Temple twice for a podcast I had in 2021. (https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2021/03/12/fortress-and-frontier-different-but-not-less/ and https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2021/04/09/fortress-and-frontier-a-second-conversation-with-temple-grandin/). Fascinating story. If you haven't seen the HBO biopic on her early life, do so ASAP. She thinks the director and Claire Danes nailed her essence.
You are really lucky to have had that much time with her. I've seen her HBO biopic and recommend it to any parent struggling with an autistic child.
Her life is a reminder that while we are all similar on the surface, just below the surface there are real differences. At best we only get a glimpse of each other - I try to use that thought to suppress my judgmental nature.
My wife and I met Temple at a speech she gave in Indianapolis. She was manning her book sales. She was very personable and it's hard to understand that she had any difficulty with socialization. I'm pretty sure she could have someone else sell the books - I think she wanted to meet people and survey why they were there. Her first question was whether we our interest was family or professional - I had to admit that we'd she her biopic and wanted to hear her speak.
I'll be sure to read your interviews.
Okay - last question.
Is anyone aware of progress in defining the source of preference for data or theory?
All good. And I have no idea of the answer to your final question. Worth asking, though.
The most prolific inventor of all time, Thomas Edison, made no secret of his contempt for theoreticians. Imagine his chagrin when his youngest son, Theodore, got a degree in physics from MIT. Thomas Edison commented, “Theodore is a good boy, but his forte is mathematics. I am a little afraid. . . he may go flying off into the clouds with that fellow Einstein.” That fellow Einstein won his first Nobel Prize for his explanation of the Edison effect. Einstein's explanation of the effect which Thomas Edison had observed but could not explain was a big advance in theoretical physics.
Fascinating! I knew of the photoelectric effect, but never realized that it originated with Edison. Nor did I know of Edison's disdain for theory or his son's path. Wonderful story.