Thank you, Pastor Fisk, for your notes on processing information as a human being. I like this a lot more than the dogs in the fight of the political or culture war spectrum.
One thing that I believe is also important is to develop a skill for discerning what constitutes a good source to learn from.
Just like your recent Mad Monday article points out with the Like button public discourse has become more tribal and fractious, because advertisers have discovered that such communication creates more engagement. (Sadly, solomonic critical thinking is not nearly as common as I had hoped. I had to decomtaminate my thinking as well and continue to try to do so daily.) Nevertheless, remember that the publishers' job is to make money, hopefully by providing content that is discerned as worthwhile by the buyers.
Forgive me for my amateur use of words to describe my home-made version of understanding communication or discourse, spoken and written, and maybe you can correct me by showing me the correct terms for what I'm trying to describe. I'm a voracious reader online, but a terrible writer and typist and generally worn out and too lazy. God has been indulgent with me by providing me a prodigous memory, which I abuse by filling it with things both good and bad and suffering for it.
So:
The information space is pumped full of screeds language either devoid of verifiable information or cherry-picked and distorted information shaped for partisan/polemic purposes without referring to the context that the source came from. I thought your comments about collaboration among authors and sourcing are very important because that is a good way to tell if you're dealing with a communicator who is operating in good faith.
For two reasons. One - reading multiple authors operating in a certain information space helps the reader to discern the conversation better, so that we can better identify the questions or problems the conversation partners are trying to address. Two - the sources can provide additional information that show a larger world that the conversation is being shaped in, and allows for considerations that the original conversation partners are not dealing with (and perhaps should be).
Therefore, once you've selected worthwhile texts, you can use the note taking tools you're talking about more profitably. I envy you for teaching yourself to use a dvorak keyboard - I've been skirting around that for decades. Well done.
Thank you, Pastor Fisk, for your notes on processing information as a human being. I like this a lot more than the dogs in the fight of the political or culture war spectrum.
One thing that I believe is also important is to develop a skill for discerning what constitutes a good source to learn from.
Just like your recent Mad Monday article points out with the Like button public discourse has become more tribal and fractious, because advertisers have discovered that such communication creates more engagement. (Sadly, solomonic critical thinking is not nearly as common as I had hoped. I had to decomtaminate my thinking as well and continue to try to do so daily.) Nevertheless, remember that the publishers' job is to make money, hopefully by providing content that is discerned as worthwhile by the buyers.
Forgive me for my amateur use of words to describe my home-made version of understanding communication or discourse, spoken and written, and maybe you can correct me by showing me the correct terms for what I'm trying to describe. I'm a voracious reader online, but a terrible writer and typist and generally worn out and too lazy. God has been indulgent with me by providing me a prodigous memory, which I abuse by filling it with things both good and bad and suffering for it.
So:
The information space is pumped full of screeds language either devoid of verifiable information or cherry-picked and distorted information shaped for partisan/polemic purposes without referring to the context that the source came from. I thought your comments about collaboration among authors and sourcing are very important because that is a good way to tell if you're dealing with a communicator who is operating in good faith.
For two reasons. One - reading multiple authors operating in a certain information space helps the reader to discern the conversation better, so that we can better identify the questions or problems the conversation partners are trying to address. Two - the sources can provide additional information that show a larger world that the conversation is being shaped in, and allows for considerations that the original conversation partners are not dealing with (and perhaps should be).
Therefore, once you've selected worthwhile texts, you can use the note taking tools you're talking about more profitably. I envy you for teaching yourself to use a dvorak keyboard - I've been skirting around that for decades. Well done.
The only question is, what would I do with alll the blank notebooks and journals I've collected!?