Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Troy

Comprehension is Intimately Intertwined with Knowledge

Recommended Posts

I know that title reads exactly like something I would say, but if comes from a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, “How to Get Your Mind to Read.”

 

In one experiment, third graders — some identified by a reading test as good readers, some as poor — were asked to read a passage about soccer. The poor readers who knew a lot about soccer were three times as likely to make accurate inferences about the passage as the good readers who didn’t know much about the game.

 

That implies that students who score well on reading tests are those with broad knowledge; they usually know at least a little about the topics of the passages on the test. One experiment tested 11th graders’ general knowledge with questions from science (“pneumonia affects which part of the body?”), history (“which American president resigned because of the Watergate scandal?”), as well as the arts, civics, geography, athletics and literature. Scores on this general knowledge test were highly associated with reading test scores.

 

Current education practices show that reading comprehension is misunderstood. It’s treated like a general skill that can be applied with equal success to all texts. Rather, comprehension is intimately intertwined with knowledge. That suggests three significant changes in schooling... read the complete article.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Troy said:

Current education practices show that reading comprehension is misunderstood. It’s treated like a general skill that can be applied with equal success to all texts. Rather, comprehension is intimately intertwined with knowledge. That suggests three significant changes in schooling

So reading comprehension is not comprehended by those who test for it.  Another example of "experts" coming up with the wrong conclusion because their propositions are stated wrong. This  happens across the board which is why, in the work place, so many people are promoted to their level of incompetency; why street-smarts can  often trump book-learning.   I've always been impressed with how articulate black athletes are when asked, in post game interviews, why their team won or lost a game. Sports jocks, however, are notorious for being uninformed  about academic subjects. 

 

i don't have to read an article to know that the educational system needs to be overhauled; class rooms are tailor-made for the convenience of teachers, not students.  Not disrupting the class room and regurgitating  what the instructor has dished out to you is the main way a pupil will be rewarded with a letter grade that corresponds with excellent.  But "C" students may be more capable than "A" students when it comes to surviving adversity because the "C" ones  have gotten into the habit of figuring things out for themselves.  Of course comprehension is enabled by your environment. Who doesn't know that experience is the best teacher??  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy this reminds me of the obviously racially biased IQ tests that were so prevelant in the United States school system up until the 1970s.

A Black psychologist had to come up with the BITCH-100 test to prove that despite lower IQ scores, Black children were just as smart as White children when given IQ tests based on OUR OWN culture.

The public educational system in the United States today is training people to just memorize and parrot back information to past exams and move on to be good working "slaves".
Not well informed independent thinkers who question authority.

 

 

 

 

Cynique

Who doesn't know that experience is the best teacher??


Well for one.....I'm not quite sure of this myself.

I think in many if not most cases OBSERVATION is the best teacher.
Because some experiences you may not LIVE through to learn your lesson.....lol.


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because the television show Good Times had an episode where Michael's teacher was given a Black IQ test.

I guess FCC rules prohibitted them from saying "BITCH" on a televison show at that time so they didn't give out the test's actual name.....lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Pioneer1The Good Times episode wasn't what i had in mind, when i said your observations sounded familiar.

 

20 hours ago, Cynique said:

i don't have to read an article to know that the educational system needs to be overhauled; class rooms are tailor-made for the convenience of teachers, not students.  Not disrupting the class room and regurgitating  what the instructor has dished out to you is the main way a pupil will be rewarded with a letter grade that corresponds with excellent.  But "C" students may be more capable than "A" students when it comes to surviving adversity because the "C" ones  have gotten into the habit of figuring things out for themselves.

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The public educational system in the United States today is training people to just memorize and parrot back information to past exams and move on to be good working "slaves".
Not well informed independent thinkers who question authority.

 

Something is always learned form what living human beings experience. What is learned from observation is subject to remaining ignorant because looks can be deceiving.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree. Comprehension is linked to understanding. Understanding and knowledge are not the same.

 

You can know facts. Knowing how to apply them is related to understanding those facts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If comprehension is linked to understanding, then how can it and knowledge not be the same.  I think the difference is between knowledge and education. Knowledge you can acquire on your own by the comprehension acquired through experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take your car to an auto mechanic he can tell you what's wrong. That's a fact. However knowing that fact wont help you to fix the problem. 

 

People can spit outca lot of numbers without understanding the implication of those numbers. 

 

A Macdonald hamburger is 100% meat. That's a fact.

 

However that isnt totally true. It isn't all 100% beef. Some percentage of it is beef. And that percentage is 100% the rest would beef spices herbs and filler.

There's a pecking

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between fact and knowledge. Being unaware of a fact doesn't mean you would'n't comprehend it, once you heard it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not suggesting that i am saying the opposite. Knowing where pneumonia starts in the body is a fact. Knowing why or how is understanding. So i know where pneumonia takes place but i dont know understand its causation. 

. Knowing where pneumonia starts in the body is a fact. Knowing why or how is understanding. So i know where pneumonia takes place but i don't  understand its causation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider FACTS to be a component KNOWLEDGE.

I know many wouldn't, but facts are supposed to be TRUE.
If it's not true...then it's not a fact.

So information that is true...in my opinion....just adds to one's knowledge.


 

 


Delano

Comprehension is linked to understanding. Understanding and knowledge are not the same.


True.
I believe that "intelligence" is made up of both information AND understanding.

There are a lot of autistic people who "know" a lot of facts and figures but don't have any real understanding or "grasp" of what they know or how to apply it.




People can spit outca lot of numbers without understanding the implication of those numbers.


Exactly!
 

 

 

 




Cynique
 

If comprehension is linked to understanding, then how can it and knowledge not be the same. I think the difference is between knowledge and education.

Because comprehension is just a component or part of overall knowledge.
The other part is having the information/facts to comprehend.

Education...atleast formal education...is simply an organized system of passing along KNOWLEDGE (information and understanding of it) from one group of individuals to the next.




Knowledge you can acquire on your own by the comprehension acquired through experience.


I believe WISDOM comes with experience, but you don't need experience or age with comprehension.
It's more of an intellectual function that some people's brains simply perform better than others.

This is why I say you CAN'T give people knowledge.
You can only give them information or facts.

But if they can't understand what the hell you're saying despite you telling them 40 different ways, there's not too much you can do about that....lol.


Some people are better "understanders" than others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wel you 

4 hours ago, Delano said:

Knowing where pneumonia starts in the body is a fact. Knowing why or how is understanding. So i know where pneumonia takes place but i don't  understand its causation. 

Well, this depends.  If its causation is explained to you, you might very well understand the explanation if you have an intellect that is capable of comprehending knowledge that is imparted to you. 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

I believe WISDOM comes with experience, but you don't need experience or age with comprehension.
It's more of an intellectual function that some people's brains simply perform better than others.

This is why I say you CAN'T give people knowledge.
You can only give them information or facts.

You may not need experience to comprehend something.  But the whole gist of the article in question is that the ability to comprehend specifics is enhanced if you can relate to what you are comprehending because  your  experience  has familiarized you with the subject in general.  e.g. it's easier to understand a chess strategy if you have played the game before.

 

Can you really separate knowledge from information and facts?  A person can be knowledgeable about a subject because he has been supplied with the facts and the information.  This distinguishes him from a person who hasn't been supplied with facts and  information about this subject. Comprehension doesn't figure into this equation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Information is how to get to a destination. You can buy cake ingredients in a store.

 

Facts are like data . knowing the ingredients of a cake. But not the ratios. 

 

Understanding involves rationalisation. Knowing not only how to make a cake but how to make a new cake.

Pioneer for me understanding is closely related to comprehension. 

 

Cynique I can't follow some of your logic.

 

Mel i like the Triangle though I think you can analyse the results of decision without understanding how it was derived 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Del, i don't follow yours either.  You seem to be saying that  having the "capability" to acquire information and facts automatically makes you able to understand them.  I disagree. I know the information about Einstein's formula, recognize it when i see it and know what it refers to but i do not understand the principle it illustrates.

 

Pioneer says that wisdom comes from experience then presents a non sequitur by saying that you can't give people knowledge, but can only give them facts.  i also disagree with this because when you give them facts you are making them knowledgeable about the subject which the facts refer to; whether they comprehend what the facts indicate is not a given.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cynique said:

 

@Del, i don't follow yours either.  You seem to be saying that  having the "capability" to acquire information and facts automatically makes you able to understand them.  I disagree. I know the information about Einstein's formula, recognize it when i see it and know what it refers to but i do not understand the principle it illustrates.

 

Pioneer says that wisdom comes from experience then presents a non sequitur by saying that you can't give people knowledge, but can only give them facts.  i also disagree with this because when you give them facts you are make them knowledgeable about the subject which the facts refer to; whether they comprehend what the facts indicate is not a given.

 

 

Where did i say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I agree with Troy's title.

Comprehension is INTERTWINED with knowledge.

To make it easier.

KNOWLEDGE = Information + Understanding

Information alone isn't knowledge.

If you sent a child to school and they didn't provide teachers but just gave them a book and said READ....you would take your child OUT of that school.

Why?

Because regardless of the information they still need to UNDERSTAND the information they're getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone look at the hierarchy described in the Pyramid @Mel Hopkins shared?  Now you may disagree with it, but I think it is a helpful tool to understand the difference between knowledge and understanding.

 

Knowledge is simply the awareness of information; what years was the Civil War fought or what the formula for calculating the diameter of a circle, for example.  People can know these things and do very well on some standardized tests, but they may not understand a single thing about either subject.  In other words, what can they actually do with this knowledge?

 

I can tell someone how to calculate the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle if I give them the length of the other two sides, and they may be able to remember it long enough to take a pass a test, but they may have no clue what they are doing.  Worse still, they can plug the numbers into a calculator and get the right answer without even knowing what the heck is happening.

 

I've taken more math courses, but I've forgotten much of what I learned simply because I did not understand it.  I "knew" it long enough to pass some tests, but that is about it.  I never had a job which required this higher level math so over three decades the knowledge is mostly gone.  Later, as I got older, and was exposed to some of the concepts, through YouTube videos, it dawned on me how fascinating math really is.  The facts are almost incidental and indeed can be learned later, but understanding what an intergral is, for example, and how and it can be used  is far more interesting than knowing to to calculate it. Understanding this, I believe, has helped me become a better teacher.  

 

This is why knowledge alone is not enough to be a good teacher.  Knowledge alone is not enough to understand, comprehend, apply or use information to come up with new ideas.  It is however, as the pyramid implies, the foundation for these things.

 

The perhaps a better title for the article would be, "Knowledge is the Basis for Understanding."  Keep in mind authors don;t generally write the titles of their articles.  The publishers do and sometimes they do a disservice to the article because they are motivated by generating traffic just as much as they are interested accurately relating the subject of an article 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@DelIn answer to your inquiry about where you said what i implied, - after i contended that "A person can be knowledgeable about a subject because he has been supplied with the facts and the information.  This distinguishes him from a person who hasn't been supplied with facts and  information about this subject. Comprehension doesn't figure into this equation," you wrote:  

12 hours ago, Delano said:

Yes to me that capability is understanding.

 

2 hours ago, Troy said:

Knowledge is simply the awareness of information; what years was the Civil War fought or what the formula for calculating the diameter of a circle, for example.  People can know these things and do very well on some standardized tests, but they may not understand a single thing about either subject.  In other words, what can they actually do with this knowledge?

That is what i was trying to express when i wrote:

7 hours ago, Cynique said:

I know the information about Einstein's formula, recognize it when i see it and know what it refers to but i do not understand the principle it illustrates.

 And what i was trying to muddle through when i wrote: 

7 hours ago, Cynique said:

Pioneer says that wisdom comes from experience then presents a non sequitur by saying that you can't give people knowledge, but can only give them facts.  i also disagree with this because when you give them facts you are making them knowledgeable about the subject which the facts refer to; whether they comprehend what the facts indicate is not a given.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Troy said:

 "Knowledge is the Basis for Understanding." 

 

@Troy ,  Excellent summation!  Spoken like a true educator! :)

 

I read in "The Art of Profitability" by Adrian Slytwotzky there are five levels to learning.  They actually match this pyramid too.   There is 

(1) awareness,

(2) awkwardness,

(3)application,

(4) assimilation,  and

(5) artistry.    

10 hours ago, Delano said:

Mel i like the Triangle though I think you can analyse the results of decision without understanding how it was derived 

@Del analyzing the results of a decision will provide an understanding of how it was derived...

 

In fact, that is how we get understanding each other. (well that is if we care)  I tend to understand you, Cynique and Pioneer and I've never met you in real...  I know you all better than someone I've just met in person - because I analyzed your comments (result of your thinking) and it helps me to understand the perspective you are sharing.   

It's also how I achieved fairly decent grades in math and science - I've worked through the results to understand the process.   

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

This is why I say you CAN'T give people knowledge.
You can only give them information or facts.

 

Knowledge is facts, information and awareness.  One can give that to another - that is exactly the foundation of education.   You can't give someone the ability to use that knowledge - that's on the recipient.  We test on subjects in school to see how well they've  used the knowledge... In other words have they been able to assimilate the information/facts into their understanding.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique if two people are supplied with new facts and information. If one person can make inferences. They understand the subject. The other person just knows or has knowledge of facts. 

 

@Mel Hopkins not withstanding your ability. Not everyone can analyze a failure and know what went wrong. When the space shuttle crashed.  NASA consulted with Richard Feynman because they couldn't figure out why it crashed. So while NASA is very knowledgeable. Feynman is a brilliant thinker.  So I say your hierachy has gained stature in my eyes.

 

Also you're a psychic witch/wizard. So you cant be the barometer. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del you are giving Feynman too much credit, Nasa's engineers knew, in advance of the disaster the Morton Thiokol', O-rings were shot at and low temperatures.  I only mention it because this is the 2nd time you mentioned Feynman as if he was the only one who knew this.

 

@Mel Hopkins, thanks.  

 

Artistry as the culmination is interesting to consider.  I think artistry is an inherited skill.  For example, I can design a website that is technically, on the backend, quite good IMHO.  This fact is what differentiates my site from others.

 

My weakness however is making the site visually appealing.  I struggle with the homepage for example.  My solution  for the final stage of the two year upgrade will be to find a template and modify it for my purpose, for I do not have the artistry to design something from scratch that is both modern looking and visually appealing. 

 

Now I have the knowledge to execute someone else's design, but I could not come up with the idea myself.  I'm sure one can learn to make beautiful websites, but to be really good I think you have to be born with the talent. 

 

Perhaps this is true for all pursuits; to reach the very highest levels you have to have the knowledge and the God given gifts (and @Pioneer1 notice "race" has nothing to do with any of this).  People like Newton, Feynman, Einstein, and others displayed a artistry of their subject matter that truly transcended anything on that pyramid.  I believe they were born with the gift.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Delano said:

if two people are supplied with new facts and information. If one person can make inferences. They understand the subject. The other person just knows or has knowledge of facts. 

:huh:What do you think i have been saying??? Being knowledgeable about a subject via of having facts and information supplied to you does not guarantee that you will understand what the knowledge implicates.   Knowledge is synonymous with information and facts, but it is not synonymous with comprehension.                                                                                    

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troy said:

Artistry as the culmination is interesting to consider.  I think artistry is an inherited skill. 

 

@Troy  I think we're saying the same thing.  Artistry in this respect means the person has moved through the learning stages much faster than the rest of us.   Whereas most of us are at the assimilation stage of our endeavors - maybe by the time we're 25 or older ; these "artists" were at the assimilation  stage at the age of 4, 10,  or 13 years old .  For example, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Michael Jackson were playing instrument, singing and performing live before they hit puberty.  Maybe it's time that allows them to proceed to artistry stage.    

BUT the question does remain how do some fly through those stages... How does a Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin or Michael Jackson gain awareness of a concept and then just fly through the stages?  How did I start reading at 2 years old and continue  on to having a high reading comprehension.  Reading of all things is not intuitive.   SMILE doesn't look like a  :)  but I never got stumped by it... so not sure how it happens.  

 

 I think this is where we get into the field of consciousness and our ability to connect to it.


By the way, the etymology of Art is skill as a result of learning or practice.   
 

Edited by Mel Hopkins
add a statement of consciousness
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, and Michael Jackson were born.  They were born into the stage as was Mozart, Beethoven, Ray Charles, Charlie Parker, Jimi Hendrix, etc.

 

There is not enough musical training in the world that could have made me in my entire 55 years of life as talented as Stevie Wonder when he was just 12 and he is BLIND!  How many little boys could you have trained to do what Michael was doing when he was 10?

 

Maybe in the field of consciousness all is possible.

 

Speaking of consciousness, I'm reading Dick Gregory's last book.  He said while meditating one time he levitated.  He also said there were witnesses to this.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Role of Richard FeynmanEdit

I took this stuff that I got out of your seal and I put it in ice water, and I discovered that when you put some pressure on it for a while and then undo it, it does not stretch back. It stays the same dimension. In other words, for a few seconds at least and more seconds than that, there is no resilience in this particular material when it is at a temperature of 32 degrees.
— Richard Feynman, [5]
9 hours ago, Troy said:

Del you are giving Feynman too much credit, Nasa's engineers knew, in advance of the disaster the Morton Thiokol', O-rings were shot at and low temperatures.  I only mention it because this is the 2nd time you mentioned Feynman as if he was the only one who knew this.

 

 

One of the commission's best-known members was theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. His style of investigating with his own direct methods rather than following the commission schedule put him at odds with Rogers, who once commented, "Feynman is becoming a real pain." During a televised hearing, Feynman famously demonstrated how the O-rings became less resilient and subject to seal failures at ice-cold temperatures by immersing a sample of the material in a glass of ice water.[5] Feynman's own investigation reveals a disconnect between NASA's engineers and executives that was far more striking than he expected. His interviews of NASA's high-ranking managers revealed startling misunderstandings of elementary concepts. One such concept was the determination of a safety factor.[6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del I'm aware of all of the stuff you posted.  Again, the faulty O-rings was known BEFORE the disastrous explosion.  In fact, the lead engineer refused to sign off on the launch for this reason.  This is common knowledge and was covered in a documentary film (I don't recall the name of iot) and is described on NASA website: 

 

"McDonald, the director of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor Project for the engineering contractor Morton Thiokol, was concerned that below-freezing temperatures might impact the integrity of the solid rockets' O-rings."

 

McDonald wrote a book, Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, about it.  You can also learn what was at Nasa's website as well as other sources.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comments really underline the difference facts knowledge comprehension and analysis. 

 

Morton Thiokol isn't NASA and the engineers aren't decision makers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Troy said:

They were born into the stage

 

@Troy , I'm loving this discussion!  Let's say a child today was born into the stage - BUT the discipline is unrecognizable to the rest of us.. We know what talent for singing looks like, math, even the natural sciences - but if there's a new discipline what happens to that gift?  It's near impossible to nurture what we don't understand.  
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Troy said:

Del I'm aware of all of the stuff you posted.  Again, the faulty O-rings was known BEFORE the disastrous explosion.  In fact, the lead engineer refused to sign off on the launch for this reason.  This is common knowledge and was covered in a documentary film (I don't recall the name of iot) and is described on NASA website: 

 

"McDonald, the director of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor Project for the engineering contractor Morton Thiokol, was concerned that below-freezing temperatures might impact the integrity of the solid rockets' O-rings."

 

McDonald wrote a book, Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, about it.  You can also learn what was at Nasa's website as well as other sources.

 

Awareness is clearly not understanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins I guess If the discipline is unrecognized by others us then it has no value and would not be nurtured.  Those born with a gift in a  field of no value would remain obscure.  Sometimes this is described as being ahead of one's time.  If Lebron James or Flavor Flav were born 50 years earlier I doubt they would have enjoyed any prominence and certainly no financial success.

 

@Delano,

  • "Morton Thiokol isn't NASA and the engineers aren't decision makers.:  --Thanks for the revelation
  • "engineers aren't decision makers." --Spoken like someone who was never an engineer.
  • "Awareness is clearly not understanding." --Sometimes, but lack of awareness is ALWAYS not understanding.

Why reject the fact that Nasa engineers were aware of the faulty O-Rings before Feynman was ever involved.  Why not just admit this given the evidence I've shown you and move on?  Are you really that sensitive?  When did this happen?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Troy said:

I guess If the discipline is unrecognized by others us then it has no value and would not be nurtured.  Those born with a gift in a  field of no value would remain obscure.  Sometimes this is described as being ahead of one's time.

 

@Troy , It's also nearly impossible to evaluate (know the value) of an unknown.    

 

 I'm asking how should we handle those born into the assimilation stage of learning of an unrecognized talent/discipline/field?   For example, my ignorance and inability  could have stifled my daughters from advancing in a field of the a talent they may possess.  Years from now they may be seen as late bloomers -because they had to educate themselves on the value of their talent. 

How do we help those in our community to stop holding back our child prodigies  from greatness?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments are directed towards the decision makers. So yea the engineers had a problem.  But all of NASA isnt just engineers. The problem was management. That's who Feynman directed his criticisms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins, as you said you can't know what you don't know.  As someone who has also raised children into independent adulthood, all you can do is is expose them to a wide variety of things, help them to think critically and independently, and to serve as a model.  If they don't discover the valuable gift(s) they were born while you are raising them, perhaps they will discover it on their own.

 

You can't put the pressure on yourself to find this for your kids.  They are their own people and ultimately have to live their own lives.  The best you, and the community, can do is to create an environment is which people can achieve artistry, which I'd describe, at the risk of sound too new-agey, as finding one's bliss.

 

The real risk, and trap, I think many people, if not most, fall into is never trying to figure out what gift they have that would allow them to achieve artistry in a pursuit they'd both enjoy and earn a living from.  

 

@Delano, do you believe Feynman was the only one aware of these problems until he reported on them? If no, that is the only point I'm making, in that you are giving Feynman too much credit. If your answer is yes, then we'll have to agree to disagree. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Troy said:

@Mel Hopkins, as you said you can't know what you don't know. 

 

all you can do is is expose them to a wide variety of things,

help them to think critically and independently,

and to serve as a model. 

 

If they don't discover the valuable gift(s) they were born while you are raising them, perhaps they will discover it on their own.

 

The best you, and the community, can do is to create an environment is which people can achieve artistry, which I'd describe, at the risk of sound too new-agey, as finding one's bliss.

 

The real risk, and trap, I think many people, if not most, fall into is never trying to figure out what gift they have that would allow them to achieve artistry in a pursuit they'd both enjoy and earn a living from.

 

Great response!!! I'll quote you, if i write a post for my blog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×