knowlege vs. trivia

[daylily]

This is a spin-off of the thread I started about standardized tests.

Why is some knowlege passed off as trivia? I don't understand this. Is it really mere trivia to know how to calculate the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle? Or that the civil war ended in 1865? Or the dynasties of China?

If such things are trivia, then what should be taught in schools?

Does anyone care to engage in a stimulating (yet friendly )conversation about this?

What knowlege is important? What is trivia?

[Clarity]

I think trivia is a fact, in isolation. Knowledge is having facts within a larger context. What good is knowing the year the civil war ended if you don't know why there was a war, how it ended, what was the aftermath? The changes the dynasties each made within China, how they arose...their effect on internal China and external relations. How to calculate that hypotenuese if you can't figure out a single real world use for doing so. Being a relative expert in "trivia", I certainly see that knowing a mere fact does not always contribute to my greater understanding of a subject or help me analyze and compare similar issues unless it's surrounded by that greater knowledge. Some knowlege of facts is useful...but in many cases just as useful is knowing how to find out what you don't know. But facts are much easier to objectively test. Someone's larger context of knowledge, in many cases can be very subjective. Sometimes "trivia" is a label for the knowledge of a person you could consider a generalist...knowing a little about a lot of things...as oppose to a specialist with a narrower but deeper knowlegde.

[Breathless Wonder]

I think knowledge also involves the practical application of data and experience. It's important to know when, how, where to use the information you have gathered through various sensory experiences.

[daylily]

What good in knowing the year the civil war ended if you don't know why there was a war, how it ended, what was the aftermath?

ITA. But what good is studying the civil war if you have no idea when it happened? If some kids imagine it happened, oh, around 1902, then they're framing it in an entirely different context. Furthermore, things like the Civil War are part of our national identity, and are referred to often in fiction, non-fiction, movies, conversation, etc. If you're totally ignorant of even when it happened, then you're lost or don't always have a full understanding of what you are reading/hearing.

A body of collective knowlege is useful just for getting along in daily life, even if you don't "use" that knowlege in any practical way.

[Daffodil]

Here's what I think should be taught in schools: Reading, writing, math up through simple algebra and geometry, and how to think logically and critically, be curious, and research a subject area you're interested in. Beyond that, I don't think there's any specific fact that's so important that it needs to be taught to everyone.

It's certainly valuable to know things like when and why the civil war took place, but if you're interested and you know how to learn things, you can always find out on your own. If you're not interested, you may temporarily memorize some facts about it if you're forced to, but most of it probably won't stick with you.

I think specific facts like the ones mentioned in the OP can be either knowledge or trivia, depending on (as Clarity said) whether you understand the significance of those facts within the big picture. All knowledge is useful, and I'm not sure I believe there are any facts that aren't worth knowing. But everyone has different ideas about which ones are crucial, and I think the truth is that probably none of them are. I don't know a thing in the world about the dynasties of China, for instance, and I can't say I feel too bad about that. I do feel one could make a very good case for the argument that it's crucial to understand ecology, basic genetics, evolution and natural selection. But I suspect there's more than one person reading this who's thinking, hey, I don't really understand that stuff, and my life is none the worse for it.

[daylily]

What I'm trying to say is that life is so much richer when you have a large base of knowlege to draw from.

One small example: there's an excellent used book store in my city called Daedelus Books. Daedelus, of course, is a reference to the Greek myth of Daedelus and Icharus.(sp?) I don't need to know that to shop at that store, but if I didn't know it, I'd think that maybe Daedelus was the last name of the owner, or maybe I'd be irritated because the name meant nothing to me.

Another example: Remember the movie Arachnaphobia? It was called that because it was about spiders and "arachnaphobia" means fear of spiders because a spider is an arachnid. Why is a spider called an arachnid? Because of the Greek myth of Arachnae--remember that one? Aphrodite transforms Arachnae, a woman who loves to weave, into a spider. You don't *need* to know that to appreciate Arachnaphobia or spiders, but do you see how it adds richness to your life?

Think of the many, many common phrases in English that are lifted straight from Shakespeare. "Pound of flesh" is the only one I can think of right now. : OK--ds claims that Shakespeare coined the term "amazing."

Life is like an immense interwoven tapestry--many things are connected in ways that we can't see. The less knowlege you have, the less of the tapestry you are able to see. You can be perfectly content, no doubt without all this knowlege, but you're still lacking something. Sorry. I'm certainly not claiming to know everything--there is an enormous ammount of stuff I don't know but I do know that my own life will become richer as I add to my own knowlege even if that knowlege is nothing that I will ever use.

[Artisan]

I think the big issue here is not the imparting of "trivia" but the fact that people (teachers, students, and schools) are held accountable for NOT knowing the trivia.

My DH is a HUUUUUUGE military history buff. He could tell you the date of this and that battle, the kind of equipment used, etc. I could take a class, memorize that stuff, and then promptly forget it. Why? Because I'm not interested.

I, however, am fascinated by the human body and can name every bone and most muscles. My DH doesn't know his humerus from him tibia. Why? Because he doesn't care to know. I'm sure he learned it in biology many years ago.

So are schools where few children are interested in trivial knowledge failing because they have not forced kids to memorize facts?

[lauren]

daylily, I'm hearing your point. I think there is value in being exposed to topics even if they don't "float your boat" because it does add to a sense of richness. My mother used to say everyone should study Latin because if they did they would be able to figure out the meaning of any word in several western languages. It's a similar thing---to have a baseline education in liberal arts and math, I think can go a long way toward someone being "educated." On the other hand, there is the idea of being 'exposed' to it for this reason, and being tested on it in an arbitrary way.

[daylily]

I dunno. I probably would never have chosen to learn about Greek mythology, but a teacher decided it was important to know and I'm grateful.

I've decided that the education my kids are getting in public school is inadequate. I informed my two older children that they'll be studying ancient history with me over the summer. Instead of acting like I am a great opressor, they've reacted enthusiastically. In fact, ds (age 11) went to the Alderman Library at the University of Virginia and checked out several books on world history. Then he started reading the Kingfisher Illustrated Encyclopedia of World History which I just bought and is now doing his own research on Sumerians. This in addition to all his regular schoolwork. He's having a blast and would never have done any of this extra study if I hadn't told him that *I* want him to learn about the ancient world.

Don't you think that 100% self-directed learning would lead to people with alarming gaps in their knowlege? I think it makes sense to give children a broad knowlege base so that they can then choose to specialize in whatever interests them. How can a person know that he or she has a penchant for physics or geometry if he/she is never taught it?

So are schools where few children are interested in trivial knowledge failing because they have not forced kids to memorize facts?

Maybe forced memorization wouldn't be necessary if subjects were taught in an engaging manner. I went to school--I honestly enjoyed all my subjects: Math was like playing with puzzles, science was fascinating (except for microbiology and the study of plants--I can't warm up to those topics), and I LOVED English, History and studying a foreign language. Learning, even in a school setting, can be fun despite the hard work--it *should* be fun.

[Dar]

Originally posted by daylily

Life is like an immense interwoven tapestry--many things are connected in ways that we can't see. The less knowlege you have, the less of the tapestry you are able to see. You can be perfectly content, no doubt without all this knowlege, but you're still lacking something. .

I think this is so true, and I think that knowledge is really meaningless unless you have the ability to use it to make these kinds of connections and create this kind of fabric.

I also think, though, that there are huge amounts of knowledge (or trivia) that some people see and connect, but that most traditional or classical education systems totally miss. I know people who would look at Daedelus Books and notice things about how the building was constructed that I never see, and would then connect the building to other buildings, or older forms or architecture, or time periods when various construction materials were available in the area. Other people might notice the color combination on the sign and notice something about that, connecting it with their prior knowledge of color, while still others would kneel in front of the store and see signs of termite infestation. I know about Daedalus and Icarus, but I would totally miss the other things. The kind of knowledge I enjoy and can hold on and connect to is the kind that's generally valued in our mainstream culture, but I don't think that's all that really matters.

Dar

[Daffodil]

Originally posted by daylily
What I'm trying to say is that life is so much richer when you have a large base of knowlege to draw from.

I completely agree. But I think it would probably be better for schools to concentrate on developing the curiosity and thinking skills that make it easy to accumulate knowledge, rather than trying to teach the specific facts someone has decided are most useful.

Exposing kids to lots of different ideas and areas of study is great, but I don't think it's as important as teaching them to be excited about learning and to think well. (Ideally, schools would do both; in reality, they aren't too great at either.)

[Breathless Wonder]

Don't you think that 100% self-directed learning would lead to people with alarming gaps in their knowlege? I think it makes sense to give children a broad knowlege base so that they can then choose to specialize in whatever interests them. How can a person know that he or she has a penchant for physics or geometry if he/she is never taught it?

Have you ever heard the term "strewing"?
http://sandradodd.com/strew/sandra

I think there is too much emphasis on children needing to be TOLD what to do, and when to do, when you can get the same effect just by exposing them to different things.

[Artisan]

I have been homeschooled, and I went to both public and private schools. I've taught in public and private schools as well. I remember being given the freedom to study whatever I liked while in homeschool, and I took it and ran with it. I would go to the library and check out every single book they had, children's and adult's, on a topic. In 8th grade, I decided I was interested in Denmark. I don't know why, but I spent a lot of time studying it. I decided to write a research paper with visual aids. I also decided that I wanted to know about the weather and how it's predicted, so I studied that too.

Listen, I don't disagree with you that what children have mastered by the time they complete their education is sad. And I don't disagree that a topic taught in an engaging manner is very helpful.

What I disagree with is the idea that someone's education is judged by their memorization of facts on a given topic. For example, you can understand how a bill becomes a law without naming all 100 senators.

[daylily]

I really do understand what all of you are saying, and this has been an interesting discussion, which is what I was hoping for.

Where I'm coming from: I've been doing some reading about the state of public education in the United States and much of what I read is sobering. There's Outcome Based Education, in which extremely vague outcome goals seem indifferent to whether students are even able to read or write. Or the emphasis on self-esteem--is it really worthwhile to spend class time learning about how great you are? I think true self worth comes from mastering new skills, accomplishing something that you can be proud of, overcoming an obstacle, etc.

Yes, it's good to know "how to think" but if there's not much in your brain to think about, it probably won't do you much good.

Don't flame me--but right now I'm reading The Educated Child by former Education Secretary William Bennet. Honestly, I find myself nodding my head at much of what he says.

[Daffodil]

Originally posted by daylily
Yes, it's good to know "how to think" but if there's not much in your brain to think about, it probably won't do you much good.

But, see, I think if you have a sharp mind and have learned to appreciate an interesting idea when you come across it, you'll just naturally seek out more interesting ideas. You'll take care of filling up your own brain just fine.

Of course, you can't teach kids "how to think" without giving them a few actual things to think about. But I feel the focus should be on the "how to think" part, not memorization of particular facts.

[daylily]

Yes, but the key words in your statement are, "if you have a sharp mind." What if you don't? Are children who aren't particularly bright better served by not being given specific tools, or facts, that they may very well need to succeed?

[Daffodil]

If school were the whetstone for the mind it ought to be, everyone would be sharp.

Well, maybe. I'm not really sure what I believe about intelligence - whether it's mostly something you're born with, or mostly something nourished by education and developed by practice. But I do think that nearly everyone has potential abilities that aren't realized because schools and parents aren't doing the right things to encourage them. Just exposing kids to more facts probably isn't one of the right things - not if those facts aren't taught in an effective way. And kids who aren't particularly bright are particularly unlikely to benefit from having more facts thrown at them. They'll forget most of those half-understood facts as fast as they learn them, if they ever do learn them.

[daylily]

I certainly do agree that many schools are not an effective whetstone for the mind.