LACanuck wrote:Thank you. And I never took any of it personally. Otherwise that beer offer would never have been madeMetacrock wrote:I never meant to treat you that way. You are one of the few on there I really respect.So what I'm about to say comes from the fact that I'm an instructor and author (at least part of the time) and have been for over 20 years.Metacrock wrote:Sometimes you can be frustrating because it seems as though you don't let of things I find really obvious the other way. But I know part for the course. I know it is. that's not a reason to insult.
If I'm standing at the front of the class describing a complex topic and only 10% of the students 'get it', who's to blame? Is it that the students are too stupid/uneducated/unskilled to be able to understand the topic? Or have I just done a poor job conveying the information?
The answer is "the instructor is to blame".
It's certainly possible that the students do not have the knowledge necessary to digest the content. But as an experienced instructor, I should recognize this situation and go 'back to basics'. Start at the foundation and build up their knowledge brick by brick. Spoon feed them the information necessary to put the complex topic into the appropriate context and give them the basis to grasp what I'm trying to convey.
The other possibility is that the students do have the ability to grasp the concept but are unable to understand me. In this case, it is my teaching that is is at fault. I'm not being clear, not drawing the appropriate analogies, not causing the light bulb in their heads to go off. So I need to do the same thing. Go back to basics. Find a different angle. Do something that will transfer the concept to them. If I don't or can't, then the failure is mine, not the student's.
If I might gently suggest, this could be part of the problem. The arguments that you make and the articles/essays/commentary that you provide are not aimed at a general audience. As you have noted yourself, there is a lot of thought that has gone into your ideas, but they do not (generally) fit into the realm of mainstream Christianity. Most people (Christians and atheists) don't think at this level. But you assume that your audience has studied philosophy and theology. This is fine if you're writing to graduate level students. I don't think it will go over nearly as well if you're aiming at the audience on the typical Internet forum.I know that it's a challenge. And I do understand what you're saying. But your response causes people to take your ideas less seriously. I realize that one should have nothing to do with the other, but life isn't ideal. So if you want to go onto boards like that and get your ideas out to the 1-2% of people that might actually be able to understand them, you need to be able to ignore the back of dogs nipping at your heals. They can't really do you any harm, regardless of what they write.Metacrock wrote:but look when you have this little gang of nattering nabobs snapping at your heals all the time, usually about four then it builds up to six, then to ten. Its' really hard to turn off the fight back instinct. Hard to discriminate. then all atheists become the enemy. like being attacked by a pack of dogs. If one good dog is off in the corner (sorry to compare you to a dog) you can't just break away, go over pet it then back into the attack. you lash back at every dog anywhere.
hey stick around buddy. post here more often and I wont have to go to carm