Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:875] RE: Fear as an Impediment to Learning
From: Nelson, Dennis (Dennis.Nelson@ny.ngb.army.mil)
Date: Thu 11 Jan 2001 - 23:47:51 MET
From: "Nelson, Dennis" <Dennis.Nelson@ny.ngb.army.mil> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:875] RE: Fear as an Impediment to Learning Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:47:51 +1300
Perspective on Fear in relation to learning: The impact of fear on learning
is a continuum from being the greatest contributor to learning to the
opposite extreme of being the greatest impediment to learning. The
corallary being that the more we understand the continuum and its dynamics,
the more we can help fear and its related stimuli be contributors to
learning.
Let's establish our foundation:
I assume we seek the truth about fear's effect on learning.
A truth must always have been, be, and will be true to be a truth, across
all state's of existence: physical, mental, emotional and spiritual.
Somethings called true, truth or truths are just situational relationships:
I am alive, conventionlly called true or the truth is just an accurate
statement of the evidence of my current four states of being in relation to
everything else's current four states of being.
In truth, learning is the attainment of a new position: either a new,
original, amended or more confident position on a given truth, perspective,
hypothesis or situational relationship. We can learn in any of our four
states whether we set out to be study, brawl, arguing, loving, living, etc.,
consciously, or unconsciously just experiencing what comes our way.
Physically fear can help our "learning" (i.e., achieving a new position
(perspective as well as physical and new state of being in relation to our
new emotional, mental, spiritual and physical makeups)by surging adrenalin
for a needed rush of activity (in any or all of our states of being) or
freezing us into inaction (in any or all of our states of being). Quick
examples: a ferocious lion or a test for which we are unprepared, or an
angry foe, or death and an angel appear before us. Can we all agree that
fear (depending on our level of confidence) can either move us in the right,
wrong, or no direction? Can we all agree that after the experience, we will
have learned, e.g., be in a new position with regard to our relational
states of being, i.e., we learn from experience (even if it is the wrong
perspective(s))?
Let's look at a practical example: a list or social movement for dramatic
and positive change. This requires an education (learning) by the
proponents and learning by the proposed new members.
Three of some people's greatest fears is that they'll be martyred for
their religion; they have the wrong religion and don't want to know that, or
that discussions of religion will stop any movement in its tracks and doom
the movement to failure. Any discussions, real or perceived, about religion
and anything related thus are banned, censored or otherwise regulated
differently than any other topic, issue or material. From a human to a book
to a library to a society or a universe or any profession: how good can the
entity be if it consciously attempts to amputate the existence, knowledge,
study or discussion of a part of the entities own being? This is fear
freezing us.
Conversely, if we acknowledge the fear, adrenalin and other related
reactions in our states of being when "religion" faces us, can we not as in
escaping the lion, or performing better on a test or in a phyical movement,
do better after having been through the experience?
Let's look at an application: supporting the topic of religion on
discussion lists:
Thank you for being open with me regarding your concerns. I
appreciate your efforts and dedication. I appreciate the opening to
respond.
As you would expect, this is your list and thus out of respect for
you as a person I do and will continue to comply with your requests. I hope
to convince you, however, that your current conclusions about what should or
shouldn't be done are counterproductive both short and long-term. Let me
explain.
I understand the intent of your message, and want to make the intent
of mine to you equally clear. My intent is to help the list be successful,
long and short term.
For our list's effort to be a success and not just the latest
attempt at some kind of reform: we must be something different than the past
attempts at reform or creating something new. If we always do what's always
been done, we'll have the same results -- we'll be an also ran. What has
succeeded for millennia is open, honest discussion and mutual respect:
despite generational efforts at censorship and using fear to curtail
searches for truth because of the friction involved in the search. That's
why we even get to have this exchange and our list exchanges.
In the kind of open learning we have been discussing (and having),
the first lesson for participants has to be that any one or all of us can
discuss and debate any and all topics (as we have on the list, 'til now, and
still are having here). This is critical lest our initial censorship's of
one or more people or topics turn into a censorship of many and most people
and topics by a superpowerful minority.
That being written, I did not and typically do not discuss religion
in the generally understood manner unless specifically asked to do so.
Neither of the three types of religion do I discuss: the first being that
generally recognized, such as the denominational; the second being somewhat
generally recognized, the denominations plus the cultural beliefs, rites,
and rituals (such as the Indian faiths), and the last being the theories
sometimes put forward by members of this list or evolutionists. All of
these are religions in the sense they propose a given faith and way of
living as opposed to the other "religions" or faiths and ways of living.
Some religions include gods or all powerful sources, others do not. Each is
still an expression of the faith and belief in how things work by the
respective believer. Instead, I discuss whether or not a proposed truth or
fact is indeed a truth or fact whatever it's source or other people's
feelings about it. I'm not concerned that in our short conversation we come
to the same conclusion, only that we have shared and are open to further
evidence as time and other circumstances permit. In the meantime, neither
of us are to hurt the other because we have cited what evidence we have thus
far obtained on a particular topic or issue.
In that regard, The Bible, the Torah, Scientology, Existentialism,
Iroquois writings, combinations thereof, all are books or faiths with
concepts, philosophies, principles, stories, historical events, etc., that
can help us learn about our existence and future by studying, understanding
and applying the past. They contain their authors (and supporters) proposed
truths and facts. Anytime someone relates a question to me about a topic,
issue, truth or fact, I give the best answer I possibly can. I encourage
all to read and decide the issues for themselves: neither attempting to
censor their search, their materials, nor their conclusions, expecting the
same courtesy and respect from them.
The way we "do something" towards our end is to demonstrate that we
are the least judgmental, most open loving and supporting people convicted
that we are seeking and open to truth and to helping others in their search.
We happen to believe that search for truth is called learning. As we learn,
we find truth whether that was our initial or conscious quest or not. Truth
dawns on the enlightened mind. Or, as initially suggested, ours is just
another fringe movement of collective individuals attempting to foist a
particular set of beliefs on potential new members.
I am not a person who would be called religious in the traditional
sense or even in the second definition I wrote. I fit the last as we all
must in that I do make all decisions according to my faith, beliefs and way
of living: as do you, whether or not you also do or do not subscribe to a
certain denomination, as well.
This should be an on-line discussion of how we will approach people
and respond when questions of religion must and are addressed, as well as
other potentially troubling to some topics. If we can't discuss certain
topics in the movement, are those topics also banned from the
self-sustaining centers? Do we then deny membership to those who can't keep
their feelings silent? As we need fewer people for self-sustainment, do we
start to remove people who we know talk about the "other stuff" outside of
our presence?
Should this not be true of any movement or list not having hidden
agendas, not having an unreasonable fear of religious issues or not having
learned from history that only the truthful seeking of truth in openness can
succeed?
Learning (new positions, perspectives)?
Dennis R. Nelson
-----Original Message-----
2) Fear as an Impediment to Learning
by Barry Kort <bkort@musenet.org>
For the past 15 years, I've been studying the interplay of emotions
and learning. For the most part, I've been focusing on such emotions
as curiosity, fascination, puzzlement, confusion, bewilderment, anxiety,
boredom, frustration, dissapointment, insight, satisfaction, and confidence.
But more and more I've become concerned about the role of fear in
learning. In recent conversations and observations, I've noticed
that fear seems to be a significant factor in arrested learning.
I'm curious whether others here have any perspective on the role of
fear in accelerating or decelerating the learning process.
Barry Kort
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Fri 12 Jan 2001 - 00:54:52 MET