Redoing Your Education Independently

[Benpercent]

Seeing as I've only received a smattering of institutionalized knowledge out of the fifteen years I've been in the public education system, I'm not too excited about throwing away thousands of dollars into the college system I can't really afford and am not really prepared for. So I'm about 99.9% certain I'm going to drop out, seeing as I learn better on my own and really have no planned application for a degree. But if I do start pursuing a goal where a degree is necessary, I will go back.

As for what goals I'm pursuing, I have not fully fleshed out the details of how I want to achieve my ends, but I do know I have aspirations towards writing and hopefully becoming a known intellectual.

However, before I start hardcore studying literature, philosophy, and linguistics*, I thought it might be appropriate and very beneficial to me to pick up, and permanently stick into my brain, the skills which many classes have failed to teach me thanks to things like "Whole Math" and history taught without any connection to our daily lives (though I did luck out with phonics). What skills I'm talking about are the usual ones taught in school: math, geography, history, and so on. All of it. Or as much as possible. I wish to be able to do things such as complete math equations in my head (big ones, I mean) and to be able to recite bits of the constitution and the bill of rights.

What I need help with is figuring out where to start, that is, I'm afraid if I jump in I could violate the hierarchy of knowledge and make mere decorations of all those educational books. So I ask: is there a specific method or resource available where one can learn where one ought to start and how one should progress? Moreover, could anyone recommend any good educational resources? As of far, I thought I might start with improving my study skills through reading the book "Study Skills" and my grammar through studying the book "Grammar and Thinking", both from the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

As a last note, have I overlooked something, such as a topic covering this? Perhaps this topic is too broad?

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

* These I hope to focus on, but the list is very much not limited to this.

[DavidOdden]

What I need help with is figuring out where to start, that is, I'm afraid if I jump in I could violate the hierarchy of knowledge and make mere decorations of all those educational books.

Here is a methodological starting point. For any subject, be able to say what the real-word object of study is, and what the purpose of studying it is. In addition, be prepared to return to these questions, to make your answer more concrete. Imagine doing that to a subject such as chemistry -- reasonably straightforward. Now try that with sociology -- yikes!, I can't figure out what the domain of the field is and why anyone studies it. Then finally, thinking about history this way will help concretize the relationship between the what and why questions. It should show you that purpose precedes choice -- you study US revolutionary history because you want to focus on constitutional law; you study Ancient Middle Eastern history because you want to understand the rise of Islam.

Grammar and Thinking has a number of fundamental errors in it, but it's not horrifyingly wrong.

[AMERICONORMAN]

I'm convinced that it could be done, i.e., having the skills and knowledge in your own soul. The only problem I can see is to get the powers that be to give you the opportunity to show what you got, or to convince people that you are a first hander, and fighting the envy that you will encounter because of it.

But I would say in general to not drink too much, to learn economics, to keep abreast of some important aspect of computer science. Other than that, it's mainly discipline, and making the time (even cutting out many people from your life), for it.

The Ayn Rand Bookstore has many guides but there are also other readily available intellectuals, scholars and scientists in print who are good teachers.

If you need access to a laboratory then you got a problem. If you want to be a psychologist you need to be around people and their problems.

I can safely say that I learned how to write on my own, i.e., not formally. I learned from Ayn Rand, other Objectivists, and reading other writers.

Essentially it's easy; it's how you deal with the incidentals that becomes the problem.

But I really have nothing to show you as proof except my writing and the ease by which it comes to me.

I should also add that, in the meantime, until you are where you want to be, where you're not frustrated, then you have to get some sort of job, pick and industry that you can welcome and find joy in, and integrate in some strong way to your intellectual interests, and rise in that, and learn what you need to learn to do so, even going to community college if necessary. Once in an industry and you prove you're a man of ability and can learn independently and grow, the opportunities do open up. There is a brain drain, there is a shortage of ability and independent, creative thinkers.

[Adrian Hester]

Grammar and Thinking has a number of fundamental errors in it, but it's not horrifyingly wrong.

Do you mean Writing and Thinking, or did I miss this book on the website?

[DavidOdden]

Do you mean Writing and Thinking, or did I miss this book on the website?

Oh, well I meant Grammar and Thinking, because that's what BP said, and I thought he meant it. It was written by Alfred Dwight Sheffield, and it's getting on to 100 years old (thus is freely getable from Google). But I see that in fact the ARI bookstore is offering a different book Writing and Thinking by Foerster and Steadman, which I don't have and thus have no comments on. Edited April 22, 2008 by DavidOdden
stupid invisible tags

[turboimpala]

Do you mean Writing and Thinking, or did I miss this book on the website?

If you want to be a writer I wouldn't worry about memorizing the constitution or doing complicated math in your head.

I'm an engineer and I've never needed to do complicated math in my head in the 12 years I've been working in industry.

I would focus on reading and writing.

Of course you need something to think and write about, so learning history would support that.

I've been reading Paul Graham's essays lately (mostly about computer programming) and he has a lot of great advice on writing.

Here's a link to a great essay by Paul Graham, about how to write essays:

http://paulgraham.com/essay.html

[Adrian Hester]

What I need help with is figuring out where to start, that is, I'm afraid if I jump in I could violate the hierarchy of knowledge and make mere decorations of all those educational books. So I ask: is there a specific method or resource available where one can learn where one ought to start and how one should progress?

I've found that for history the best way to proceed, at least for me, is to find a good survey history, one hopes not so dry and boring as to turn you off the subject entirely, and to combine it with books on narrower periods and topics, especially ones that go into the historiography of the subject--how we know what we know, who offered certain interpretations and why, how our knowledge of the period has changed, and what gaps in the evidence remain. At the same time you want to find a good sourcebook in original documents. For example, let's say you wanted to study American history of the colonial and revolutionary periods. You'll want a good general survey of American history to give you a basic timeline of important events and then a good book about each of the three regions. For instance, for New England you might want to start with Ranlet's Enemies of the Bay Colony: Puritan Massachussetts and Its Foes, which was written to give a survey of Massachussetts history up to King Philip's War without showing undue sympathy to the Puritans, which important earlier historians of New England (Perry Miller, Alden Vaughan) were wont to do; you'd also, of course, want to read their broader or more groundbreaking works too eventually, such as Vaughan's New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675. Similarly, you'd want to get a copy of John Boles' The South Through Time: A History of an American Region, which is an excellent book, I might add. (For the Middle Colonies I don't know the history books so well at all.) And so on; try to get a good grasp of the course of events in the period and a feel for how the different economies and societies in the various regions worked, what opportunities they gave or closed off, and how that went in hand with the governments of the colonies, and follow up your interests. At the same time you'd want to find a good book or two about politics and political theory in the colonies--there are quite a few, of course, but a good place to start is Donald Lutz' Origins of American Constitutionalism, which is a short, lucid introduction to the subject. (It's best read with his collection of colonial charters and other documents, The Colonial Origins of the American Constitution.) Not to mention some of the major modern works--Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is still quite good; also one to read eventually is J.R. Pole's Political Representation in England and the Birth of the American Republic (very long but very good on comparing the English and American experiences in representative political systems), and then R.R. Palmer's The Age of the Democratic Revolution is an interesting comparative study of the period; Gordon Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution is also worth reading to see how ideas of social hierarchy and equality changed over time in the colonies and early republic. Those are just off the top of my head; someone who's studied the period thoroughly (not me) would probably have other equally good suggestions, if not better. The problem, of course, is knowing where to go to find the good books in the first place (since that's much more fruitful than working critically through bad books), and there you have to ask, read reviews, and sometimes just give it a try. (Though for American and European history, Liberty Fund is usually a good starting point.)

Edited April 22, 2008 by Adrian Hester

[Benpercent]

Here is a methodological starting point. For any subject, be able to say what the real-word object of study is, and what the purpose of studying it is.

Ah, I see much use in that. Perhaps tonight would be a good night to sit down and write down what I want to study and why. I know for certain things like linguistics I want to apply to my writing (take Anthony Burgess, though he is philosophically detestable, for instance).

Grammar and Thinking has a number of fundamental errors in it, but it's not horrifyingly wrong.

Perhaps Freudian Slips is another thing I ought to look into. When thinking about the book Writing and Thinking I kept the word "Grammar" flashing in my head and that eventually replaced the first word in the book's title. Excuse the error.

I'm convinced that it could be done, i.e., having the skills and knowledge in your own soul. The only problem I can see is to get the powers that be to give you the opportunity to show what you got, or to convince people that you are a first hander, and fighting the envy that you will encounter because of it.

The hard work makes it sound like a very satisfying process, and I'm used to envy because of my youth. I'm still in the age group (me being 19) where kids scowl at you were being too smart, because they "feel" as if though you're intentionally trying to rub their noses in their ignorance.

But I would say in general to not drink too much, to learn economics, to keep abreast of some important aspect of computer science.

I've got the not-drinking-altogether down pat and I do recognize the importance and my interest in economics, but why do you recommend computer science?

If you need access to a laboratory then you got a problem. If you want to be a psychologist you need to be around people and their problems.

No worries. I plan on becoming a writer, and am contemplating somewhat a role of lecturer.

If you want to be a writer I wouldn't worry about memorizing the constitution or doing complicated math in your head.

I know I may not have to worry about such things, but I would like too. My ignorance of history is astounding to me, and it is, after all, "philosophy teaching by examples." I would like to learn more history so I can make more connections in my learning of philosophy, and so I may also spot the tried-before-and-failed proposals of our time, such as socialism.

As for math, I would at least like to become more fluent in it. Because I was mistakenly labeled as incompetent in grammar school and later had to go through "Whole Math", I still find myself using my fingers for arithmetic and wishing people would avert their eyes when I do division. Fluency for me, I think, would serve a practical purpose, such as me being able to figure out the best deal in grocery stores or being able to figure and divide how much space I have to work with when decorating my home. And so on and so forth.

I've been reading Paul Graham's essays lately (mostly about computer programming) and he has a lot of great advice on writing.

Here's a link to a great essay by Paul Graham, about how to write essays:

http://paulgraham.com/essay.html

Because of the length of the essay, I'll probably take a look at it next Tuesday when I'll have home access to the internet.

At the same time you want to find a good sourcebook in original documents.

Alright, just one question, how do I figure, when picking out some books or so, that I'm looking at an original source and not just some interpretation?

Again, thank you all for your time. All suggestions have been much help.

[athena glaukopis]

http://www.powellhistory.com/

I haven't done it, but I sure want to! I'm a history major and most of my teachers teach "thematically" -- I'm all jumbled up and once I get some extra dough I'm going to try his courses.

Good luck! I wonder how much of my education should be done in the privacy (rationality) of my own home (mind).

Let us know how it goes~

Edit:

If you are interested in Linguistics and the kind of wordplay that Burgess does (which he uses Russian) you might be interested in taking a language as well, (if I were to create new words I'd want to take Greek or Latin, myself but everyone is different). I've taken a basic Linguistics course and found it fascinating, with all the glottal stops and creoles and allophones of the same phoneme! It's a real hoot!

For Philosophy, I like using History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell -- it's easy to reference (has an index in the back), it's well organized (each philosopher has his own "chapter") and if you skim past his "opinions" on certain philosophers it's an easy way to gain a basic understanding of the premises of many philosophers (especially the modern ones whose own works are difficult to understand -- and lets face it, a pain in the ass to read).

Edited April 22, 2008 by athena glaukopis

[lorean]

A real education is independent, I hope it goes well for you.

[AMERICONORMAN]

I say to understand computer science because I wish I knew more about computers and computer software; there's so much I can do with them that I don't know how to. You want to keep abreast of the latest software that will help write quicker, or organize your work better, or market it. My main point is if you don't keep abreast of these things when you're young then, when you're thirty it will be much harder, you'll realize you need it, you need to make money quick, and you have to learn how to do it. So I mean computers and economics you should continually carry and develop as the years go by.

Yes, history is important for a writer, but I consider it something that can always be learned, at whatever age. For example if one day you're ready to write a novel about Ancient Greece, then that will give you a tremendous motivation to learn Greek history.

In terms of writing fiction, keeping up with computers and technology will allow you to keep your works of your time, you can even pick the products that most define your time in history, your age, so that the realism is more real. Think of all the story possibilities, or the solutions to carrying a plot that can be found with the use of some gadget in a story. Or can you be a science fiction writer now without being able to be creative about the future of computers? And even if natural science is the type of science fiction that you would focus on, can they today escape computers?

I hope that helps.

[Benpercent]

If you are interested in Linguistics and the kind of wordplay that Burgess does (which he uses Russian) you might be interested in taking a language as well, (if I were to create new words I'd want to take Greek or Latin, myself but everyone is different). I've taken a basic Linguistics course and found it fascinating, with all the glottal stops and creoles and allophones of the same phoneme! It's a real hoot!

Word play isn't the only thing I'm interested in linguistics for. It drives me nuts sometimes to hear someone say a word in a fashion I admire but am unable to pinpoint what it is exactly I like about it.

And to clarify, Burgess doesn't just use Russian; he has other languages to tap from such as Malay. The thing I appreciate about his wordplay is that he writes as if his books were encased in quotations marks, which makes it seems as if though his books were being narrated aloud. Because of this tactic he frees himself to change the pronunciation of words and to make some of his own, but that isn't always a good thing regarding when he's feeling his most Joycean. But he makes good use of nonsense too, like in The Doctor is Sick (fav book) where some mobsters speak to each other in nonsensical slang.

For Philosophy, I like using History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell -- it's easy to reference (has an index in the back), it's well organized (each philosopher has his own "chapter") and if you skim past his "opinions" on certain philosophers it's an easy way to gain a basic understanding of the premises of many philosophers (especially the modern ones whose own works are difficult to understand -- and lets face it, a pain in the ass to read).

I'll be sure to check it out. Before that, though, I think I might check out the philosophy history book by Windelband.

A real education is independent, I hope it goes well for you.

Thank you. It's shameful to see adults who have abandoned their minds after leaving school act as if they hold a superior intelligence. Most of the time, from what I've seen, faith is their epistemology.

I'll be sure to try and stay on top then. Certainly don't want any benefits passing me by by the way of technology.

-----

Thank you for all the suggestions. However, it might be a little while before I begin the process. As of right now I'm focusing most of my funds towards saving for speech therapy (acting on Odden's advice), and those funds are growing very slowly doing to my having to leave my last job (work study for college, funds ran out) and my smidgen of trouble in getting another one.

In the meanwhile maybe I ought to focus on improving my concentration and memory so I may lock onto my readings like an iron trailer hitch and tow all that knowledge away.

[DavidOdden]

Word play isn't the only thing I'm interested in linguistics for.

And I'm always happy to give guidance in that area, when you have a feeling for what it is that interests you. One dividing line is between linguist (the science) and polyglot (learning languages). I myself like the theory-construction with testing against exotic languages approach.

[Benpercent]

And I'm always happy to give guidance in that area, when you have a feeling for what it is that interests you. One dividing line is between linguist (the science) and polyglot (learning languages). I myself like the theory-construction with testing against exotic languages approach.

I think, to begin my studies I will start with, picking with much bias in mind, Burgess' A Mouthful of Air, which is a linguistics introduction book. As far as I've gotten in my first time picking it up, I know of one error: he thinks that languages were born during the Babel Tower incident in the bible. Which is another fine note of Burgess' hypocrisy: he publicly calls himself an unbeliever (whether he means atheist or agnostic is unknown) while being Catholic in his words.

[Benpercent]

As a minor update, I've started my independent studies as of about two weeks or so ago. I started (and have finished) with Edwin A. Locke's book Study Methods and Motivation, which is something I wish I would have read before I entered college, as it may have prevented all the problems I've had. I have to agree with Burgess Laughlin's assessment and say this may be one of the most important books I have ever read. Honestly now I'm strongly reconsidering college, but am still on the side of considering its worth. A summer spent brain strengthening is a must regardless.

Right now I'm dual studying OPAR and Writing and Thinking, using the study methods I've learned from Locke, and it's coming along very slowly just for the moment. The amount of thinking I do every so many sentences makes it so I can only do so few pages in so many hours, but I'm unbothered since I know practice makes perfect and one mentally fit.

There has been significant progress so far though. When I first started studying my mind was extremely undisciplined and I couldn't stop myself my daydreaming so much and breaking concentration, but only after a few weeks do I see myself getting much more easily absorbed and completely unannoyed with what steps I go through to ensure understanding. Even away from my studies do I find daydreaming very untempting, and sometimes even boring! As time goes on I'm sure studying will be one of my main sources of entertainment and that my learning powers will become increased and more efficient.

The only major irritation I have is with my relative, who thinks studying is unproductive. One time last week she wanted me to go vacuum out her car and "be thankful I was being given something to do." Of course, she thinks college is very important, but it's obvious now she focuses on the paper alone detached from knowledge.

[eriatarka]

If youre interested in math, I think this essay gives a good summary of whats wrong with contemporary high school mathematics. I'm not sure what I'd recommend for self-learning though, but it depends on your purpose. I dont think there's much reason to be able to do things like long-division (we have calculators) or solve complex equations (why would you do this unless you were working in the sciences?), but to get a brief taste of what proper interesting-for-its-own-sake math is like, I'd recommend chapters 2-4 of Roger Penrose's 'Emperor's New Mind'. It doesnt require much mathematical background and its a good presentation of some really interesting concepts. Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" book is also pretty great.

Edited June 16, 2008 by eriatarka

[Maximus]

I'm still in the age group (me being 19) where kids scowl at you were being too smart, because they "feel" as if though you're intentionally trying to rub their noses in their ignorance.

Screw 'em. Nattering nabobs of negativity.

Let none sway you from your goals. The scowlers recognise thier ignorance and seek to bring you down to thier level.

[LovesLife]

However, before I start hardcore studying literature, philosophy, and linguistics*, I thought it might be appropriate and very beneficial to me to pick up, and permanently stick into my brain, the skills which many classes have failed to teach me thanks to things like "Whole Math" and history taught without any connection to our daily lives (though I did luck out with phonics). What skills I'm talking about are the usual ones taught in school: math, geography, history, and so on. All of it. Or as much as possible. I wish to be able to do things such as complete math equations in my head (big ones, I mean) and to be able to recite bits of the constitution and the bill of rights.

What I need help with is figuring out where to start, that is, I'm afraid if I jump in I could violate the hierarchy of knowledge and make mere decorations of all those educational books. So I ask: is there a specific method or resource available where one can learn where one ought to start and how one should progress? Moreover, could anyone recommend any good educational resources? As of far, I thought I might start with improving my study skills through reading the book "Study Skills" and my grammar through studying the book "Grammar and Thinking", both from the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

As a last note, have I overlooked something, such as a topic covering this? Perhaps this topic is too broad?

When I went to college, I took a multi-year course where I completely re-learned math from the very beginning ("what is a number") up through real analysis. We derived every theorem from basic principles, and discussed much of the history of math along the way. In my view, that is the best way to learn a subject, and the only way to fully understand it.

If I could go through school again, I would do something similar for all of my classes. In fact, a very cool way to do it might be all at once -- learning the subjects in their original historical and political context. I'm a big fan of history, in particular, but specifically not the boring, awful history that's taught in today's schools where they have you memorize dates, names and places. Rather, the history of ideas. Even in math, knowing the history helped establish a context without which things didn't make much sense -- and I think the same is true for other areas of study as well.

I would also recommend going back to original source materials as often as you can (or at least something closer to the original than modern textbooks). It always amazes me to see how much the modern re-interpretations butcher the originals.

It's a big job, but not impossible. My math course was 5 college units and lasted two years. With a "nominal" 15 unit load (or a self-study equivalent), you could do three of those at a time, times two is 6 subjects in the usual 4 years of college. Everyone's interests are different, but if it was me, I would pick: Philosophy, History, English, Math, Physics and either Biology or Chemistry.

[Benpercent]

Long time no update.

Things are going well. My concentration and focus continues to improve, as well as my lack of daydreaming. I have also been managing to increase gradually how long I may stay at my studies, which is a nice plus.

The subjects I have been studying has not changed yet; my curriculum still consists of philosophy (OPAR), grammar (Writing and Thinking), writing (blogging, essays, and so on) and reading (right now: Economics in One Lesson [second time], Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination, and The Prime Movers [just finished but shall reread immediately]). I should be finished with OPAR in two weeks or so and I plan on replacing it with a mathematical unit (Saxon Math).

I am constantly on the lookout for things to study and resources to use, which I keep track of with a reading/studying list.

I have noticed a strange problem, however, with myself; epistemologically I mean. I noticed that whenever I'm reading a book, whether it be fiction or nonfiction, I pay a minimal amount of attention to the names of places and to the names of people, almost as if by reflex. As a result, I usually leave with a confusion of who did what and where they did it, which bothers me. Does anyone have this problem or an insight to it?

My proposed solution is to pick up a geography unit, which should help force myself to focus on country names and particular information about them. Do you think this would be a good solution, or perhaps one might suggest a better one? Does anyone know of any good geography resources? Right now I am giving consideration to Geography of the World by Jayne Parsons, but it was published in 2006 and I am wondering if a more up-to-date source is available.

[softwareNerd]

I noticed that whenever I'm reading a book, whether it be fiction or nonfiction, I pay a minimal amount of attention to the names of places and to the names of people, almost as if by reflex.

Possibly, at some level, you think that the name is a nitty-gritty factoid that adds no useful information. You can try giving yourself a "standing instruction" to pay attention to these when you encounter them. Perhaps, in the beginning, you can even jot them down as you encounter them, and a little later Google them to get some more background.

[brian0918]

Great choice for reading! (Econ in One Lesson) I plan to read this regularly, in addition to Hazlitt's Thinking as a Science, which I am working through now for the first time.

[DavidOdden]

I noticed that whenever I'm reading a book, whether it be fiction or nonfiction, I pay a minimal amount of attention to the names of places and to the names of people, almost as if by reflex. As a result, I usually leave with a confusion of who did what and where they did it, which bothers me.

I don't have that problem anymore with places. Names (of places and people) are arbitrary sounds, until they are part of a larger cognitive system or related facts. Probably if I mentioned something about Khwarezm once, that would be an arbitrary place name that you could forget in 2 minutes. Once embedded in some study of ancient Persian history and the Mongol expansion, it stops being a floating abstraction. This is why I advocate focused studies rather than broad studies -- learn something well, even if it's quite narrow. Pick a coherent part of the world to care about, rather than trying to learn where each country is. It took me a couple years being an Africanist to vicerally understand where the countries of Africa are (and the consequences of that geography).