Scan barcode
A review by graciegrace1178
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales by Oliver Sacks
5.0
review in progress. Dates estimated
PT: books that got me out of a reading slump, books that changed the way I see the world, Jordan Peterson book list, psych books, books that encouraged further research
WIL
1) synesthesia REPRESENTATION BABEY! (Even if it's not explicitly addressed) Look me in the eyes and tell me that every single person in this book is not a synesthete. Can you? Can you look me in the eyes and lie?
2) "They do not approach numbers as likely most calculators do" HOLD THE FRICKIN PHONE THAT'S SUCH A GAME-CHANGING QUOTE. Because,, because,, god this is hard to explain OKAY. So human educational development works in conjunction with the observable environment right? I don't have a source for that atm,* but for the purposes of this, imma treat that as an axiom. So, SO it would track that in a generation that grows up with math being fundamentally tied to *computers,* that is machines that treat variables as a pinpoint to be manipulated through mechanisms and processes which can be recorded on paper or in the digital record, this generation will come to think of numbers strictly in that sense. But ohmygod this gentleman, this fella Sacks! He comes from the days of Yore, pre-easy-access strong calculators. He had to look up prime numbers in a BOOK for goodness' sake. He has a fundamentally different way of seeing numbers already with that barrier difference. The way he presents conversations about numbers is so distinctly Old Academia. It has an element of the qualitative embedded into his speech. Numbers are numbers to him, but they're also tagged with formulaic information that can be molded like putty in different circumstances. That's not a feature you see often in modern academics of the sciences. In stem numbers are numbers are numbers. They're components that *represent* a whole or an external concept but have no meaning independently. The difference in mathematical speech between Sacks and modern scientific writing is staggering.
From this, consider how one might view numbers in a different context entirely! In a world where the concept of a calculator (technological or otherwise) is non-existent! Where, in order to work with numbers, one treats them as *people* with their own inherent characteristics and preferences and dislikes. Personified numbers rather than the flat pinpoints in space as we see them now. Yes, I know I need to read Flatland and The Joy of X yea yea yea I'll get there eventually.) POINT BEING! If we take out the cultural context that pushes the presentation of mathematics within the current calculator framework.... that could really change things. Just, in the most general sense, could change things. I'm- this probably makes no sense bc it's nearly one AM but I'm OBSESSED with the potential here.
UPDATE: Wait ha,I paused the audiobook before Sacks even mentioned the friend thing (in brief)! Same wavelength Sacks. NOT IN BRIEF AFTER ALL. IM OSBESSED DID I NOT JUST SAY ALL THIS?? NUMBERS ARE FRIENDS. IM SOSIGHHESGOWJOJ.
*source is that I remember reading it Somewhere in a Book By Someone in 2019
3) The mathematical genius twins. Playing their game of prime numbers with twenty digits. They "see" the numbers right? They have this sort of intuitive sense about them? And same goes for that one dude (didn't catch his name in the audiobook) who constructed endless times tables with prime numbers. And then there are the folks who have that internal sense of harmony and perfect pitch. See, see, the thing that really gets me about this is the notion that individuals *independently of each other* have the capacity to learn the material through a sort of intrinsic method of calculation that cannot be explicitly translated into observational skills. This is the world of the xNxx (or, more probably, the world of the Ni dominant.) And what is most striking about this notion is the *implication for education.*
Education, in America at least, treats kids like there is no such intuition about the world. Everything must be spoonfed because children are, according to the curriculum, blank slates upon which teachers should paint their knowledge. Kids hold the canvas up to the teacher, teacher drags a brush across it. But...BUT the fascinating thing that Sacks brings up is that maybe, MAYBE, certain humans (all humans?) have the capacity to provide paint from the backside of the canvas, as it were. They don't need to paint. They can etch designs from their own perspective onto the canvas and create a pattern all their own that, remarkably, achieves the same end effect as direct teacher methods, creates art. This is a bad metaphor for the more objective fields like math but STILL.
What I'm saying is maybe the observational skills approach is only half the story. Maybe there's something to be learned from a more intuitive method of education in which problems are presented and students answer from their gut responses and then go about describing the ways in which they came to their own conclusions. It's still observational in its own way, but it utilizes the subject *as* a subject of education rather than a changeable variable to be acted upon. The kids are treated as a source of internal education rather than a machine that should receive information and spout it back out again. What I'm saying is, education could be improved, and I think Sacks might be on to something (in a very roundabout way.)
(Hey, Montessori schools, any of you reading this? Y'all wanna maybe hire me based on this analysis???)
4) ROMANTIC SCIENCE AH! and FROM THE BEGINNING WOW
WIDL:
1) “Music is nothing but unconscious arithmetic” = filed under sentences that rEALLY get under my skin. He’s RIGHT but also KCNOAHXJW. I mean that’s like saying a person is nothing but atoms. Yea it’s true but also whole is more than the sum of its parts bro.
PT: books that got me out of a reading slump, books that changed the way I see the world, Jordan Peterson book list, psych books, books that encouraged further research
WIL
1) synesthesia REPRESENTATION BABEY! (Even if it's not explicitly addressed) Look me in the eyes and tell me that every single person in this book is not a synesthete. Can you? Can you look me in the eyes and lie?
2) "They do not approach numbers as likely most calculators do" HOLD THE FRICKIN PHONE THAT'S SUCH A GAME-CHANGING QUOTE. Because,, because,, god this is hard to explain OKAY. So human educational development works in conjunction with the observable environment right? I don't have a source for that atm,* but for the purposes of this, imma treat that as an axiom. So, SO it would track that in a generation that grows up with math being fundamentally tied to *computers,* that is machines that treat variables as a pinpoint to be manipulated through mechanisms and processes which can be recorded on paper or in the digital record, this generation will come to think of numbers strictly in that sense. But ohmygod this gentleman, this fella Sacks! He comes from the days of Yore, pre-easy-access strong calculators. He had to look up prime numbers in a BOOK for goodness' sake. He has a fundamentally different way of seeing numbers already with that barrier difference. The way he presents conversations about numbers is so distinctly Old Academia. It has an element of the qualitative embedded into his speech. Numbers are numbers to him, but they're also tagged with formulaic information that can be molded like putty in different circumstances. That's not a feature you see often in modern academics of the sciences. In stem numbers are numbers are numbers. They're components that *represent* a whole or an external concept but have no meaning independently. The difference in mathematical speech between Sacks and modern scientific writing is staggering.
From this, consider how one might view numbers in a different context entirely! In a world where the concept of a calculator (technological or otherwise) is non-existent! Where, in order to work with numbers, one treats them as *people* with their own inherent characteristics and preferences and dislikes. Personified numbers rather than the flat pinpoints in space as we see them now. Yes, I know I need to read Flatland and The Joy of X yea yea yea I'll get there eventually.) POINT BEING! If we take out the cultural context that pushes the presentation of mathematics within the current calculator framework.... that could really change things. Just, in the most general sense, could change things. I'm- this probably makes no sense bc it's nearly one AM but I'm OBSESSED with the potential here.
UPDATE: Wait ha,I paused the audiobook before Sacks even mentioned the friend thing (in brief)! Same wavelength Sacks. NOT IN BRIEF AFTER ALL. IM OSBESSED DID I NOT JUST SAY ALL THIS?? NUMBERS ARE FRIENDS. IM SOSIGHHESGOWJOJ.
*source is that I remember reading it Somewhere in a Book By Someone in 2019
3) The mathematical genius twins. Playing their game of prime numbers with twenty digits. They "see" the numbers right? They have this sort of intuitive sense about them? And same goes for that one dude (didn't catch his name in the audiobook) who constructed endless times tables with prime numbers. And then there are the folks who have that internal sense of harmony and perfect pitch. See, see, the thing that really gets me about this is the notion that individuals *independently of each other* have the capacity to learn the material through a sort of intrinsic method of calculation that cannot be explicitly translated into observational skills. This is the world of the xNxx (or, more probably, the world of the Ni dominant.) And what is most striking about this notion is the *implication for education.*
Education, in America at least, treats kids like there is no such intuition about the world. Everything must be spoonfed because children are, according to the curriculum, blank slates upon which teachers should paint their knowledge. Kids hold the canvas up to the teacher, teacher drags a brush across it. But...BUT the fascinating thing that Sacks brings up is that maybe, MAYBE, certain humans (all humans?) have the capacity to provide paint from the backside of the canvas, as it were. They don't need to paint. They can etch designs from their own perspective onto the canvas and create a pattern all their own that, remarkably, achieves the same end effect as direct teacher methods, creates art. This is a bad metaphor for the more objective fields like math but STILL.
What I'm saying is maybe the observational skills approach is only half the story. Maybe there's something to be learned from a more intuitive method of education in which problems are presented and students answer from their gut responses and then go about describing the ways in which they came to their own conclusions. It's still observational in its own way, but it utilizes the subject *as* a subject of education rather than a changeable variable to be acted upon. The kids are treated as a source of internal education rather than a machine that should receive information and spout it back out again. What I'm saying is, education could be improved, and I think Sacks might be on to something (in a very roundabout way.)
(Hey, Montessori schools, any of you reading this? Y'all wanna maybe hire me based on this analysis???)
4) ROMANTIC SCIENCE AH! and FROM THE BEGINNING WOW
WIDL:
1) “Music is nothing but unconscious arithmetic” = filed under sentences that rEALLY get under my skin. He’s RIGHT but also KCNOAHXJW. I mean that’s like saying a person is nothing but atoms. Yea it’s true but also whole is more than the sum of its parts bro.