I'm reading a book right now and the amount of mumbo jumbo is honestly funny
>Given the vast array of definitions, frameworks, and theories of transformative learning, some organizational scheme is needed for summarizing this material. We could proceed historically which is loosely what Gunnlaugson (2008) does with his division of the literature into “first” and “second wave” theories. The first wave centers on Mezirow's groundbreaking work and includes Mezirow's own refinements as well as research building on, and critiquing his theory. The second wave includes those who depart from Mezirow's rationalistic perspective and expand transformative learning to include holistic, extrarational, and integrative perspectives. Dirkx (1998) proposed four lenses for understanding transformative learning—emancipatory, cognitive, developmental, and spiritual-integrative, and Taylor (2008) suggested that Mezirow's psychocritical approach could be augmented by neurobiological, cultural-spiritual, race-centric and planetary conceptions. For this chapter we have chosen a more recent organizing scheme which seems to include all the various perspectives. Cranton's three-part framework (in press) consists of the cognitive perspective, beyond rational, and social change.
This makes immediate and complete sense to me. Have you considered the possibility that you're just not very bright?
Aaron Murphy
It made sense to you because you're dumb and accept meaningless abstractions uncritically.
Christian Turner
I am assuming this is just hashing out the definitions. The author will probably expand on those eventually. Keep reading. And yeah, many of these terms are dumb, but whatever.
Hunter Ortiz
social science, very clearly, will stand as the symbol of the end of the west. this includes psychology, of course.
Jaxson Nelson
it has no connection with truth, exists as masturbation and careerism and as a black-hole sink of tax-money, and sows only contention. It is, to put it mildly: completely useless, and one of the purest outlets of evil you can encounter in the world today.
Jacob Long
>. It is, to put it mildly: completely useless Not really, it's a strong propaganda device
Leo Brooks
Who says I care about what it's saying? It's literally just an introductory passage and a brief summary of what is to follow. There's very little there to "accept" — critically or otherwise. I don't know what to tell you except that the passage's words resolve to concrete meaning in my head. The concepts the words reference unfold themselves on their own. Could it be more "accessible" to people who might not understand it off the bat? Yeah, probably. I'm not passing judgment on that though. All I'm saying is that this makes sense.
Sebastian Butler
t. 0 pussy stem nerds
Jacob Gomez
post it
Joseph Perez
>Why is social sciences like that >quotes an introductory paragraph user, you might be dumb. How about you post something else from the book to prove your point?
Ryan Garcia
OP confirmed absolute brainlet.
This is an undergrad level text introduction, a start at laying out the land. If you don't understand this you don't belong on this board
Noah Harris
>there were 6 posts on Yea Forums in over a minute I'm locked in here with you
Angel Morris
Like what? it makes you confused? you're fucking stupid then. Say something about the content or go hang, you strange fruit piece of shit.
Dominic Jenkins
>can't understand academic terms That's academia for you. If you haven't read for context you won't understand the terms. Or you might be a little slow.
Michael Lewis
Dude, what's mumbo jumbo about that? That's how even most textbooks read. Every field has its jargon. So does social sciences.
Levi Ward
kek I was expecting something actually egregious but this is completely fine. You're just dump OP.
Robert Cox
I am OP
My point isnt that its compltely gibberish. Its that once you understand what they say, you get the feeling that they made it much harder to understand just for the purpose of seeming more verbose. This is a great example
Andrew Smith
very many things are not improved by more manhours
Owen Bell
Then it's not gibberish, it's someone that can't write in a clear way. So, are you talking about an author or social sciences as a subject? You'd fall into the 'can't be clear' category, you dumb fuck. Such a shitty fucking thread.
Sebastian Cruz
>much harder to understand Every word is precise and represents a large concept in much fewer words. If it doesn't immediately resolve to meaning, that's your fault.
Landon Smith
>once you understand what they say you most likely don't understand what they say, as the academic terms used to explain are large and carry a lot of meaning. Using other 'simple' terms would end up in a loss of meaning.
Angel Edwards
>big word make brain hurt. Make big word EZ for me. God damn OP, you're fucking stupid, never change
Extrarational is a retarded word that shouldn't exist. We have words like intuition, irrational, transcendental, spiritual, for things outside of reason.
Dylan Morales
If you care about precision, none of those words you referenced are synonymous. They all reference specific ways in which something is beyond basic, everyday rationale. These ways are all distinct. Sometimes people choose the exact, precise word they want to use when they refer to an exact, precise concept.
Juan King
This is why Yea Forums will never be taken seriously by anyone that understands any academic subject. Glad I only come here for shitposting.
>transcendental >Extrarational Are you stupid? have you never read any philosophy?
Robert Parker
Fuck academia, that poster is just an idiot. We are discussing the nature of language use more than anything specific to an academic field at this point. If you're worthy of that academic disdain you're adopting, you'll understand what I'm saying here.
Isaac Lee
Literally not that hard to understand. Try not being a 100 IQ midwit.
Evan Gutierrez
> intuition, irrational, transcendental, spiritual Imagine thinking you can use these interchangeably with extrarational
What's the precise meaning of extrarational? Literally no one in philosophy used extrarational before the 20th century. Have you ever used philosophy?
Daniel Richardson
just quit it nigger, let this shit thread die
Charles Long
>Literally no one in philosophy used extrarational before the 20th century makes you think why someone would use the term instead of using 'transcendental'. Maybe they are not the same thing. Maybe you're just a retard. Sucks for you.
Carson Russell
Define extrarational trannies
Colton Lewis
>extrarational >beyond rational There's no way that isn't euphemistic for sub-rational.
Parker Cruz
filtered
Colton Walker
Why? You completely ignored the point I made here and tried to manufacture some sophist "gotcha" moment, as if the definition of extrarational would somehow invalidate the rebuttal to your idea here that "words like intuition, irrational, transcendental, spiritual" are all synonymous. Address the rebuttal instead of just moving on from it if you want to have an actual discussion in lieu of being called a retard in passing.
Charles Torres
What’s the difference between learning and transformative learning?
Christian Cox
Social "scientists" are a sorry lot of people who are envious of philosophy for its frameworks, and the sciences for their reliability and ability to make things measurable. What you end up with is mumbo jumbo in their theories, retarded methodology in their fieldwork, and bad statistics.
David Hughes
Not them but extrarational in the op post refers to a word used in social studies which means „beyond rationality“ in regards to practicability or with a benefit that can’t be expressed in data, such as giving workers days off for grieving, that has nothing to do with „transcendental“ as that means „something that you can’t experience or grasp with human senses“ or „irrational“ which means „going against what would be rational“ and now come to terms with the fact that you’re a brainlet and let this thread die
Joshua Brown
Imagine thinking OP will honestly try. user, I don't know if you're new here or if you still have hope for this board, but I'd advice you to quit while you're ahead. This board is a sea of despair and retards like OP. You'd be wise to do as does and lurk for shitposts.
By demonstrating how arguments between rational people work, you set the bar higher, even if in any particular instance the person you're interacting with decides he doesn't want to be a vaulter anymore.
Ethan Brown
extra implies something completely different from trans you dense motherfucker. no why the fuck would you ever think extrarational and transcendental are related.or "irrational". maybe extrarationality has nothing to do with the use of reason and instead with something existing outside of it, hence extra. keep reading the fucking text instead of coming here to complaint about your inability to understand complex subjects
Ryder Flores
Attaching "science" to such a field is a great tactic of giving it the appearance of legitimacy.
David Torres
They should have just said irrational and left it at that.
Ian Johnson
Irrational is still within the framework of rationality, as it is the negation of rationality, while extrarational is outside of the framework, so not the same thing unless you’re too stupid to understand basic principles of epistemology
Camden Powell
>google "define extrarational" >"above or beyond the rational" Whoa this is making my bran hurt a little. I think it's a fancy word for irrational that's meant to circumvent the negative connotations of that word.
Daniel Jones
Or maybe google's dictionary definition is not what the book is refering to! maybe you need to read and gain previous context to understand that 'extrarational ' refers more to maybe you should pick up a book instead of just googling shit!
Julian Cook
Isn't it funny how I can read Plato, and read him in quick pace without worrying about misunderstanding words like extrarational, or a science textbook where there is no confusion but you have to work on understanding the concepts rather than filling words
Only in social sciences do you find this bullshit
Joshua Russell
>undergrad introduction >requires reading it twice or thrice to comprehend what they are trying to say You aint too bright yourself either. Why do social sciences downprioritize communication so much? Do they take pride in clouding their work in vagueness? Or is it maybe intentional to fill out the book, not really showing how little there is to it?
Isaiah Cook
>I can read Plato, and read him in quick pace without worrying about misunderstanding words the autodidact thinks he understands Plato
>Why do social sciences downprioritize communication so much They downprioritize communication to the ones without the context. They are communicating to people that have studied and understand the terms, not to you, faggot
Dylan Gutierrez
Social scientists have to use their own language to look like they're doing hard scientific work.It's like how nurses have "nursing diagnoses" now, so they can pretend to be doctors
Jonathan Lopez
Lol giving workers days off for grieving is perfectly rational wtf. The only example that comes up from a search is "imagination" and not only is irrational a suitable word for the imagination, dreams and such, but it is also rational in some sense. The imagination can be used for rational purposes, and dreams follow a certain explicable logic that can be interpreted by the dreamer. Again, it seems like they're just using a euphemism for things emotions and things of that nature that are not rational that is literally an attempt to elevate it above rationality by defining it as such. Irrational doesn't necessarily mean bad. Although I do see the utility as it's a more specific terminology to their purpose.
Colton Jones
>extrarational >planetary conceptions >spiritual-integrative >cultural-spiritual These just sound like terms picked out of a book on some sort of cult, which I guess academia kind of is.
Ryder Jackson
"Irrational" implies "contrary to rational", even "mad". "Extrarational" lacks that implication, it simply positions the concept "beside" the rational. It is pathetic that someone on a literature board can be so deaf to nuances in meaning, and even claim that words shouldn't exist. Go to /ic/ and claim that some colours shouldn't exist, lmao.
> Lol giving workers days off for grieving is perfectly rational wtf Grieving is an emotional process, not a rational one, hence extrarational. Also, Ratio =/= Logic, but you wouldn’t know since you obviously haven’t studied philosophy
Jonathan Jenkins
>The only example that comes up from a search Nigger, google searching won't give you shit.
