It's natural to consider the source. There is some sound logic to that position (and we all filter info), - but a preoccupation with qualifications and such also introduces a limit that does not need to exist.
There is a risk to prejudging and filtering information as worthy or unworthy based on source rather than just evaluating the info on its own merit. Everyone's experience differs - but this does not determine who may offer the clearest (or most useful, timely, etc.) insights. Sometimes a beginners mind sees most clearly - and questions can often be far more instructive than answers.
People's comments can usually be evaluated simply and directly on their content. Mostly the value will lie where you'd expect, with those more experienced, but that does not limit what value may come from the rest.
But then, I rarely see anyone here posting "claims to expertise". I just see people sharing their thoughts. I consider the thoughts first, then if something seems off I may look more into why they have the ideas they do, how they may have come by them, etc. More often I just introduce a different view or question.
If a child tells yells "Get out of the street!", do you ignore the warning because that child is too young to drive and obviously unqualified to offer traffic advice? *L*
Paddling is not rocket science - and there is nothing that is only suitable for expert commentary (here or on the water).
All that said, I too consider the source - I just don't use that as my primary filter.
I don’t think you can evaluate anything simply on content, devoid of context.
You have to forgive the digression into semiotics and deconstructionism, but I disagree with this statement completely.
The world is not made up of content devoid of the context of where it came from, the context of the signified meaning is part of it’s content whether we like it or not.
For example, even if someone posted a question on rescues, as they did here, and you and I posted essentially the same content, it still doesn’t MEAN the same thing, because how each person derived the written content is completely different.
I for example might have only read about rescues in books and posted what I read, where as someone else could have performed all types of rescues in rough water.
Is then that content really the same? I say no. I’m not saying one is better than another, just different.
Every linguistic signified, comes from a signifier, and while the signified, i.e. the content, (as you put it) of the post is somewhat agreed upon, the signifiers, or variables of a persons experience that allowed them to put these things into text.
This “new criticism” approach leaves out all of the primary factors that help determine a frame of reference for experience.
Only ONE frame of reference is useful to any of us - our own! We are what we are, and from that place we evaluate and integrate new content - whatever the source.
If the info is exactly the same as you said - the source's frame of reference does NOT matter. If we both type "Roses are Red" - but you are a botanist and I only buy flowers on Valentines day - the words will be received exactly the same by a third party reader. What really matters though is the receivers frame of reference.
Where the source's experience matters is when there are differences - however subtle. This tends to be clear enough, as the experience does tend to come through in the information given. It is not going to be the same.
If you extend your logic that the more experienced have a more meaningful frames of reference (seems right technically) - you need to also look at the flip side where the less experienced not only have less developed frames of reference - they would have to filter any information through that limit - and would be unlikely to understand the content as delivered. The more experienced reference frame (considered or not) is all but removed. We cannot adopt another's, we can only add to our own. A deficit we all suffer as no communication is perfect.
Being imperfect and so limited I choose to throw a wider net, or to at least not limit who I will listen to based on status. As I said, I too consider the source/context - I just don't use lack of status as a means of negating potential contributions.
You appear to prefer following a more conformist and authority driven learning method. You seem to enjoy more structured lesson/progression formats and want to be taught proven techniques by those you feel are better at these things than you. Not a bad way to go at all, just a little too rigid and limiting for me.
Personally, I have always been suspicious of authorities of any sort. Most have an agenda - and even if not - I'm simply not much of a follower. That doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what those with experience have to say. Quite the opposite. I greatly value competence. It's just that I am interested in their experiences directly, and not any sort of qualification or status that may grant them in some circles.
I also highly value peer interaction - including interaction with people with a wide range of abilities and experiences. My posting on these boards, and most of my learning, are on that level.
Bottom line for me is: I take everyone's comments with a grain of salt - ESPECIALLY the "experts". I benefit from their expertise when I can apply it to my own uses. It often find it more interesting to hear from those who are actively exploring new things (to them) - who may or may not be on their way to being the next "experts". Nothing is static - things change - new ways are found - and it is rarely the experts who are the innovators. They were the innovators, then solidified/codified what they found and teach it. Once codified - it still has great value of course, but becomes static. Read any old book on paddling and it's obvious that the expert wisdom has been revised several times, and probably always will be. No one has a lock on this sort of info.
A quote I saw today that to me gets right to the heart of this expert/non-expert frame of reference/context/worthiness/value of info being presented thing:
"Not all who wander are lost." J.R.R. Tolkien
My path is simply wigglier than yours, as it does not require I follow any particular map. It also crosses yours and many others at many points along the way.
saying that all narratives are the same, regardless of source, and this is not the case, they are different. I've never said that any narrative/post is better than another, but to caution against the levelling of these posts as all being equal without any thought of where they come from.
Don't quote tolkein at me, because in the prologue of the Lord of The Rings, Tolkein himself speaks about the creation of meaning lying with the reader independent of the author, which is classic modernist thinking, Tolkein, while a great writer resented any notion of deconstruction.
As to me don't assume because I did one assessment that I am "structured", I am just not against structure for the sake of it.
Greyak, you wrote above that "There is a risk to prejudging and filtering information as worthy or unworthy based on source rather than just evaluating the info on its own merit."
This statement in itself is true but I find personally that I do infact prejudge and filter on this (and any other) forum. There are some posts that I dismiss simply because of the person writing it and some I read because I have observed that person being helpful, knowledgeable, and skilled. Ironically, both you and keith fall into that latter group of people as far as I'm concerned. I think it is part of human nature to overly rely on initial impressions. If someone posts something really stupid and I think they are ignorant and not skilled, in terms of future posts, their words lose almost all their weight in my mind despite the fact that true wisdom can be contained in them. I think due to the immense amount of data that we all are forced to process constantly, we all have "filters" in place whether we want to admit it or not.
Recalibrating our filters Yes, of course we all filter - and have to. We also all form opinions and prejudices (a too maligned word anymore). basically all teh same thing. Totally natural.
I simply point out that these are OUR filters - and they can serve both positive and negative functions that we can change, drop, whatever. We should strive to be aware of them and adjust as needed so they continue to serve us rather than limit us to rigid behavioral patterns (consistency is good - limited ways to handle input are not).
Part of what makes the experiences and frames of references of others so valuable is that we can use them for exactly that - recalibrating our filters.
Not about that at all Man, we seem to consistently speak an entirely different language! I think (at least would like to think) this would be quite different in person…
Anyway, I’m not equally valuing or trying to level anything. I’m not saying everyone’s input is as good, or as tested, etc. Not that at all!
In fact, I may actually be MORE discriminatory in what I actually take as useful - and I will question the “experts” even harder. Take BCU syllabic as an example. Good stuff - not gospel - and not equally useful for everyone. I read them and see a lot of good stuff and some stuff I find a bit odd. Given the considerable experience behind it should I swallow it all, or take from it what is useful to me? All I’m saying is I try to do that with everything. I try to judge mostly on what seems to work - not so much on who said it - but obviously it all factors in.
Useful info is useful info - and crap is crap - whether it comes from a newbie or a Nigel.
PS - I’ll quote whomever I please. No particular meaning behind that choice - except I found it in my email this AM and felt it applied. I could care less what Tolkien believed or didn’t, or even that it was even him that said it.
Not only is it neccessary, I personally believe it’s good. I filter both the origin and the content.
Do I miss some good information because that same source gave bad info in the past? It’s entirely possible. But that’s the risk I’m willing to take. It’s better than falling for the bad info EVERY TIME! At best, they’re a waste of time to read throught. At worst, bad info does demage.
Do good source sometimes give bad info? Since no one is perfect, even the best intentioned and best informed sources not only can but WILL occasionally make mistakes. So the need to filter both on source and content.
As a result, if a screen name post a few cluelessly misleading “advices” in a row, you bet I will ignore post by that screen name in the future! That is, until they redeem themselves by posting a lot of good advice, usually after they finally “got a clue” by paddling with the more experienced paddlers for a while.
Bottom Line From Newbie I have followed this post even as it drifted away from the technical into the philosophical. I appreciate all of the thoughts expressed.
From my standpoint, I have been getting some coaching and direction from this board and directly from some of the folks posting on the board. I have also read a great deal on the subjects of basic strokes, rescues, and rolls. Ive taken one class which covered some of these subjects. I have watched a training video coving these same subjects. I have practiced a half dozen or more times so far. I have another full day formal course scheduled in a week.
One thing of have learned is that there is no single correct method to learn. It seems that many of us have differant ideas of where we want to go, how we want to get there, and what assistance we will seek during the journey.
I have found that it is particularly helpful to read/watch/listen to a particular technique and then go try it. I have been fortunate to be able to ask questions from p-netters and get quick and fully explained answers. This has speeded up my learning process and I think improved the techniques that Im working on.
Whatever the right way is, if there is one, I appreciate the help I have received so far.
rescue - any hope! I am anxious to read the rest of the responses. Congratulations on your first kayak lesson. I had mine a few weeks ago and then another. The main focus was water exits and rescues. I was fortunate with 3 people in my class in a nice warm water dive pool.
Paddling will come with my open water lesson once I get my new kayak.
My first lesson consisted of the same type of rescue. I was fotunate to get into the boat without much difficulty. It will come with practice, I am sure.
I have only kayaked once. I signed up for an 8 mile cross country run and 14 mile kayak race this Saturday. I have never paddled that far and am looking forward to it even if I come in last.
Good luck! I will probably take a few more lessons until I feel really comfortable.
Age is a state of mind. You are only as old as you feel. I kayaked once when I was 51 and was hooked. It has taken me a year to decide on which kayak to purchase. As far as trying something new; after running 5 marathons and 1 ultra marathon last year, I wanted to try something new - Adventure Racing. I am looking forward to as many running and paddling races I can fit in this year. I even borrowed my daughter’s bike to add to the mix.
As usual! We have a different way of getting to it - but in the end it always seem more alike than different - and as usual - I enjoy the ramblings along the way.
