Reflections of a Left-brain Right-brain Hybrid

As I consider myself to be a global thinker, I also consider myself to analyze a text best when I understand not only the raw words, but also the context in which it was written. Therefore, of our course goals, the one that seems to be most relevant to the way I think stands out significantly. “Students will be able to demonstrate knowledge regarding the interplay of comedies and the historical, political, literary, and cultural contexts in which they were written and performed.” Because this was the one which I would say I knew the most about going into the course, it was also the one to which I came “closest” to achieving, so to speak. While the course certainly helped my development in these capacities, that particular objective doesn’t fit the rest of the prompts. To answer the question “Which goal do you believe you made the most progress towards?,” therefore, I will base my discussion on a capability, which the course helped me to develop, that wasn’t quite as strong coming in as it will be when I depart.

                As some of my fellow students may have discerned during in-class discussions, my forte isn’t always in my creative capacities, and with drawing elaborate, long-reaching connections between two distinctly abstract elements of a text in a way that somebody a little more artsy might be able to. For example, when Donny dies at the end of The Big Lebowski, 2013-Brandon might not have been able to formulate a justification. My typical line of thinking would be, “Why did Donny die? Because the writer wanted to mess with us. Because they wanted him dead. Who cares?” However, post-colloquium-Brandon wrote something along the lines of “The writers could have been trying to make the lack of justice in the film more obvious by killing off a character that was inconsequential, and therefore blameless to misdeeds, the likes of which were committed by some of the other characters in the movie. Other examples of the lack of justice in The Big Lebowski included: the destruction of the Corvette/the lambasting that the kid received by Walter, the uselessness of the police figures in the film, and the fact that Mr. Lebowski (not “the Dude”) was never punished for his embezzlement, other than by falling flat on his face, arguably an unsuitable punishment.”

                I think this course has showed me the importance of breaking these things down. The relevant course goal reads: “Students will be able to demonstrate an ability to make connections between the information, approaches, ideas, and perspectives in this and other courses while discerning connections between the course materials and the students’ own lives.” Trying to grasp at the connections made in a text, while perhaps not always the direct source of epiphanies and miracles in my life, do indeed serve to strengthen my critical thinking/analysis skills; the consequences of being able to think critically and logically are well understood. Learning about this type of cause-and-effect school of thought has the power to make a man a better thinker. For example, a lawyer would definitely need these skills when making clear to a jury the motive of a potential criminal for his acts. In Engineering, my field, critical thinking would be useful in designing safety features on the next model Mercedes-Benz. What kind of errors are people likely to make? How can we make these less likely to happen while still maintaining the car’s usability? Clearly identifying cause-and-effect connections, as we have done with all of our texts this semester, makes for better lawyers and engineers.

                Given the amount of critical thinking applications we’ve undergone in this course, I would say the course certainly met this goal. I enjoyed discussing the different connections between different events in the course. As a detractor, the three-hour format really burned me out around hour two. If I had to postulate, I would say the artsy types might have been able to endure at maximum for a little longer, as they’ve got more practice, but I think it would be foolish to say that even they wouldn’t have struggled with the format. For me, it was a long time to dig into the texts, but there were things I got out of those discussions that helped, so I don’t think I could argue that another way would be better. The blog posts were fairly assigned, and forcing us to think about the text twice in the week was a good idea, and made our in-class discussions both less laborious and more focused, which are obviously both good things. I think the readings were fair as well, in length as well as complexity.

                Overall, I have improved as a thinker, and would say my ability to draw connections has improved by great measure. With this in mind, I would say I have been a very successful student, because I learned not only to analyze material and identify methodology, but also to apply these things to my life in other avenues.

(Sorry for the length! I had a lot of thoughts and it wouldn't have done it justice to be coarse and leave out important details. Plus, there were quite a few questions in the prompt.)

______________________________________________________________

TL;DR: I learned how to better make connections (and make better connections) and while the discussions could be exhausting for my left-brained half, it was worth the labor, as I feel I've become a better thinker.

Photo credit: http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/4619/the-miracle-of-electricity-in/chapter/4989