I'm bad at Reading Comprehension...what does that mean?

[CPA]

Reading a page or two, losing interest and struggling to finish the first chapter has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It has to do with focus. Man was not made to sit and learn by studying books. You learn best by hands on experience.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: CPA
Reading a page or two, losing interest and struggling to finish the first chapter has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It has to do with focus. Man was not made to sit and learn by studying books. You learn best by hands on experience.

I disagree. There are many ways in which people learn, and *everyone* learns differently than everyone else.
To say that "man was not made to sit and learn by studying books" is simply nonsense.
I, for one, learn better by reading or discussing something than by using my hands.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: CPA
Reading a page or two, losing interest and struggling to finish the first chapter has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It has to do with focus. Man was not made to sit and learn by studying books. You learn best by hands on experience.

I disagree. There are many ways in which people learn, and *everyone* learns differently than everyone else.
To say that "man was not made to sit and learn by studying books" is simply nonsense.
I, for one, learn better by reading or discussing something than by using my hands.

You can not honestly tell me that you can learn a new math technique or build a computer or understand the fragrance of a rose simply by reading about it. That's nonsense.

 

[WobbleWobble]

i said i was a bad reader, not a retard! Just tired of all the smart ass pricks here on ATOT.

-=bmacd=-

Bad reading comprehension does not mean you're a retard. Lighten up, it's just a joke. I'll admit I have poor reading comprehension as well.

It just means you don't like to learn by reading. Neither do I. Some people like to learn by listening, some like to learn by watching, some like to learn from experience. Nothing wrong with it, everyone is different.

I love your speech analogy, Triumph

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: CPA
Reading a page or two, losing interest and struggling to finish the first chapter has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It has to do with focus. Man was not made to sit and learn by studying books. You learn best by hands on experience.

I disagree. There are many ways in which people learn, and *everyone* learns differently than everyone else.
To say that "man was not made to sit and learn by studying books" is simply nonsense.
I, for one, learn better by reading or discussing something than by using my hands.

You can not honestly tell me that you can learn a new math technique or build a computer or understand the fragrance of a rose simply by reading about it. That's nonsense.

You're discussing learning how to do something with one's hands... That's a pretty narrow field of study. Not everything you do involves your hands, you know Look, if books weren't an effective means for communicating ideas then why are there so many, and why have they been around for so long? Books were revered in ancient times because then they actually appreciated books for what they were - tomes of knowledge.
I :heart: books

 

[gopunk]

i wonder if i'm the only one who thinks the thread title is kind of ironic...

anyways, yea what everyone else said.... for example someone who is bad at reading comprehension might have a harder time reading a judicial opinion and summarizing the main points

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: CPA
Reading a page or two, losing interest and struggling to finish the first chapter has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It has to do with focus. Man was not made to sit and learn by studying books. You learn best by hands on experience.

I disagree. There are many ways in which people learn, and *everyone* learns differently than everyone else.
To say that "man was not made to sit and learn by studying books" is simply nonsense.
I, for one, learn better by reading or discussing something than by using my hands.

You can not honestly tell me that you can learn a new math technique or build a computer or understand the fragrance of a rose simply by reading about it. That's nonsense.

You're discussing learning how to do something with one's hands... That's a pretty narrow field of study. Not everything you do involves your hands, you know Look, if books weren't an effective means for communicating ideas then why are there so many, and why have they been around for so long? Books were revered in ancient times because then they actually appreciated books for what they were - tomes of knowledge.
I :heart: books

exactly why I mentioned the smell of a rose.

Your answer now is more in line to my thinking. Books are a form of communication, but they aren't a substitution for experience. And man was not made to learn experience by reading or studying a book, he was made to learn by doing. All book's "knowledge" is created based on the experiences (cognetive or physical) of man. Not the other way around.

<---probably not making much sense.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: CPA
Reading a page or two, losing interest and struggling to finish the first chapter has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It has to do with focus. Man was not made to sit and learn by studying books. You learn best by hands on experience.

I disagree. There are many ways in which people learn, and *everyone* learns differently than everyone else.
To say that "man was not made to sit and learn by studying books" is simply nonsense.
I, for one, learn better by reading or discussing something than by using my hands.

You can not honestly tell me that you can learn a new math technique or build a computer or understand the fragrance of a rose simply by reading about it. That's nonsense.

You're discussing learning how to do something with one's hands... That's a pretty narrow field of study. Not everything you do involves your hands, you know Look, if books weren't an effective means for communicating ideas then why are there so many, and why have they been around for so long? Books were revered in ancient times because then they actually appreciated books for what they were - tomes of knowledge.
I :heart: books

exactly why I mentioned the smell of a rose.

Your answer now is more in line to my thinking. Books are a form of communication, but they aren't a substitution for experience. And man was not made to learn experience by reading or studying a book, he was made to learn by doing. All book's "knowledge" is created based on the experiences (cognetive or physical) of man. Not the other way around.

<---probably not making much sense.

you know there are things you can learn from books that you can't really learn from experience... history for example

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: CPA
Reading a page or two, losing interest and struggling to finish the first chapter has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It has to do with focus. Man was not made to sit and learn by studying books. You learn best by hands on experience.

I disagree. There are many ways in which people learn, and *everyone* learns differently than everyone else.
To say that "man was not made to sit and learn by studying books" is simply nonsense.
I, for one, learn better by reading or discussing something than by using my hands.

You can not honestly tell me that you can learn a new math technique or build a computer or understand the fragrance of a rose simply by reading about it. That's nonsense.

You're discussing learning how to do something with one's hands... That's a pretty narrow field of study. Not everything you do involves your hands, you know Look, if books weren't an effective means for communicating ideas then why are there so many, and why have they been around for so long? Books were revered in ancient times because then they actually appreciated books for what they were - tomes of knowledge.
I :heart: books

exactly why I mentioned the smell of a rose.

Your answer now is more in line to my thinking. Books are a form of communication, but they aren't a substitution for experience. And man was not made to learn experience by reading or studying a book, he was made to learn by doing. All book's "knowledge" is created based on the experiences (cognetive or physical) of man. Not the other way around.

<---probably not making much sense.

you know there are things you can learn from books that you can't really learn from experience... history for example

point taken.

But I still stand by my original point that man was not meant to learn by studying.