> > Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence > > distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the > > import of my complete thought as contained in the > > whole paragraph. > > turquoiseb: > Taking a profession completely at random, consider > the case of a professional editor... > Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL!
> Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but > tripping on what you said above, I thought I > should draw your attention to a post I made > here recently entitled "This is your brain on > reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously." > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 > > It details some fascinating research being done > on people to determine what is going on in their > brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the > sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is > called "close reading," as if they have to report > on what they're reading later in an essay about it. > The researchers, watching the brains of people > through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered > that very different parts of the brain are being > used, depending on whether one is reading for > pleasure, or doing "close reading." > > Riffing on what you say above, is it possible > that a certain person is using different parts > of their brain when reading your posts than you > used when writing them? > > I find this an interesting question when applied > to this forum. "Different strokes for different > folks" turns out to be true even in the brain, > and at different times, depending on the *intent* > with which we read. Two people could read the > same piece of literature -- in the experiments, > passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very > different things from them. That's not a surprise, > of course, chances are we *all* would see the > same passages slightly differently. *However*, > the new information from these studies is that > the *same* person could view and interpret > these passages completely differently, depend- > ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, > or "for work." > > Taking a profession completely at random, consider > the case of a professional editor. Their day job > is parsing other people's writing, *looking for > nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, > parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- > ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. > And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling > could render an entire work unworthy of publication, > and thus of being taken seriously. > > Now consider another random profession, say a > person who makes their living as a musician and > an educator. Such a person might have said many > times that they read the posts on FFL -- and > write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* > tend to parse them carefully, looking for things > "not right" in them; instead they might be looking > for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after > all, of "reading for pleasure." > > These two types of people, conditioned by years > of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, > might be using entirely different parts of their > brains while reading, and as a result might have > a tendency to react to what you write completely > differently. > > Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context > of the experiments so far and to the next level. > If humans use different parts of their brains > when either reading for pleasure or reading more > seriously, "close reading," is it possible that > they do the exact same thing when writing? > > The musician in my completely random example, for > example, might have gone on record many times as > saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer > fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's > ideas "come together" as a result of the very > act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit > that you might be, too. > > Someone else might tend to bring the same "close > reading" brain functioning they practice as a > reader to their writing, and tend to take the > writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity > to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing > "close writing." If this were the case, would it > not be likely that they are using an entirely > different mode of brain functioning when writing > than the person who is writing for the pleasure > of it? > > Just a few random thoughts, written for the > pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will, > and do with them what you will, using whatever > parts of your brain you tend to use when doing > that sorta stuff. :-) >
