One of my most important goals this term is to be able to use my text book knowledge and apply it in real world settings, rather than just exams and GPA competitions. This is not just for wasted information(although it certainly is!), but as well, it is an effort to combat a situation which counselors often encounter (rather commonly!). This involves the lack of contiguity between espoused theory (AKA the theories which one believes to be working under) and the actual in use theory. Most theories are in fact experience/intuition based, and often lack declarative basis (in that they are not aware of what theories are used to inform their actions). I find this largely unsettling in many aspects, amongst others, my seemingly defunct BEd. I often feel that all of the readings and texts and simply been thrown out of the roof, and I lack solid basis for my decisions in the classroom. I suppose a great example of the opposite was a classmate V, who was capable of reinforcing his decisions through literature quotations (authors, journal, year!). Despite the danger of looking like an intellectual nerdlinger, he held his conversations exceedingly well, a trait I quite admired. I feel that aside from good logic, there is little more one can do to destroy a debate with peer reviewed journals.
I aspire the capability to apply solid base work in critical debate, rather than using emotion and half assed arguments, which seem to stem from a Wikipedia post (although Wikipedia now has permanent moderators!). Furthermore, I would like to avoid a simple didactic text dump on my friends, and instead emphasize a more Socratic discussion (where dialogue actually holds meaning and is constructed through reinforcement of ideas). I often feel that the only time I feel remotely intelligent is with a fact spew that I somehow manage to randomly segway into an argument. Although this holds merit to some extent, I do not feel that it is reflective on the ideas that seems to be bursting within (which are largely suppressed, and followed up with some odd guttural animalistic noises). I don’t think I am dumb, but I certainly feel that sometimes (and by that I mean most of the time) I come off as a not intellectual giant.
I apparently have lost track of my post’s original intention, with my obsession with what people think about me (helloooooo not Joey!). Anyways, the end result is that I feel that I would like to ground my conversations/reflections with more textual knowledge, such that my espoused theories are not simply intuitive. I suppose intuition can be bloody fantastic when it leads to good results, but as somebody who works with an empathetic basis, it is largely difficult to allow an audience to understand your POV when it can only be explained with a “I got a good feeling about this one!“
Sent via Blackberry on the Rogers Wireless Network