Part I
I’ve been experimenting with CSS. Experimenting is the right word. Learning implies what orderly and respectable people do when they sit behind desks and undergo instruction in the proper manner. Experimenting is what mad scientists do with strange vials in their smelly chambers. An experiment is what the geeky kid down the street was doing in his garage–that experiment which almost blew up the entire neighborhood.
I’ve been aware of CSS for some time, and previously I even used it for some basic formatting features. But, until my recent experimentation, my use of CSS hadn’t gone beyond setting fonts and background color. When I set up this site I decided to go further. Why not learn how to use CSS to do the entire layout? Why not do what all the tech wizards did?
Intrigued, I jumped right in the morass of coding and began fooling around. I knew, generally, how I wanted my page laid out. The only thing I had to figure out was how to make the CSS do what I desired. At the time, the CSS material at glish appeared to be exactly what I wanted. I say appeared because the particular template I followed didn’t do what I thought, or wanted it to do. I didn’t discover this until after a good deal of work.
Learning that the two column design at Glish didn’t do what I wanted left me poking around, trying to discover how to make CSS do what I did want. After a period of frustration I went to Mom for one of her books and did some quick reading on CSS. The book helped my understanding a bit, but the reading didn’t get me all the way to the solution. I went back to examining the CSS code.
Then it came, that brilliant epiphany. As I scanned the code, the faint glimmer of understanding spread across my darkened mind. Drawing upon my experimentation and reading, I could now parse the CSS file that came with the original MT system download. I looked over the CSS file and I saw that . . . that . . . it already did exactly what I wanted to do.
I sat in my chair. I sat in my chair and had one of my “I’m feeling very stupid” moments. I stared at the monitor and struggled to remember why I had decided not to use the default CSS file. The only reason I could recall was based on my original inability to understand the CSS code fully. This ignorance lead my to think I ought to find a CSS design which was simpler and easier for me to grasp. Now a little more intelligent on CSS, I could see that the original file was not so obtuse and complex as I thought. It did what I wanted.
So, I’d done all that work for . . . nothing. Like a dog, I’d spent hours chasing my tail, and it was only when I realized I was chasing my tail that I could settle back down in the very spot I began. This is what experimenting gets me–a lot of work for a little discovery. I’m a little sheepish, but unrepentant.
Experimenting is how I learn.
Part II
Learning shouldn’t imply “what orderly and respectable people do when they sit behind desks and undergo instruction in the proper manner.” I said that because it is an unfortunate fact that some people do fall into this attitude trap and thereby discard experimentation as nothing more than a trifle and a waste of time. Learning is learning, and there is more than one way to learn.
People fall into two rough categories: those who learn primarily by experimentation, and those who learn primarily by instruction. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods of learning and neither ought to be disparaged. Based upon my observations, those who learn best by instruction are more analytical in nature while those who learn by experimentation are more creative. This is a judgement of temperament, not the worth of methods employed.
For a moment I must halt this intellectual exercise and put my spin on this categorization. I say those who learn by experimentation are free thinkers, brave and independent, not bound by rules. Those who learn by instruction, on the other hand, are in the thrall of rules and laws. Their minds are stagnated and fixed, unable to look beyond what they are told, and fearful of trying anything new.
As my biased description makes clear, experimentalist and instructional learners don’t get along very well. By the very nature of their opposing methods each group thinks the other completely pig-headed and stupid. If only the other group saw “the light” they would learn so much better and faster. Experimentalist and instructional learners mix like oil and water. I know, because I’m an experimentalist and my dear Mom is an instructional learner.
Mom and I aren’t constantly at each other’s throats, but the peace requires maturity and a good deal of patience from both of us. Like a burr under the skin, watching the other work on a problem irritates us. I grind my teeth while she goes through a book trying to find the “right” answer, and it annoys her when I plug away at a problem without reading the book.
The best solution is for neither of us to watch the other work. On a higher intellectual level we know there is nothing illegal about the other person’s method of learning. Much as we secretly think life would go so much better for the other person if they only adopted our method, it is actually quite useful to have someone of the opposite inclination ready and available for consultation. When Mom’s rules, regulations, books, and instruction fail to solve her problems, she asks me for help. When my experimenting is frustrated, or I manage to thoroughly mess things up, I can go ask Mom for help and she usually has a book ready.
Experimenting and instruction both have their places. The wise person will learn in accordance with their inclinations, not worry about what other people think of their efforts, and in turn not mock somebody when they learn in a different way.
Comments on this entry are closed.