Hello, I would really appreciate it if someone could read through this and give me some feedbacks. Thanks.
In this article, Mr. Gladwell thinks that being smart is to have a balance of the collateral learning (i.e. watching TV, playing video games) and explicit learning (i.e. reading textbooks and studying). Although it is not explicitly mentioned, he hints that a person with the right balance might fare better than a person who tend to specialize on collateral or explicit learning. Before I state my position, I would like to define the word “smart”. Smart means “having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability” (Merriam-Webster). In this sense, I think that being smart only involves explicit learning.
Collateral learning does not improve one’s mental capability. One cannot gain any new knowledge from it. Some may argue that collateral learning improves one’s problem solving skills but any improvement it may have is minor. Children gain a lot more problem solving skills by reading textbooks and studying hard. People living in the early 20th century had no access to televisions or video games but they were just smart, if not smarter, than us. They laid the foundations for our modern science and some of their achievements are still not surpassed. (i.e. Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman to name a few).
In my opinion, I think today’s teenagers should focus more on explicit learning rather than wasting their time in the popular culture. Popular culture is the society’s parasite and should not be compared to the highest goal of human beings: progress through explicit learning.
Your text is complicated for me that learn english for two months. But, I'll try of answer you. Sorry for the mistakes. If I well understood to learn by watching tv and playing video games would be better than conventional methods. Am I right?
Personnaly I believe that method is very well, but besides of the normal learning.