It seems to me that general education courses, freshman and sophomore courses in college, are intended to provide "the big picture". That was true for me in courses like sociology 101, political science 101, geology 101, English literature 101, art 101, etc. I didn't go on to study more in poly sci, geology, and art, but over time the "big picture" I got from general education courses was useful as a foundation.

On the other hand, the two classes in American History that were taught in high school were all detail, with a not-very-clear or downright erroneous big picture emerging (which I didn't discover till years later). Teaching/learning history as "one obvious and necessary event after another" makes it easier to build in a hidden narratives, like "Americans have always been egalitarian". Never mind the black slaves, white people were definitely never all equal. [White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, 2016 by Nancy Isenberg]

If American History is taught with a view toward presenting the "truths and lies of American History" one would still later learn about the same events -- they just wouldn't fit into a "hidden narrative". "The westward expansion of the United States" could better be viewed as "conquering the west" because "the west", from the Pilgrims down to the closure of the frontier in the late 19th Century, was always occupied by aboriginal people or other nations. I like my country reasonably well, but there is not hiding the fact that its construction ran roughshod over just about everybody. That truth is best presented in a holistic approach.

I vote for big picture first, details later, but not too many.

Another Fine Topic from

I would prefer the big picture first, but in practice I need to start with the details and move toward the big picture as my understanding grows. It can be frustrating. :wink:

It seems to me that general education courses, freshman and sophomore courses in college, are intended to provide "the big picture". — Bitter Crank

I would tend to agree. Although, it's much harder to grasp the 'big picture' of some course or field of study right from the getgo in college settings. There's just so much information to grasp and formulate a vision of some field. College seems to be where concepts are crystalized of formulated into a whole worldview.

Speaking about a specific field of study that you bring up, being 'History', there's certainly a tendency to formulate a holistic perspective of hidden agendas or motives behind decision making. Other subjects are different in this regard as to presenting a whole worldview or the big picture.

I would prefer the big picture first, but in practice I need to start with the details and move toward the big picture as my understanding grows. It can be frustrating. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

I agree. Monsterous amounts of frustration for a holistic learner abound.

I start with the proposition that: "If life is logical, then everything relates to everything." In this way, learning is about expanding perspective.
On the contrary: "If life is illogical, then we should at some point discover an edge beyond which there is nothing." Beyond that point, life should end.

Neither the 'big picture' nor the 'granular' approach are exclusive, and we combine them all the time. But just for an example, beginning geology with memorizing crystal shapes and colors would not give one much useful knowledge about how earth forms come into existence. And opposite that, only learning about continental drift, up-life, subduction, and erosion wouldn't help all that much either, without some specifics. For instance, rocks on the eastern coast of North America and the northwestern coast of Africa are similar. "See, look at these two sets of rocks: same crystal structure, same sedimentary layers, same age. What does that tell you? It tells you that the two continental coasts were one and the same land mass at one time." Blah, blah, blah.

Having some large 'big pictures' provides a necessary place to put details one picks up off the sidewalk as one walks alone (figuratively speaking). A big picture box might be "chemistry and color". Some plant-based dye changes color depending on whether it is exposed to an acid or a base. Litmus paper (using dyes extracted from lichens) is used to determine the ph of a fluid. If you want to make red sweet and sour cabbage, you use red cabbage and vinegar. Using bicarbonate of soda turns the cabbage blue. Acids and bases affect the colored dye one can extract from iris or orchid flowers. A red dye might turn to lavender when exposed to an acid or base (can't remember which).

Those two details about color change collected in a big picture box can help one understand why bleaching a pale pink towel may turn it pale green. Bleach is a base and the dye is sensitive to bases.

I'm also a global learner. I was told so as a child, I believed them, and it's been a self-fulfilling prophecy ever since...

What exactly is global learning though?

I would say it is when one's classification or understanding of a particular phenomenon is informed by its relationship to the whole/greater system in which it is situated/functions/interacts/evolved. Knowing the outcomes or function or purpose of a system can make it easy to anticipate the outcomes, functions, or purposes of its various parts. (i.e: if you're trying to fix a broken machine, it's very helpful to know beforehand what that machine actually does). This is a kind of teleological approach to classification and anticipation, and it seems to make the most sense when applied to complex systems with clearly discernible evolved or designed purposes. Here we derive general rules to anticipate parts from what we know about the whole. The limitation of this approach is that we're more or less stuck generalizing about sub-components (which could be observed, described and understood with greater precision) from our initial assumptions about the whole.

As opposed to the above "top-down" approach to learning and discovery, there is also the "bottom-up" approach which I would also consider "global" in some sense. This is where we look at the basic and fundamental parts of a system, and how they interact, in order to predict and anticipate the behavior of the whole. When we're actually able to get down to the basic components of a system and are able to describe them with adequate precision, we can deterministically calculate (or simulate) the whole. The limits of this approach exist in the fact that often times we can only examine and measure basic components (and their dynamic interactions) with a certain degree of precision, and in many cases the sheer number of basic parts and dynamic interactions between them makes simulation (for anticipation) a computational impossibility.

---------

Employing a healthy mix of both of these approaches is what I have found to be most intellectually rewarding. Getting from part to whole can be confusing and complicated, but the more examples you see of how dynamic parts can combine and interact to produce a greater whole, the easier it gets to explore in both directions (there are boundless similarities between complex phenomenon).

Choosing the most relevant or accessible plane or scale of observation, and going from there, seems to be the best bet.

I think this might also play into perception itself:

A particle physicist or astrophysicist looks at a star and sees a collection of atomic and subatomic particles fusing together which releases light (of a given wavelength), heat, and produces heavier atomic particles, all held together in a big ball under the weight of their own cumulative gravity. First they see the parts, and understand how they combine to form a whole in a self-sustaining chain reaction.

An astronomer looks at a star and sees a unit of gravitational mass, a part, which is situated in a local system of its own, which is itself situated in a larger gravitational structure (galaxies), galaxies are situated in clusters, galaxy clusters are situated in galaxy super-clusters, super-clusters are situated in a filament like arrangement, and beyond that the observable universe ends. First they see the whole, but it is merely a part within the greater wholes they're more concerned with.

Everything can be reduced down to lower level parts, the possible limit being the quantum scale, and everything can be viewed as a part of a greater system, the possible limit being the observable universe. In the grand scheme of things we're forced to work with the observations we're able to actually make:

An alchemist looks at the sun and sees a mysterious whole, unable to observe or perceive the fundamental components which combine to cause the overall phenomenon. Like their limitations in chemistry, they simply have no access to begin observing or isolating the basic parts of the system and hence cannot reconstruct or anticipate the whole from a description of fundamental parts. Being likewise unable to chart and observe the bigger picture of the sun's location relative to nearby stars, alchemists were unable to perceive of the existence of galaxies (a galaxy was just another star in the eyes of an ancient astronomer, and the milky was was an awesome rift in the night sky), let alone model and anticipate their behavior. They had to start at the observational limits available to them and try to push the envelope forward.

So really we should be starting at both the top and the bottom - and in the middle - because observations and understanding at any level can inform and corroborate discovery at different scales within a system.

Take the weather for example: long term observation reveals obvious patterns (seasons) and can be used as a reliable but general and imprecise means of anticipating future weather (great for long term, less so short term predictions); in order to make accurate predictions we instead look at the immediate causes of weather changes and actually model its behavior with precision (great for short term predictions, and nearly useless for long-term predictions). By modifying the scope and scale of our observations we could also concoct various medium range weather prediction models (almanacs?), and so on.

I will say that as someone who always looks for the big picture understanding first, it's nice to have a background upward and downward limit (and rudimentary view) of everything that exists, from quarks up to the filaments of the observable universe. It's an unfortunately big window, and it's filled with incoherent blurry areas, but it's something everything...

↪Pattern-chaser
Neither the 'big picture' nor the 'granular' approach are exclusive, and we combine them all the time. — Bitter Crank

Yes, we do. :up: But we still need, in practice, to start with the details and expand from there. Once we're going, we switch from top-down to bottom-up, and often middle-out too. I certainly did when designing programs. The only exception is if we are lucky enough to learn as a Student, from a Master. With a mentor, directed learning can be ten times faster, or even better than that. Such a shame that this way of learning has almost died out. It's a very good way of learning (some things; maybe not all?). :chin:

What exactly is global learning though?

I would say it is when one's classification or understanding of a particular phenomenon is informed by its relationship to the whole/greater system in which it is situated/functions/interacts/evolved. Knowing the outcomes or function or purpose of a system can make it easy to anticipate the outcomes, functions, or purposes of its various parts. (i.e: if you're trying to fix a broken machine, it's very helpful to know beforehand what that machine actually does). This is a kind of teleological approach to classification and anticipation, and it seems to make the most sense when applied to complex systems with clearly discernible evolved or designed purposes. Here we derive general rules to anticipate parts from what we know about the whole. The limitation of this approach is that we're more or less stuck generalizing about sub-components (which could be observed, described and understood with greater precision) from our initial assumptions about the whole. — VagabondSpectre

I can't disagree with any of this, but I would observe that it seems to address only some types or forms of learning. When it comes to learning difficult things, it can get more difficult.

"Difficult things?" I hear you ask? :wink: I mean those things that are general and vague, things that aren't computable or listable, and to which the application of this (above) type of logic achieves little. Your approach is, it seems to me, an exclusively scientific one. It doesn't work if you're trying to learn (for example) about fine art or music.

The title of this topic is "holistic learning", and I think this is the only way to achieve a useful and (hopefully) complete understanding of something. Not just to understand the thing itself, but to understand how it connects to the rest of Life, the Universe and Everything. Only then can we properly understand our subject.

This kind of understanding is difficult and time-consuming to achieve. But those who have done it - as I have, in some limited areas (e.g. firmware design) - will tell you it's the only way to achieve a useful understanding. Knowing about a few details is only a starting point. But maybe this is enough for many areas of learning: we don't have time to reach a full understanding of everything. Our lives don't last long enough. :wink: It's those areas which interest us personally, maybe emotionally, and significantly, to which we apply the effort to achieve real understanding. :chin: