---

How it Started

For our next discussion – lets debate the benefits of fiction!  DW

If you want to debate fiction vs. nonfiction, I'm ready .

Ok, call me your sparring partner.

You want to debate fiction? I will suggest that Cathy (my wife and primary homeschooling teacher)  refer to the explanation of the chemistry phase diagram on page 237 in book 4 of Harry Potter! I think there might be a glossary that defines Pascal and degrees Kelvin in the back of the book. I'll have to go check.

Here is some mathematical food for thought about fiction for a math oriented kind of guy. It is an excerpt from the opening paragraphs of my conclusions about my topic from an opinion paper I've been writing for the past few months:

You are welcome to disagree. We live in a democracy and your reasoned arguments will challenge mine and make me think, I’m sure. I’m grateful for your time and thought. If nothing else, I hope my ideas will have made you think as hard as I did. I firmly believe and hope this was a more productive use of 50 pages of your reading time than Harry Potter’s 7 tomes at +500 pages each, thousands and thousands of pages of useless mystical drivel, read by millions of people! Lets see, 500 pages per book @ a generous 100 pages per hour ≈ 5 hours * worldwide sales exceeding 275 million copies = 1.4 BILLION valuable hours voluntarily spent on useless mystical drivel (I’ve ignored the movie watching hours. The movies grossed a total of over $2.6 billion worldwide ).

What if just a few million hours (3%) of that time were spent on a chemistry refresher instead?

Whenever you're ready to debate fiction, I am.

Good one on fiction.  I think you hit on the right issue.  I think there is very good fiction out there and taken in the right dose with non-fiction, it provides a good balance intellectually, and for entertainment sake. Shakespeare for sure has a place in a solid education of English language and literature. The sad state of affairs as you point out is how unbalanced we (society) are in the consumption of a lot of bad fiction (and other bad forms of entertainment) compared to time spent on things of higher value. 

I had to kind of chuckle to myself about our discussion of phase changes of water.  Most people you meet might spend that amount of energy on debating the Packers versus the Lions, but never think twice about the relationship of ice-water-steam.  Boys are we out of the main stream – thank goodness.

Yep, out of the mainstream, and proud of it!

You got that right.

TOP

---

Shakespeare's Place in a Solid Education

You wrote "Shakespeare for sure has a place in a solid education of English language and literature." Oh yea? So what is so good about Shakespeare? What gives him such a "solid place"?

Reread my sentence – I stated that... “a place in a solid education of English language and literature”, not “solid place ..” Word order matters – you should go out and hear one of his plays and soak in the dialogue to understand that better. You don’t seem to be debating the value of studying English language, so I assume you are already on board with that as part of any academically rigorous, comprehensive education.  

Interestingly, it seems very possible to have an excellent education without reading Shakespeare. Here is a prime example: Since Shakespeare's works weren't written until later, young Shakespeare himself became educated without reading Shakespeare! In fact, he only finished grammar school!

"As the son of a prominent town official, William Shakespeare probably attended King Edward VI Grammar school in central Stratford, which may have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and literature. The quality of Elizabethan-era grammar schools was uneven. It is presumed that the young Shakespeare attended this school, since he was entitled to, although this cannot be confirmed because the school's records have not survived. There is no evidence that his formal education extended beyond grammar school. Source

That is pretzel logic at it’s best.  Maybe we should skip classical physics and just learn it ourselves since Sir Isaac Newton never had the opportunity to read “Principia” and it turns out he could do Newtonian physics with the best of ‘em.

Your “Wiki” source, as cut and pasted above, states that it is equally possible that WS had an intensive education in Latin grammar and literature (another area that I believe has a place in a solid education of grammar and language) through grammar school.  Perhaps “spotty” Elizabethan-era grammar school was superior to standard suburban Chicago area elementary school quality back in the 1960s?  I can state with certainty that my Dad’s rural , northern Michigan elementary and high school education was probably far superior to mine, 50 years later.  Even if your source is correct (I would never use Wikipedia as the bottom line on anything – you better provide me a more original reference on this) it states nothing about his performance in grammar school.  Was he a voracious reader?  Did he show brilliance at an early age? At age 26 he was writing his now famous plays, was well known in London by the time he was 28 and was dead at 51, so not only was he talented, he was prolific.  I can only imagine how gifted he was in that no-good grammar school of his.

Also, remember that in 16th century England, education was a “privilege of a small elite group, and education for everyone did not appear until the beginning of the 20th century” http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-200236.  So, it is safe to say that WS was well-educated, and formally educated to boot. According to

http://www.bardweb.net/man.html (which is at least as credible as Wikipedia)

There is great conjecture about Shakespeare's childhood years, especially regarding his education. It is surmised by scholars that Shakespeare attended the free grammar school in Stratford, which at the time had a reputation to rival Eton. While there are no records extant to prove this claim, Shakespeare's knowledge of Latin and Classical Greek would tend to support this theory.

So, one can then conclude that WS was classically educated (which I believe an “intensive education in Latin grammar and literature” would be), and therefore would have read the works that were considered classics at that time (greek?, latin?).  So, while he did not have the benefit of reading himself (which is a nonsense argument) he no doubt was well read in the classics of his day, thereby having a rich well of literary resources to draw from in his own writings.

TOP

---

A Literary Jesus?

So, in the interest if nonfiction defense, what makes his "place in a solid education" so sure? After all, he only had a grammar school education and never read Shakespeare himself until much later in life when his writings were as unpopular as mine are now! Could it be that he is a cult figure? A literary Jesus? An emotional icon?

Sure, Shakespeare is larger than life, and over inflated, and his reputation proceeds most peoples true understanding of his works.  Not unlike Sir Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein.  However, I can say from firsthand experience that listening to Shakespeare’s plays, you will immediately realize the power and beauty of language.  After all, what really separated “Lucy” from homo sapiens?  Without learning the power of words you will never be able to put forth the kind of rhetoric you need to advance your ideas. Then you are destined to be dominated by those who master both the technology and the ability to describe it with ease.  Just read “The Well Trained Mind” – it’s loaded with reasons for having Shakespeare in any classroom.

How does reading Shakespeare benefit someone today compared to not reading him. Can you tell the difference between people who have or have not read him? Do you think I've read Shakespeare? What makes you think so, or not? How much Shakespeare does one have to read to benefit from him? Must you read all his works or just watch a movie or two of his plays? Which two? No one talks today as he did then. If they did, few would understand. So what exactly are those benefits of his that contribute so greatly to a solid education? If I hadn't read him, how would my education have suffered? How would my life be different? Who do you know today who shaped his life differently because of Shakespeare?

Well, I am getting tired.  But since you asked, my guess is you’ve heard a lot more Shakespeare than I have since you have spent a greater percentage of your life in and around major metro areas where that kind of experience is more readily available.  And by the way, the best geophysicist (and probably the best applied mathematician) I have ever worked with personally was a huge fan of Shakespeare and recommended that all of his graduate students go hear as many of his plays as possible. Does studying Shakespeare shape lives?  Read more about it below and decide for yourself: http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/hobart/index.html

http://www.pitt.edu/~sits/ (Hey, Steve Waller sent me this one!)

The Shakespeare in the Schools web site was referenced by me to promote the nonfiction Rachel Carson in the semi fiction play Rachel Carson Saves the Day, not fictional Shakespeare. I find no problem with plays, but I find greater value in nonfiction plays than I do fiction ones. There are a few exceptions (they have to send a strong unique useful message to be valuable) but they are rare.

OK, I read the Hobart Shakespeareans link you sent about the documentary. It said

"The film shows how it works: students must apply for a job, such as banker, office monitor, clerk, janitor, police officer and many others. Each child receives a monthly "paycheck" in a classroom currency. They correspondingly pay rent to sit at their desks — the closer to the front of the room, the higher the rent. Students can make extra money by getting good grades and participating in extracurricular activities; they can also be fined for breaking class rules or getting poor grades. The classroom motto is "Be nice, work hard. There are no shortcuts." Esquith also inspires them with cross-country trips to learn history firsthand — and to experience a world of opportunity beyond the troubled confines of Central LA. (Steve: Not much Shakespearian influence here.)

The pinnacle of achievement for the students each year is the performance of a play by Shakespeare; during the year of filming, the play was Hamlet. Lest anyone think these kids might be performing adolescent skits, think again. Esquith's students perform full-length, unabridged versions, and spend the year studying the plays so that they understand every word and allusion; they arrive at class at 6:30 a.m. and don't leave until 5 p.m. in order to do so."

So what did "the pinnacle of achievement" Shakespeare contribute other than keeping the kids off the street in the morning and after school for an entire year? Might they have been better served by understanding every word and allusion of the Rachel Carson play instead? Which is MORE IMPORTANT to learn, Shakespeare or Carson? Why? If you say both, I'll challenge you with: then which is better Carson and Shakespeare or Carson and Malcolm X (another resource this teacher uses along with Wounded Knee)? In other words, I can keep substituting nonfiction for Shakespeare and push the list from pure fiction to mostly nonfiction.

What I want to know is what does Shakespeare contribute that gives him higher value than almost any other nonfiction? (I ask because you chose to make Shakespeare a priority) Why choose Shakespeare over nonfiction? Where would Shakespeare fit in a priority list of nonfiction plays? How do you make the decision?

This doesn't demand web references, just a clear explanation of what makes you think as you do. I am seeking your proof of value. What proved to you that Shakespeare is so valuable to a solid education of English language and literature? Why is WS part of an academically rigorous, comprehensive education? What exactly would be lost if he were skipped? Carson is literature too. I can tell you exactly what is missed if she is skipped.

Of course my pretzel logic about WS not studying himself was pretzel logic, but it is still true. It IS possible even today to have a good education without Shakespeare, but it is NOT true today that a good education ignores Newton. Newton made a massive creative contribution to mankind, far superior in magnitude than Shakespeare's contribution. Newton changed the world without knowing his own writings. Shakespeare only entertained it. There is value in entertainment, but it is over done at the price of critical thought. That is why I created the NDA.

As far as WS education is concerned, he was a prodigy. I never said he was a bad writer. He is an excellent writer, only less necessary than devotees make him out to be. (The Well Trained Mind is a devotee.) It is very important that you read my Intelligence page, guaranteed to be nonfiction. It deals with this subject specifically. WS would have been good without school. He would have read on his own and learned and written anyway. I doubt that his GRAMMAR school had that much influence on him otherwise many others sitting in his same classes would have been equally gifted and famous. They aren't. It was him, not the school.

You wrote: Perhaps “spotty” Elizabethan-era grammar school was superior to standard suburban Chicago area elementary school quality back in the 1960s?

It depends on how you define "superior". If you think the old schools were nearing college level you are mistaken because brain research clearly shows that brains mature at a certain rate, regardless of our desires or socioeconomic status. Brains can only comprehend certain things at certain stages of development and each brain is a little different. Adult reasoning doesn't normally occur, isn't normally possible biologically, until after the teen years. Putting college level courses in grade school does not make the students comparable to college students. It is more nature than nurture.

If WS were truly important, skipping him would be as obvious as skipping Newton. Is that true?

“Rachel Carson Saves the Day” is a play.  If I were using her play in an educational curriculum, I would not present her play in an organic chemistry class, I would put it in either the arts or literature.  It might be a nice tie-in to a coherent curriculum that includes an organic chemistry or biology class but it is no substitute for the technical studies that she loosely tied in to her environmental activism.  It (the play) may be fact-based fiction (sounds like more of a biographical play that may be better tied to a social science or modern American history class now that I think about it) but my guess is it is still a fictionalized account of history. 

I haven't personally seen the play so I am making a few assumptions here. I would put it (a kids play) in chemistry (in a kids class as it is, in an adult class as a comedy with a message) to illustrate (using a nonfiction example) the need to be responsible chemists and to illustrate the history of the chemistry industry because it is quite young and still makes mistakes. It is also the introduction of a REAL person overcoming personal barriers, of a REAL scientist resisting pressure to conform to employer requirements, and of being bold enough to do the right thing, even if it is unpopular. No it is not a substitute for hard chemistry and yes, there is fiction involved but hopefully such exaggerated fiction that the facts are relatively easy to separate from the fiction.

TOP

---

Fiction Facts

Come to think of it, didn’t Shakespeare write a play called “Julius Caesar” and another called “Henry VIII”?   

Would these have value beyond the study of art and literature? Should they also be considered fact-based fiction also?  If I am a student of classical history, I might have a compelling need to see Julius Caesar – just as a student of modern American History might want to see Rachel Carson Saves the Day.  Do you think the study of human history is also a poor use of one’s educational time?

I do not think the study of human history is a waste of time but I do think, actually I know, Shakespeare was a playwright NOT a historian. I found many references where the accuracy of his "history plays" was used as a challenge, actually a course, for college students. I also found that he certainly and deliberately twisted "history" to suite the theme or purpose of his plays. (Read this from MSU) Unfortunately it takes considerable research to tell which parts are twisted and which are not, which is truth and which isn't. Casual readers are unable to make the distinction so they get as twisted as the plays. What value is that?

In my nonfiction writings I call this twisting problem "fiction facts". When fiction (i.e. a play) is taken as an educational tool to learn nonfiction there are always fiction facts, ficticious details or events added by the author that readers think are true but aren't. Fiction facts are not bolded in the text or footnoted, they are merely mixed in with the real facts and become one in the reader's mind. Readers are told the story is "based on true events" without being told how much or which parts are true and which aren't. Readers believe all of it. This is a real danger.

Playwrights and other fiction writers can and do rewrite history to make their plays popular, which they are, and many people with fiction addictions watch the plays instead of learning the history through more reliable means. The play becomes their education. That is the equivalent of promoting the bible's genesis version of geology - great popular story - but twisted. LOTS of people truly believe it! Historians (and geologists) are obligated to at least TRY to untwist the facts otherwise they are not who they claim to be. Playwrights like Shakespeare are not obligated to be true, are licensed to twist details, and often make matters worse, which he does. There are better sources for history so why settle for less than the best? I would confine WS to where he excels - art and literature.

TOP

---

How Much Time for Shakespeare?

Getting back to my original point, I said that Shakespeare should be part of any English language curriculum.  I am not making value judgments (in this discussion) on whether language should be studied more or less than math, science, history, geography, art or music - just that it should be studied by anyone interested in a well rounded education.  Therefore, I would say we should form a new debate on the relative value of these areas of knowledge.  From this you can assess the relative value of the works of Newton compared to Shakespeare compared to Rachel Carson.  If you do agree that the study of language is important, and English language in particular, do you then agree that exposure to Shakespeare has value?

Exposure to WS has value, but he is overemphasized. He is an excellent and artful representative of his time, culture and situation, but that is where his value ends. A question I have is how much of a student's time should be spent on WS? I suggest a day or two (MAX a week), then move on, with a brief refresher in a year or two. Even The Well Trained Mind suggests that " 6th graders , if they are good readers might read ONE of his original plays " p343-344 (emphasis mine). WS is a subject, not a course, not an idol. Each subject has its best sources. I suggest using the best source available for each subject, not creatively squeeze subjects into (or out of) Shakespeare as some do just because he is a classical credential. WS's stories are mostly about humanity, but there are LOTS of excellent stories about humanity. MOST FICTION is about humanity. There is no shortage of extremely well written humanity alternatives.

The problem with dwelling on the ancients is that they are almost all wrong! Ptolemy's classic WRONG model of the universe was repeated over and over again for over 1,000 years. When more accurately challenged by Copernicus (and unnamed others I'm sure), the more accurate work was neatly swept into the "forbidden books" list, as was Galileo’s (who spent the rest of his life under arrest for challenging classics) in favor of the classical Ptolemy and the bible. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and their cohorts all suffered from bad science and an outdated social and political systems. I give them credit for a nice try for the time they lived, but they are still WRONG today! Other than historical or literary trivia or entertainment, they and WS have little to offer today. Now they are recreational reading, not core curriculum, unless you intend to live like they did back then.

I know I'm contradicting The Well Trained Mind which I do respect, but so what! I have to do and say what is right for me. That was the reason I became educated, to make choices. If I merely follow orders or instructions or procedures written for me in a book, leaving the evaluations and deciding to others, I don't need an education.

You only have so much time. The Hobart Shakespeareans spent a YEAR studying Shakespeare! What a waste of time! In that YEAR they could have ALSO read Frederick Douglass' Slave Narrative, Walden, Two Little Savages (fiction with value), Origin of Species, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, AND Accepting the Universe with time enough left over to include Silent Spring. THAT would have been a GREAT educational year of reading! Time on WS is time taken from something else. You have to make choices.

TOP

---

Impact of Shakespeare

You asked me if Shakespeare’s plays have had any true impact on people.  I offered the Hobart Shakespeareans as an example of that and I stand behind that example.  Could the teacher have achieved the same effect with someone else’s works.  Certainly possible.  Did the kids get more out of doing Shakespeare because the words and language are more challenging, therefore require more brain activity than reading “Rachel Carson Saves the Day?  Probably.  Because Shakespeare is classical literature, and his dramas and comedies have been used as the foundation for works that have followed, have they learned more about the fundamentals of composition and writing because they read Shakespeare?  I would bet on it.  Are these kids better educated because of it.  Yes.  Are well educated and well read people (self taught or formally trained) more likely to read and consider the arguments in “Silent Spring” when they are adults and are capable of comprehending the rhetoric of that book?  Yes.(By the way – I recommend that you and Cathy view the PBS POV piece on the Hobart Shakespeareans in its entirety and tell me what you think about it in terms of education and society – it goes well beyond the use of Shakespeare in schools).

To have impact, it MUST go beyond Shakespeare! About "kids get more out of doing Shakespeare because the words and language are more challenging, therefore require more brain activity" Doing ANY play (even Rachel Carson Saves the Day) in ANY contemporary FOREIGN language would have required more brain activity than Shakespeare (and been even more useful, since they would also be learning a second language). For inner city kids (minorities? illegal immigrants? anyone with a communication or language issue) using precise contemporary American English correctly (foreign to them?) in ANY play that grabs and holds their attention would have been far more beneficial than learning Shakespearian English, which won't get much use a year later.

TOP

---

Did the School Make the Man?

Finally, on your point that you doubt Shakespeare’s school made the man? Maybe not made him at his core, but influenced him significantly is likely.  Could a very bright boy (or man) have written “Julius Caesar” without have been taught something of classical history, Latin, and literature? There are probably a lot of great writers, and mathematicians, (and world cup level cross country skiers) sitting on barstools right now.

Brains are like engines. Some are lawn mowers. Some are race cars. Schools merely provide gasoline. Bad schools provide cheap contaminated gas. Good schools provide premium gas. Schools fuel the engines, but law mowers remain lawn mowers and race cars remain race cars. Contrary to rhetoric, schools do not rebuild engines. You can force a lawn mower engine up a hill, spitting, choking and stalling en route, but race cars make it easily. Some race cars are parked in garages with tarps over them and are happy there. Some Texas lawn mowers become President of the United States! Some world cup level cross country skiers do recreational skiing simply because they love it or teach others to enjoy the activity they love so much and are content with merely giving the next generation the opportunities and skills to love it too.

My point in using the classical-to-modern education comparison is that grammar schools used to focus on classical education (even as recently as the 1930s in northern Michigan) and I believe that our elementary schools have strayed off of that to the point that education is actually worse today at many levels because it has been reduced to an incoherent set of trivial busy work activities that cause more confusion than education. My argument is that the evidence indicates Shakespeare received the best formal education available in his day at least through grammar school.  He was not entirely self-taught, apparently. I was not implying that grammar schools of 16th century England were equivalent to modern universities.  You need to read more carefully.  You should read some Shakespeare.

Sorry, I haven't time for any more Shakespeare. I have my own writing to do about the world as it is today and WS had and has little to contribute to it.

TOP

---

Shakespeare in (Home)School

Answer one question for me – do you like Shakespeare’s plays at any level?

I think I've done that. The beauty of homeschooling is that you can now make choices like Cathy and I have. You can choose a classical education or a contemporary one or a hybrid. Either is OK because you say it is OK and NO ONE has the ultimate correct answer , not even me! You can challenge your peers or your culture or go with the flow. In this, you are right, homeschooling has a lot in common with sports. Here in the U.P. there are Packer fans, Lions fans, and then there are REAL mavericks - Bears fans! They each have their opinions and are entitled to the consequences. It is your choice. I ALWAYS respect people's choices, even if I disagree (except for people with fiction addictions and Packer fans, they are just plain wrong).

Imagine multiple engines in your head, one for each of your multiple intelligences, each of different sizes, acting in unison (each doing its thing) as you live your life and climb life's various challenging hills. Some challenges will come easy for you (your engine matches the challenge). Some will be a struggle (you are pushing that engine to its limit). When you have one or two particularly large engines, you will look for solutions that use your strongest engine because that is the easiest engine to use. Using it is actually fun for you! So you have a dilemma: Should you push your weaker engine which won't get any bigger, or fall back on your strong engine that is fun to use? Hmm.

This is PRECISELY why we need a variety of people. Each has a variety of strengths (and weaknesses). Women are better at some things and men are better at others. Races vary, ages vary, cultures vary. This is normal. When you are applying a weak engine, you just don't "get it" without a lot of work. The task is a struggle and you will always avoid it. When using a strong engine, the task seems to be downhill instead of uphill, you seek out more. It's fun!

But life is not one or two dimensional. To be a responsible adult, you must deal with a range of challenges, not just your strengths. The trick is to apply your strengths to the OTHER challenges to manage life's total challenge package. Some learn by doing, some by reading, some by talking, some just by thinking, some by mathematics, some just have to "see it", some use all these methods, some just don't "get it" no matter which method is used.

Here is where the Nonfiction Defense Association comes in: It is EASY to be lazy and JUST use your favorite engine to do only the things that are fun. If reading and word usage (verbal/linguistic intelligence) is your strength (strongest in women, men are strongest logical/mathematical), you will seek that out. But verbal / linguistic skill is not limited to fiction. Nonfiction uses the same verbal/linguistic skills and offers a way for verbal/linguistic people to acquire OTHER skills , using "their language".

Nonfiction has a special value because it is hopefully true and can make your life and the life of others better. Life is real and so is nonfiction. Fiction makes no such promise and is under no such obligation. The challenge is to make nonfiction as easy to read as fiction. Your vegetables, which are necessary, must be as tasty as your desserts. MANY nonfiction resources are well written, easy to read, but remain unread because they are assumed to be not so fun to read. This is a serious error that responsible parents must manage and nonfiction authors must incorporate.

There is both good and bad fiction and nonfiction. This is subject to taste, which varies. Each of us has to find the right flavor. But fiction DOES NOT INCLUDE the truths that nonfiction offers. You can't know when to trust fiction for truth. You will constantly be fed fiction facts.

Nonfiction promises and hopefully delivers truth. So it is not possible for fiction to teach what nonfiction can. In essence fiction often offers just the opposite: things that never happened, can't happen, won't happen. Fiction has its place, entertainment, but when you are done reading it, how is your life better? Fiction is kind of like taking drugs, great high, but little value otherwise. So, NO EDUCATION IS COMPLETE WITHOUT NONFICTION. The more nonfiction you can absorb by whatever means you can get it, the better your education will be. Schools should focus primarily on nonfiction. Students should (and will) read all the fiction they want on their own time. I am not trying to ban fiction. It is a pretty harmless drug except for the incredible volume of time spent reading it at the expense of nonfiction. I am just promoting nonfiction.

TOP

---

How much Fiction/Nonfiction is Enough?

So, how much fiction/nonfiction is enough? I, through the NDA, am trying to get the general population to change their discretionary reading habits (free-time, not work related, reading) to about 20% nonfiction, 80% fiction. It seems like a modest goal (notice that fiction is still assumed to be a majority), but based on my informal estimates it is currently at 2% nonfiction, 98% fiction. So I guess I'm shooting for a ten fold increase in nonfiction reading! I am trying to help people help themselves. Based on the arguments I get (oh, the stories I could tell) they don't want this help. But hey, I have a large teaching engine. The purpose of teaching is to get people to change what they think they already know (that is why they argue), otherwise you don't need a teacher! This is fun. The debates are just part of the process.

You are an employer. Imagine a resume for a geological job applicant full of fiction, nothing but fiction (video games, romance novels and Shakespeare). How employable is that person in your operation? I think it is obvious that nonfiction is what is important, not fiction.

As I say on my website:

Wallerism:
Fiction entertains
Nonfiction changes the world.

Thanks for your time.

TOP

---

“Train your weaknesses – race your strengths”

I’ll keep this going because I think it is an interesting discussion.  I am probably straying off the fiction v nonfiction theme somewhat but here goes.

First the “strength v weakness” topic.  There is a sports analogy (sports intelligence) rule of thumb that I think rings true – “Train your weaknesses – race your strengths”.  We do need to work on our weaknesses to improve our overall abilities.  At some point though, when it really matters, we usually will have to rely on our natural strengths, when it really matters, for all the reasons you point out below.  From there, “natural selection” will determine which strengths are better rewarded.  Diversity of intelligence is good, at an individual or group level, to ensure survival at least, if not success. 

I think the sports analogy has a lot a merit beyond sports. "Diversity of intelligence is good" but intelligence is only diverse if you "train your weaknesses". Children, particularly in grade school and high school when they are more able, need diverse exposure to train their old weaknesses and discover NEW strengths, so that they do more than race just their old childhood strengths. For example, my girls are musically strong, but would have never gone there unless Cathy and I chose to train that former weakness. The same goes for many of the subjects kids learn. That is the entire reason to go to school, to diversify experience and provide opportunities, to discover new strengths, identify weaknesses, and learn to work with what you discover you've got or don't have, in anticipation of living a happy life. 

After you’ve got shelter, water, food, clothing you start focusing on thriving – acquiring more than you need to survive

Right now, we live in an era where entertainment is huge and highly lucrative - bad movies, nasty video games,  “reality” TV shows, internet pornography, Indian casino gambling, professional sports spectating, etc.  We are way beyond the mere surviving stage to be able to support this entertainment freight train.  However, all of the acts of putting together these forms of entertainment require many highly non-fictional skills.  Even the romance novelist needs to have good grammar and writing skills.  Reality TV shows rely on a lot of technical skill to be created. Why don’t these skilled craftspeople go towards non-fictional work products.  MONEY!   If you want to “sell” the NDA ideals you’re going to have to turn it into a  form of “entertainment” or at least “infotainment” as you state below.  So to compete with the non-fiction industry you might have to become more like them.  Sellout?

Ah, when you are ready (and when I finish writing it) I'll have you review my paper on capitalism and how to fix it (titled ECEC; Evolution, Constitution, Economy & Chess). I deal with the very topic you mentioned above. If you think fiction/nonfiction is interesting you'll REALLY love ECEC! This no-holds-barred paper is at 30 pages right now and I expect it to go to at least 50 pages. I told Cathy that I intend to publish it. I would be honored to have you review it. I've been working on it for months and I expect it will take a few more months to finish. I head upstairs early each morning expecting to work on it (as I did this morning) and make the mistake of opening my emails first and responding to my challengers.

You asked about my reaction to a resume that indicated no actual qualifications for the job.  Of course the applicant would be rejected immediately from further consideration.

Obviously because the applicant confused his fiction/nonfiction priorities. 

However, if a highly qualified applicant, on their free time, likes to engage in a lot of the worthless forms of entertainment listed above, would I care? Would I know? Would I want to know?  Any professional has an obligation (and the necessity) to continue to learn, and that requires continuing education, either on the job or outside of it, but I am not sure I could spot the difference between a very skilled and highly trained scientist  that spends a lot of free time reading suspense novels (Say Tom Clancy), from one that sits around every night watching non-fictional PBS documentaries (e.g. Frontline or Ken Burns, or Cosmos).  It may come out in non-work related discussions, but I am not convinced either past time would be ultimately either detrimental or beneficial to their job performance. The guy with the fancy for Clancy, because of his passion for reading,  may be a better technical writer because of it, not splitting infinitives, and generally using good grammar in reports, which most of my clients find highly valuable and result in more projects for us.

He MAY be a better writer, but reading fiction doesn't usually make you better at writing anything otherwise legions of fiction addicts would be transformed into legions of great writers. That doesn’t happen. Legions of fiction addicts are usually not transformed into anything! I think you hit the nail on the head when you placed his fiction in his "free time" because that is generally where fiction belongs. Becoming a good writer is more a nonfiction practice than a fictional one. Your (kids) value to society rests on your (their) nonfiction skills rather than fiction skills, unless your (their) social value is (will be) entertainment.

On the other hand, over time, I probably would pick up on job performance differences between one who spent most nights drinking beer in a sports bar, compared to one who spent his evenings participating in bike riding and cross country skiing.   However, both activities might be judged as a waste of time by the other – or by anyone who doesn’t think these activities have value.

TOP

---

I Have a Funny Story

Last thing on the job resume theme.  I have a funny story.  As I was completing graduate school, I interviewed with quite a few major oil companies for exploration jobs.  In one interview, a very formal interviewer in button downed shirt and tie (the whole office staff of geologists dressed like this), asked me why I had taken an “introduction to cinema” course in my senior year of undergraduate education, instead of perhaps another semester of differential equations or linear algebra?  He couldn’t see the value in my choice, especially since I aspired to be an exploration geologist at the time.  I knew immediately this would not be a good fit for either of us.

The Introduction to cinema course was a survey course of the history of film-making, from the technological developments of the da Vinci camera obscura, to the  Lumiere brothers and RKOs technicolor, to the use of dramatic cinematic techniques that result in highly influential point of views in both fact-based fiction pieces (“Birth of a Nation”, “Battle Ship Potemkin”, and Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” (Hilter’s highly influential propaganda film that directly influenced his rise to power), and of course covering the history of film entertainment from the late 1800’s to 1980.  The course really was a non-fiction course (that included a lot of fictional pieces, featuring the great classics of film making) and held a lot of value to me personally in my education, even though it was a light weight course in the opinion of the job interviewer.

He didn’t offer me a job, and I wouldn’t have accepted one from that monkey in suit anyway.  What kind of geologist goes to work in a suit and tie each day?

If I were a qualified scientist with a nonfiction passion but was rejected for a job because I didn't ski, "I wouldn’t have accepted one from that monkey in (ski)suit anyway. " " What kind of geologist goes to work in a (ski)suit each day?"

Let me finally emphasize that "all work and no play" is not my objective either. I hope you recall that my recommendation is to get discretionary habits (free-time, not work related) to about 20% nonfiction, up from 2% nonfiction. Imagine the consequences if I am successful.

If I tell someone a joke, and it's really a good one:

George Bush is informed by an advisor that 4 Brazilians were killed last night in Texas. After about 9 minutes (he was busy re-reading one of his favorite fiction books My Pet Goat (read the reviews)) George jumps up out of his chair and demands that the military and homeland security be immediately put on full alert and that aid and life support supplies (multi $ billion contract with Wal-Mart) be provided to the families ASAP (in a few weeks or months). Then he turns to his advisor and discreetly asks "How many is a BRAZILLION?"

and they don't think it is funny because it is not probable, then he needs a bit more fiction in his life (or he is republican, which is a life of PURE fiction).