Welcome! New here? Get a library card
User Reviews
Reviews by wednesdaytgw
Interesting. It would be more interesting had I not always had the impression the professor thought she was speaking to a very young audience or an audience with profound fear of education. It may simply be a style of speech, but she sounds as if she were afraid her audience might run away if she did not keep apologizing for teaching, also promising to throw in lots of fun stories about murder and love… (see, it’s not all dull, dull history).
If the subject were not so interesting, the coaxing tone and wording intended to soften hard facts to make it digestible for children would become annoying in spite of her pleasant voice.
“Learning has never been so enjoyable” should have given me a clue, though many of these programs are presented
by bolder lecturers.
If the subject were not so interesting, the coaxing tone and wording intended to soften hard facts to make it digestible for children would become annoying in spite of her pleasant voice.
“Learning has never been so enjoyable” should have given me a clue, though many of these programs are presented
by bolder lecturers.
It might offer useful suggestions to those who are uncomfortable discussing things with others. I have a lot of doubt about it as a complete solution. It does discuss understanding misunderstanding, the most useful part of the material. It does not cover many aspects of this kind of issue. The process is called “WACK”, “WACK em”, an aggressive term for a system claiming to avoid aggressiveness. There is a lot of discussion about dressing well for work but actual values are of little concern, there is a discussion of how to handle seeing abuse of time or materials at work (only involve yourself if it effects you) and seeing coworkers parking in the handicapped parking space (only involve yourself if it effects you). Read by the author, she also discusses the need for correct English in the work place and amusingly, suffers several lapses during the presentation.
I know two women who have likely taken this seminar. The results can be amusing worked by those who do not apply much thinking to the format.
I know two women who have likely taken this seminar. The results can be amusing worked by those who do not apply much thinking to the format.
It is an interesting series. It opened my eyes to many aspects of communication. Amusingly, I found the professor sometimes confusing and often felt she was amazingly off the mark.
In the first disc she presents her idea that Americans (all Americans? how did she determine this?) are in error (actually makes it sound as if they are rather stupid about it) in their idea about cell phones in theatres, at work (waiting for sales help to end a personal phone call), driving or someone you are spending time with on their cell phone… with “their loved ones” (says this several times). Her spin on this is if they can be on the phone with their loved ones so can you. We don’t know they are on the cell phone with their “loved ones”. I don’t see the point in spending time out with someone who is on their cell with someone else or sitting in a theatre listening to many around me talk on their phones when I am there to see (and hear) the movie. I have trouble understanding why she thinks it is a good idea to not communicate with a customer or the friend you are with. Clearly Americans are wrong, Europeans are superior. I’m thinking, she is suffering from a classic case of liberal-educator-mindset…
In the second disc she discusses “power” and “solidarity”, using as example a woman asking a male companion if he has a coat (chilly day), the man responds, “Thanks mom”. The professors interpretation is that he responded with a put down, putting the woman companion in a lower place. The professor says “he was reinterpreting it in a position of power”, one up and one down and she (the woman) felt put down. It is an interesting interpretation after an earlier discussion about teasing being a display of familiarity and established family practice. She talks at length on the first disc of women who had grown up in east coast homes where serious teasing was the norm, finding when they are in the business world this kind of digging and bantering is taken the wrong way. I had thought it an amusing response, it did not occur to me to consider it a “put down”, particularly in light of the earlier explanations. The material is full of seemingly contradictory statements like this, with no explanation to justify her conclusions. She says, “Power and Solidarity are always at play”… if you live with someone you have to consider the other person, and that gives them power over you and that is a kind of solidarity because then you have a relationship.
Uh huh…
When she gets into the discussion of hierarchy, take notes… it is both yes and no, and no and yes…
And, she is a liberal; she later says that when you hear “Hillary” you know who it is, you don’t need a last name. Not only is she very limited in her world view but wears her badge to win the approval of others of that mindset. There are others in the world by that name.
She talks about a business woman who spent time walking around being friendly with people, you might think she was wasting time but it gave her power because she could call on anyone to get things done. I wonder, no one would walk around being friendly just because they liked people and no one would do the work unless you had been particularly friendly with them? It is an interesting view and the limitations of it are consistent through the series. It’s a pity, I’m sure it is a fascinating subject but she has a fixed agenda and all conforms to it.
Keep in mind where she is coming from as you listen. She is sitting on a particular and personal piece of ground and for all her studies; her conclusions are drawn to fit that terrain.
In the first disc she presents her idea that Americans (all Americans? how did she determine this?) are in error (actually makes it sound as if they are rather stupid about it) in their idea about cell phones in theatres, at work (waiting for sales help to end a personal phone call), driving or someone you are spending time with on their cell phone… with “their loved ones” (says this several times). Her spin on this is if they can be on the phone with their loved ones so can you. We don’t know they are on the cell phone with their “loved ones”. I don’t see the point in spending time out with someone who is on their cell with someone else or sitting in a theatre listening to many around me talk on their phones when I am there to see (and hear) the movie. I have trouble understanding why she thinks it is a good idea to not communicate with a customer or the friend you are with. Clearly Americans are wrong, Europeans are superior. I’m thinking, she is suffering from a classic case of liberal-educator-mindset…
In the second disc she discusses “power” and “solidarity”, using as example a woman asking a male companion if he has a coat (chilly day), the man responds, “Thanks mom”. The professors interpretation is that he responded with a put down, putting the woman companion in a lower place. The professor says “he was reinterpreting it in a position of power”, one up and one down and she (the woman) felt put down. It is an interesting interpretation after an earlier discussion about teasing being a display of familiarity and established family practice. She talks at length on the first disc of women who had grown up in east coast homes where serious teasing was the norm, finding when they are in the business world this kind of digging and bantering is taken the wrong way. I had thought it an amusing response, it did not occur to me to consider it a “put down”, particularly in light of the earlier explanations. The material is full of seemingly contradictory statements like this, with no explanation to justify her conclusions. She says, “Power and Solidarity are always at play”… if you live with someone you have to consider the other person, and that gives them power over you and that is a kind of solidarity because then you have a relationship.
Uh huh…
When she gets into the discussion of hierarchy, take notes… it is both yes and no, and no and yes…
And, she is a liberal; she later says that when you hear “Hillary” you know who it is, you don’t need a last name. Not only is she very limited in her world view but wears her badge to win the approval of others of that mindset. There are others in the world by that name.
She talks about a business woman who spent time walking around being friendly with people, you might think she was wasting time but it gave her power because she could call on anyone to get things done. I wonder, no one would walk around being friendly just because they liked people and no one would do the work unless you had been particularly friendly with them? It is an interesting view and the limitations of it are consistent through the series. It’s a pity, I’m sure it is a fascinating subject but she has a fixed agenda and all conforms to it.
Keep in mind where she is coming from as you listen. She is sitting on a particular and personal piece of ground and for all her studies; her conclusions are drawn to fit that terrain.
In the first CD the mage learns he is unable, being a eunuch, to receive the transmission of ancient wisdom which must be transmitted by a physical act he is incapable of, the priestess “receives” the transmission instead with the help of the other temple women to use oils and massage to help the ancient sage achieve the “transmission”* which takes place in the presence of all, during which the sage dies and has to be disconnected from the “transmission”. The mage then has his psychic eye opened by having his eyeball scooped out and a sliver inserted into his brain.
Accompanied by thrilling adventure or lush language or imagery, or intriguing history and culture of time and place I might have staggered on, but those are lacking thus far.
I usually don’t review books I have not read completely but I am not going further with this one and it might save you the dollar (or two) to know in advance.
Admittedly I prefer Patrick O’Brian and J. R. R. Tolkien, so this one rates rather higher on the “yick” scale.
*So really he could have, eh?
Accompanied by thrilling adventure or lush language or imagery, or intriguing history and culture of time and place I might have staggered on, but those are lacking thus far.
I usually don’t review books I have not read completely but I am not going further with this one and it might save you the dollar (or two) to know in advance.
Admittedly I prefer Patrick O’Brian and J. R. R. Tolkien, so this one rates rather higher on the “yick” scale.
*So really he could have, eh?
Really enjoyable. Professor Fagan has a pleasant voice and is easy to listen to. He does have a slight English accent and a few words are pronounced in a way that might cause some confusion. The series (three cases of six each) covers many early cultures and is interesting from beginning to end.
