ADBC: 48 – Ways To Learn, The Bill, And Yes, Prime Minister

Here’s the premise of the conversation.

Previously in the conversation: It is marvellous reading the words my brother blogs about. He gets his thoughts down so well that I am duly engrossed in what he shares and can consider it carefully. Take his first port of call in explaining the relationship between law and wisdom. The breakdown and exploration are magnificent. There was a question I posed about the self-help and positive thinking movement. He did not blunder into it with guns blazing. He took his time and picked apart what he ingested, the processing of it was splendid. He wasn’t going for a “balanced” opinion as though he was trying to get a child to feel better about their art assignment drawing their house. He was giving a properly fair analysis of the video and aspects of the positive thinking approach. And check out what he has to write about fear. When asked to explore the concept of the pursuit of happiness, I expected a far more downbeat response and yet here again was a fair approach that I could read and find reasons for hope in it. It’s not perfect writing at all, as we will see in a question he is to answer later – oh but it is quality writing for sure that’s worthy of your consideration in reading by clicking here.

To the best of my recollection, my brother and I never played baseball. The closest we came was the game called rounders, which I haven’t played for decades. Anyway, that’s all a set about pitching some questions at me like it was a baseball game and seeing if I can knock any out of the park for a home run.  Here goes:

Q – Based on your experience, what is the difference in the effectiveness of the following: teaching face-to-face; teaching remotely via video chat; teaching using a recording, written, audio or otherwise? Does the age/maturity of the student matter?

Right off the bat, as I’m sure attacking cricketers would put it, I don’t think age or maturity matters. when it comes to the effectiveness of teaching in those methods. I don’t think it’s the case that a younger person will be more adept at video chat learning because they are more accustomed to the technology than an older person. I’m aware of young people who are very clued-up on video communication technology who do a lot better in learning face-to-face than via online methods.

I thought I’d say that first before sharing what experience has been shared with me thus far in terms of the variety of ways in which students can learn. Video communication is an effective method of teaching/learning with those who are savvy about the opportunity that it provides. When I connect with someone via video I can engender a connection and rapport with them that establishes the basis for effective progress in their learning. I enjoy the opportunities it gives to record sessions and use video technology for notating and commenting on work. I’m still a PowerPoint guy and utilise that for the presentation-based delivery from which other bits and bobs can emerge for delivery and that works great on a video communication platform. The learner who is up for that can gain much from the opportunity to get involved in the learning.

Your question is about the difference in the methods. The face-to-face approach has a physical immediacy that can be very helpful to pick up and address issues that cannot be picked up in video communication and that can be helpful to address things and see development in effort and aptitude. Those things can be crucial.

When it comes to using means of recording, written or audio material that’s usually about the learner’s inclination to take things on through those means. Those static means have the advantage of being able to go over on multiple occasions to pick up on things whereas in the live interactive sense it’s not as though we can go over what we learnt on something static in a dynamic setting in the same way. Being a reader and a consumer of visual and audio material quite a lot, I can commend that form a lot to learners and they can find that helpful as well to support their aims especially when they suss out which format works best for them because not everyone is a text-consumer and some prefer the audio approach or the video. What learners find, though, is that the interaction and engagement with me make a difference because whatever it is they’ve got from the static learning documents they can see how much they’ve progressed and then work out their processing with someone that can help challenge and adjust their thinking in a way that those static forms can’t engage with them.

As you may be aware, discerning the effectiveness of a teaching method is not as exact a science as some want to make out. As people are different and their character and readiness for learning are determined by a lot of factors it’s not as simple as to say that such a learner has done great because of video or face-to-face or by using written/recorded material. I do enjoy the opportunities that all the methods offer for teaching and sure face-to-face teaching is overall my preferred delivery method, I do love what can be done from the utility of my place of work and connecting with others by video means. The teaching thing still comes to the capacity to connect with a learner and above all else discern if they really want to learn and on that basis pursue the best means that they can have their learning need served. That’s a human-to-human thing and I love how that can be conveyed in different means and how that learner can pick that up as much in a good book, a good website, a good paper exercise, a good podcast, a good video, a good game, a good project, a good conversation, a good online activity or even a good night’s sleep to think about what they’ve considered.

Q – Boris Johnson resigned from being Prime Minister. What is the role of the Prime Minister? What is its relevance to the common pleb and peasant? Who really rules a people in this modern time?

Keeping topical, I see. Dating this edition of the conversation I note. Well, I better go with the flow. Heads up, though. I could give you an essay that’s referenced and all of that kinda jazz. I could do that, but I wanna go off what I understand from the past learning and recalling and processing, etc. So if you wanted the academic answer that would get a first in a politics degree, you probably need to ask a politics student copying my work. (Wink)

The Prime Minister – primus inter pares – first among equals. What a lovely concept it was back in the day. OK, maybe it wasn’t even that quaint back in the day, but go with this romanticised and idealistic notion. Here are these noblemen assigned by the electorate to oversee the governing of the country and this group of noblemen organised anoint one among them to be the first minister, the first one to serve, the first one to organise those around him to be properly deployed to conduct the affairs of the state. As “real” power was taken from the monarchy and placed in the Parliament, Parliament looked for these noblemen to present those policies and matters of which the statecraft would be officiated on behalf of the monarch.

Over recent times the role of the Prime Minister has veered from an almost presidential or a dictatorial office in and of itself directing all manner of policies through the other departments, to a more collegiate collaborative approach cultivating a team approach to government and being the captain and coach of the team rather than a boss. The party system that dominated the form of parliamentary politics in the last century or so determines how the Prime Minister is appointed.

The commoner is affected by the actions of the Prime Minister in terms of how he drives the agenda of the policies that are usually agreed on by the party and by the cabinet. That’s largely dependent on the degree of real influence he has in Parliament to be able to drive that agenda … as well as the capacity to mobilise the civil service to drive that agenda. Suppose you count the number of factors involved in really being an effective Prime Minister where the agenda is concerned. In that case, it’s the reason why as much as the PM is lauded as a “powerful” figure, even those who are noted as the more influential figures – Churchill, MacMillan, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair – at best were good figures at the top of a game that played it well, especially in its portrayal to the public. For example, Churchill, Thatcher, and Blair exuded charismatic leadership qualities and to others pushed through their will on others by charm, guile or force of nature. Thus, people are taken in with a narrative of the PM as a pivotal figure in decision-making. That’s helped by the role of the media in conveying developments and people and their carefully constructed story of “how things work”.

It’s on this issue, that I make a tentative look at who actually rules in affairs. Although there are elected officials that help with the sense the commoner has about who makes the decisions and makes things happen, those elected types are dependent on a system operated by unelected types. The civil service. The bureaucrats who make a play to just be those who carry out the will of their masters, but know the function and operation of things to such a degree that they can “support” their masters by outlining limitations and complexities to decisions that can either leave those elected officials as puppets on their string or those who oversee a going through the motions that their underlings carefully construct. As well as these folks, however, there are the important “stakeholders” in key policy decision-making areas. Take education, for example, influential unions, and not-so-open”experts” in the area can have a significant impact on decisions actually made to shape the curriculum and how different courses are developed and run in the country. Consider that for departments like health and transport there are vested interests who want their way to be in place whatever people think and their way of “influencing” those who apparently make the decisions and the complex way in which things are done in this country could never be sourced in the houses of Parliament or the cabinet or the PM’s residence. And that’s a surface analysis of how decisions are made. If we consider that there are certain forces that, at the other levels, exert a lot of influence where decisions are made there are some open and not-so-open sources where power lies.

One of the reasons why I enjoy episodes in the Bible is how they portray that power is not always wielded by the king or the big boss of a situation. It’s all about those influential people in the background, whether it’s Jezebel or Haman or Joseph or Mordecai. Power is exercised and seen by forces that are not always obvious.

In this day and age where folks want to drink the democracy lemonade that gives them the impression that they make a difference, it’s not always comfortable to shine the light away from the populace, the masses and the commoners and actually to folks who are content to whisper a word, slip in a payment, nudge someone at their capability of getting a group of people to be swayed to a particular view.

Q – What experience have you had with the police? Being a christian, what is your view of the compatibility between being a police officer and a steadfast follower of Jesus? Is it possible, in this modern-day and age, for a devout follower of Jesus to be an officer vowed to uphold the dictates of the legislators?

Oooohhhhhh encounters with the police, let me see. I’ve experienced burglary on two occasions that brought in police involvement. They have also had reason to visit my home about concerns regarding my offspring and neighbour concerns on a few occasions. The encounters were not that memorable. I had to wrack my memory to recover those experiences.

Compatibility between being a full-fledged follower of Jesus and a police officer. I perceive in the nature of the question an assumed discrepancy between the vows of the police officer and to the Lord Jesus Christ. As I understand it at this time, I believe those who really want to follow Jesus will see some disconnect between that affiliation and almost every occupation and pursuit … but that’s not the nature of this question it’s specifically to do with the police force.

Is it right to consider that the issue with the police is how they may be involved in enforcing and policing that which would be in opposition to what is right in the sight of God as Christians understand it? The use of physical force, the sustaining of a system that is ordered by those who might be corrupt and policies and procedures that may themselves be ungodly. It is going to be a challenge for sure.

Here’s what I currently believe. I believe that some see being a part of the police force as a calling. They want to uphold what they perceive to be the godly aspects of protecting and serving the community. As God had influential people in positions of rule according to various episodes in scripture, there is a belief that you can be in the police force and follow Jesus. It’s their conviction that they’re in the force to be the light in that area and portray the godly character for others in the force to see and allow what is right to be expressed. In that sense, I can appreciate how a steadfast follower of Jesus could reconcile their primary allegiance to Jesus and their contractual obligation to the state.

It is that primary allegiance to Jesus that is the key to determining their function in their role. That will determine how they engage with instructions and orders given. Let me leave this answer here in the hope that you can expand on where you think there are glaring contradictions between being a police officer and a Christian.

---

Questions. An opportunity to explore and explain and see those explanations provoke further explorations. Your questions are uniquely gifted in the ability it has to drive great explorations. Many thanks for that, bro.

Here are some questions for you:

Q – What are your current views of what happens to humans after death – what shapes those views and does the afterlife matter?

Q – In your previous response you said, “I think a quest only for truth is only a quest to misery.” Explain.

Q – Honour your parents was important to us growing up. What are your thoughts on that principle and is it an important one for people to be taught today? Please explain your answer.

Some people think life is a waste of time, but in engaging in this conversation with you, I don’t find that to be the case at all, dear Hesediah. Thanks for your time.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden