Depends upon my age and phase [as in whether I wanted to be a cowboy, a doctor, a race car driver, Batman, or a misanthrope / rapscallion at that particular time.]
Generally speaking, I had the strange (not to mention unproductive) tendency for science to top of the list while mathematics was usually dead last.
Absolutely nothing. I’m more of a mile-wide-inch-deep type than a mile-deep-inch-wide type, which is to say a generalist rather than a specialist. So, I do have some insight into how to think about thinking about matters diverse and sundry.
What makes a teacher great?
If students choose the teacher, that is an excellent first indicator. In the typical top-down selection of teachers, it is easy to produce an abundance of shitty teachers. Of course, there is still the danger of charismatic bullshitters and easy people-pleasers, problems ever-present. But among students (as opposed to followers) they usually reveal themselves in time.
A psychology teacher taught us about what he called “the gestalt of expectations.” It’s when one builds an alternative reality in one’s mind (typically a worst-case scenario) and then one acts as though it is a reality, when – in fact – it is not. (Though sometimes it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy situation, which — of course — triggers selection bias in people of the unexamined life.)
It was my introduction to what I would come to know as the most fundamental insight of human existence — i.e. that one’s experience of the world is not the world itself, and while one has minimal influence over the latter, one can have tremendous influence over the former. One can even train oneself to perceive difficulties and sorrows as learning and growth opportunities.
Computational Fluid Dynamics. Also, Nuclear Lensing.
I’d say my first full-time martial arts teacher, because I was young enough to have considerable open domain in which said teacher could be influential and because the lessons were so diverse — from kinesthetics to ethics to culture to psychology.
By “most influential” I think one means having had either the broadest or most profound influence. (I favor the importance of the latter, the lessons that stick with one and which inform one’s philosophy of life.) This definition favors earlier teachers, but as I don’t remember any specific lesson taught by a specific elementary school teacher, they’re out (though I learned useful things from them and they ranged from competent to quite skilled as teachers go.) The earliest profound lesson I received through scholastic education, one that became a core tenet in my philosophy of life rather than just a skill, was in high school — and in my junior or senior year at that.
As with books, if I can take away one profound lesson from a teacher, I consider my experience well worth the time and energy. And most influential isn’t necessarily the prime criterion for a teacher — and certainly doesn’t necessarily mean best or most skilled or most in command of a diverse array of knowledge.
If one fails and one tries again, one will make course corrections. Keep repeating that cycle, and one is bound to home in on success.
Psychologically, I think juggling is a fantastic skill to practice because one must fail a million times and keep going. Furthermore, one must learn to choose failure over a spastic success (and condition that behavior in on the fly.) By this I mean, one must learn to let the ball drop rather than lunging to make a frantic catch, because if you are always making wild reaches, you’ll never achieve a smooth, natural rhythm. In other words, a catch that keeps the ball in the air for one or two more throws is not truly a success if it trains a wobbly, unsustainable movement pattern. More generally, one must redefine what constitutes success or failure at a fundamental level.
If I’m being entirely honest, everything that’s come out of this enterprise has been of selfish motive — even those activities that seem like they have broader purpose. For example, I started book reviewing because: a.) I found it disheartening how many books I read that I had virtually no recollection of a couple years down the line, and b.) because, while I felt I knew good writing when I read it, I couldn’t really say what it was that made it good or bad without taking a more analytical look into the matter. (And I was pretty sure good writing wouldn’t come to me osmotically — merely by reading good writing — if I didn’t understand why it was good writing.)
I started recording classic poems to get a better sense of the sound quality of well-crafted poetry (and to become more comfortable with the sound of my own voice.)
I guess the honest answer is that I hope to be smarter and more capable as a result of the practice. It is continuing education, a fostering of the Beginner’s Mind.
Allow me to make a
Socratic suggestion:
That you pursue the lowly
Art of the question.
Showing you love knowing
More than you love learning
Shows only that you're not
Discerning, and lack requisite
Yearning to find the Truth.
Fluent Forever: How to Learn Any Language Fast and Never Forget It by Gabriel Wyner
Tiger Riding for Beginners 