To start off I have no Psych experience besides 101 in high school and Sociology classes. So forgive me the laymans. I have a theory, that I have been testing for the past 8-10 years I call the Art Class theory. To begin I have been classified as having above average intelligence since the first grade. Anyway through life I've found that actually being smarter doesn't exactly win you medals in socialism with your classmates, nor with your Neanderthal boss... SO I stared acting dumb, not so much to fit in, but to get through without being bothered. After high school, I find that this theory still pertains to my work and probably any work out there... THE ART CLASS THEORY when you start in art class (or any class really) the teachers all want an assessment of your skills. In ART I, I took a long and arduous time to make a very deatiled portrait of a bird. After that initial assessment EVERY project I had was held up to that benchmark, which meant I had no time to evolve any other techniques or methods and furthur myself. So the next year in ART II, I drew stick figures and (literally) and was left alone getting very high grades for all the improvement I made on even the strangest iterations. In college, it was the same story. Every assessment I had I intenionally bombed, so as to progress with as much breadth as possible while still maintaing high grades. Work was the same, though I made the mistake of thinking it wasn't. Same as the Art Class procedure above: fail miserably while trying my hardest, or act dumb and get more done at higher standards... So from a psych point of view let me know what you think. I will tell you I'm not lazy or dumb, in fact I love to progress at the fastest rate possible, which is what led me to this theory.
LOL *sigh well I suppose Philosophy is just as good as Psychology anyway - here's to the above average intelligence at work Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Interesting concept. It it is a job where the initial evaluation for entry into that job requires a high skill level or knowledge base, you find it harder to do. Though most professional jobs have multiple assessment tests that will show your strengths and weaknesses. Be careful so your not at the bottom of the employment pool trying to swim to the top.
Since I was a tradesman having masters in electrical and plumbing I find what you say is just the opposite as to the trades world. Learning the skills and codes to become a better electrician or plumber always lands you a better paying job in most instances and your co workers look up to you with respect. Seeing how very few tradesmen get a journeyman's license or even fewer yet attain a masters everyone in the trades has high regards for those advancing themselves within the trades. I can only talk about the trades not the corporate world although I'd think it would hold true even there.
"Be careful so your not at the bottom of the employment pool trying to swim to the top." That's the point exactly, you start at the bottom (not at the bottom of the pay pool of course) but at the "least likely to become CEO" maybe, then prove that not only can you accomplish your menial work well, but also more advanced work, then you get understanding if you don't do something exactly right instead of anger because you should be doing it exactly right, because they didn't expect you to be able to do it in the first place Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's a pretty slacker way to do things, but I think it might even be preferable in some instances.
Your absolutely correct about the trade world, I forgot to figure that in. I'd say it'd be different if I was an attorney working for some huge firm, but alas I'm only an IT guy while I get my masters... The Theory only holds true for certain characteristics obviously, but that's why I posted it - to feel out the boundaries and fallacies.
Your theory is flawed. The object isn't grades, the object is learning to get better. All my Art teachers (since I was an Art Major), evaluated each project as a separate thing. There is some small consideration for personal improvement, but to fake being bad just to show rapid improvement later is not constructive. I would not have given you high marks for your detailed reproduction of a bird. This is a common beginner's mistake. They think that being able to draw photographically realistic things is the goal. It's not. It's not a very easy thing to do, but drawing well isn't about that. Most artists can learn to do it, but if that's all they learn, they have failed. That isn't the point of art. There is a school of art called photorealism, but that is not something a student should specialize in before they have even learned the basics. Basically, this Art Class theory of yours was allowed to develop by bad teachers. If a subsequent drawing of yours was not so realistic, more crude but more expressive, I would have considered it an improvement, in spite of the fact that the common observer would not. One of the most important lessons in art is to initially give up trying to make your drawings look "good" from the perspective of looking accurate.
Good comments above. You need to establish what you want out of a class. Are you taking art (or other subject) for the sake of it or taking art to bring out your own talent and creativity. Why do you lower your standards to extract praise from the teacher? Do you have some pathological need for praise and approval? Most employment today is results oriented and you will change jobs and possible careers many times. No problem acting dumb and being stuck in a $10/ hour job and never having your talents challenged. If you want approval that you are good at stacking boxes then that type of approval is akin to praising a dog when it does a trick. Learn to feel good about yourself and focus less on what others think of you.
