*giggles and iz 12*
Feb. 4th, 2007 01:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethTextbook is talking about bottom-up models.
... I am in no way thinking Jack/Ianto thoughts here.
nope.
not.
... and I'm not fooling anyone either.
*sigh*
Am also having recurring distraction via swimming pool, speedos, and Jack's likely lack thereof.
Though there is plenty of room to imagine SF people not knowing how to swim.
Which could lead to swimming lessons.
With Ianto, of course.
... which would lead to things almost entirely not involving actual swimming. I can hear Ianto in my head making a slightly breathless sarcastic remark about that. Briefly. In passing.
Cognitive processes that are primarily determined by an external stimulus have been referred to as 'bottom-up' or 'data-driven' processes, while cognitive processes that are primarily determined by the application of past knowledge have been referred to as 'top-down' or 'conceptually-driven' processes. [...] one's impression of a character is formed in the interaction between the text and the interpreter's background knowledge; in other words, as a result of both bottom-up and top-down processes.
See, I can get from *that* to porn. That's *talent* that is.
Also, highlighters should just stop running out. I realise the amount of book I've used them on can now be measured in feet, but I can't replace them at two in the morning so they're going to keep on working thanks.
Also also, I like this book. It refers to actual empirical research. It snarks about Freudian psychoanalytic criticism: it is remote from the 'ordinary' psychological processes readers bring to texts, and it ignores about 100 years of research in mainstream psychology.
I've been saying that for years, and yet haven't studied enough psych to say it with numbers, sort of thing. It do wind me up. I had to put down a perfectly promising book because it went all Freudian. Things do not actually prove their opposites except in Bizarro world, and attraction to women, however obsessive, does not in fact *mean* sekrit attraction to men, though it can as a jumping off point for fic because fic has rather different standards of evidence. So basically I think Freud has a lot to answer for and psychoanalytic criticism really needs to study psych a bit more and yet textbooks do so rarely agree with me.
So this one is fun.
In a rather dry and repetitive way.
Maybe the pink highlighter still works. I'm not generally a big fan of pink.
... I am in no way thinking Jack/Ianto thoughts here.
nope.
not.
... and I'm not fooling anyone either.
*sigh*
Am also having recurring distraction via swimming pool, speedos, and Jack's likely lack thereof.
Though there is plenty of room to imagine SF people not knowing how to swim.
Which could lead to swimming lessons.
With Ianto, of course.
... which would lead to things almost entirely not involving actual swimming. I can hear Ianto in my head making a slightly breathless sarcastic remark about that. Briefly. In passing.
Cognitive processes that are primarily determined by an external stimulus have been referred to as 'bottom-up' or 'data-driven' processes, while cognitive processes that are primarily determined by the application of past knowledge have been referred to as 'top-down' or 'conceptually-driven' processes. [...] one's impression of a character is formed in the interaction between the text and the interpreter's background knowledge; in other words, as a result of both bottom-up and top-down processes.
See, I can get from *that* to porn. That's *talent* that is.
Also, highlighters should just stop running out. I realise the amount of book I've used them on can now be measured in feet, but I can't replace them at two in the morning so they're going to keep on working thanks.
Also also, I like this book. It refers to actual empirical research. It snarks about Freudian psychoanalytic criticism: it is remote from the 'ordinary' psychological processes readers bring to texts, and it ignores about 100 years of research in mainstream psychology.
I've been saying that for years, and yet haven't studied enough psych to say it with numbers, sort of thing. It do wind me up. I had to put down a perfectly promising book because it went all Freudian. Things do not actually prove their opposites except in Bizarro world, and attraction to women, however obsessive, does not in fact *mean* sekrit attraction to men, though it can as a jumping off point for fic because fic has rather different standards of evidence. So basically I think Freud has a lot to answer for and psychoanalytic criticism really needs to study psych a bit more and yet textbooks do so rarely agree with me.
So this one is fun.
In a rather dry and repetitive way.
Maybe the pink highlighter still works. I'm not generally a big fan of pink.