Results of the "three-things-learned" experiment

A little over two weeks ago I began an experiment in which, at the conclusion of each day, I would write three things I'd learned since waking that morning. I learned a lot in that time, and as much and more from the experience itself. I also learned, however, that enumerated learning has pitfalls, and for me at least proved less useful than expected. I'll try and be more specific below.

The process began well enough. The first few days included such nuggets as, "Goats have rectangular pupils, which help them see at night," and "By her own admission, A&P (Anatomy and Physiology) teacher is ,'not everyone's cup of tea.'" Some days later, I recorded that the "Spanish guys at work often pronounce the word 'tiger' as 'tigger.'"

These facts were enjoyable to record, and looking back help me remember what I was doing those days. This is one positive for the three-things-learned experiment, in that when done a certain way, they contain much information in a pithy format.

Yet some days I struggled to present three new things I learned, and what I put down often seemed overmuch like trivia, or worse, trivial. Now that's not to say these thoughts were without value, but on such days the exercise became not only a struggle, but also a distraction from making a record of the day.

Which all reminds me of a quote from Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi (1883). In discussing the history of the Mississippi River and those who explored it, Twain writes:

"We do of course know that there are several comparatively old dates in American history, but the mere figures convey to our minds no just idea, no distinct realization, of the stretch of time which they represent. To say that De Soto, the first white man who ever saw the Mississippi River, saw it in 1542, is a remark which states a fact without interpreting it: it is something like giving the dimensions of a sunset by astronomical measurements, and cataloguing the colors by their scientific names;--as a result, you get the bald fact of the sunset, but you don't see the sunset. It would have been better to paint a picture of it."

Twain's notion is striking given my experiences with the three-things-learned experiment. Indeed, despite recording facts, the result provided little of context or subjective interpretation. Sure it is interesting to learn that goats have rectangular pupils (and even crazier to see them!), but the "bald fact" does little alone to render a clear idea of what it was I'd learned.

Such facts I'm finding are simply less interesting in isolation; they acquire more meaning as telling details within a larger narrative.To hear that my co-workers pronounce "tiger" as "tigger" provides a small but humorous perspective on people the rest of you may never meet. For example, in his excellent book "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" (1979) biographer Edmund Morrison used such details to great effect in bringing the long-dead Teddy Roosevelt back to life. That TR used to tell people he was "DEE-lighted!" to see them, or that this or that adventure was "REALLY Bully!" each help imbue the 26th President's description on paper with a personality as unique and nearly as energetic as the original. In this way, Morris not only follows the advice of historian Leopold von Ranke - to tell "how it actually happened" (wie es eigentlich gewesen) - but also employs the method Twain suggests: he paints a picture using those facts.

With all that said, the three-things-learned experiment has been a success. And while I won't explicitly write "three things I learned today" each night in the journal, I will look more closely for those telling details that convey so much meaning in so few words. The experience has proven fun and useful, and I encourage you to try for yourself if the mood takes you.

Happy Tuesday :)