Tommy D'Angelo

Okay so religions are alike, where are the "whys"?

Revisado: 09-13-23

This course was not at all what I thought it would be.

If you have listened to any of TGC's introductory courses on religion I suspect, like me, you will garner very little new from this course. Another reviewer summarized my feeling perfectly: "there's little meat on the bones".

These lectures contain what are to me “basic” observations and conclusions and quite frankly just a retelling of common tenants, practices, and beliefs of the five major religions that likely are already known by many who have taken any other of the religion courses from TGC. At the risk of sounding pretentious: I honestly think I could put together a course matching this one's content and that's saying something since I have limited knowledge of some of the major religions...only what I have learned from the other TGC courses I have taken. I have never thought to make such a presumptuous statement for any of the 156 other courses I have thus far listened to, including those whose topics I consider my subject knowledge to be advanced.

I expected a lot more because I know the professor is a very learned and respected individual in his field. I have listened to YouTube videos of him. This course was a big disappointment knowing he is well qualified for something much, much better.

The thing that bugged me the most: While Professor Kimball covers all of those main tenants, practices, and beliefs and points out the similarities among one another, he does not cover the “why”: I would expect a course on comparative religion to explain why all kinds of human societies/tribes irrespective of location share these same common aspects of religion vs. just recounting how Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have sacred spaces, people, and objects and then listing each ones within each religion. There's so much to explore here as it relates to human psychology and human society. We get none of that. No deep analysis and no great insights. How disappointing. I guess I thought that's what "Comparative Religion" was. There's enough introductory courses out there on the religions themselves that any common joe can come to the same conclusions around identifying the similarities and differences.

I suspect this course would be just as maddening to novices to religion as it would be to those with a more intermediate knowledge level looking for greater insights. I can't even recommend this course as an introduction to the various religions because Professor Kimball does not start at the beginning for each of them, explaining their origins and key beliefs in a systematic method. He covers aspects of the religions in the context of topics like sacred places, sacred texts, ceremonies. It is almost like the novice will get bits and pieces of what these religions are about in scattered form. If your course is going to be introductory then it is best to focus on one religion end to end and then discussing its similarities or differences later once the student understands what each religion is even about! If it is not an introductory comparison course then where is the deeper insight?!

On top of all of this the professor uses so many filler words that an unprepared student winging some presentation nervously came to mind: his constant “umms” become beyond distracting. They become unprofessional.

Professor Kimball is respectful of each religious tradition to a fault: he rarely if ever offers any kind of criticism and takes certain items literally. For example: there being 300+ million deities in Hinduism. I had heard this explained in the past that the mention of there being that many gods was more of a way to express that Hinduism has so much polytheistic flexibility that there is not a finite number of gods but there are as many gods as a person would like. Instead the professor takes this number literally and keeps repeating it as truth.

I count one lecture (one!) that captured my attention and had me listening intently with interest: lecture 12 on different understandings of the nature of God (Polytheism, Dualism, Monism, and Monotheism).

I give this more than 1 star because the professor stays on topic for the most part vs. drifting and his content is valid and true vs. assumptions or exaggerations.

Please, please if you are a novice to the study of religion you are better served a million times over by taking the "Cultural Literacy for Religion: Everything the Well-Educated Person Should Know" course: a five star one without a doubt. And if you want more then I recommend the following courses which are light years ahead of this one if the goal is to provide an introduction vs. an actual academic exploration of WHY religions are alike and dissimilar:

Great World Religions: Hinduism
Introduction to Judaism
Understanding the New Testament

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Especially Creepy Stories This Episode

Revisado: 03-06-23

Six creepy stories in a row. One of the better shows in some time. Great episode!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Great Informative Journey Through Celtic Europe

Revisado: 12-24-21

Well overdue course. The Great Courses catalog has a number of British history courses but it was exciting to see the Celtic people getting their own show. This course provides informative and interesting historical narrative of the Celtic culture that at various times was centered in central Europe, Britain (pre-England), western Spain, Brittany (France), Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. It covers the culture's entire history from Aprx. 500 BC to the present.

Note I said "culture" and not "people". Professor Paxton takes some heat in the reviews for this course for not "pinning down" the Celts and defining them as a distinct people. Reviewers were upset that most of the lectures had qualifiers that we don't know how to define the Celtic people by genetics, where they came from, their migration patterns, etc. calling into question whether they even existed as a distinct people. I think they are looking at it from the wrong perspective. If you consider the subject being studied here as a culture, one that has its own history and can spread from one peoples to the next regardless of borders or genetics or nationalities or even language at times then I think you're capturing the essence of the professor's perspective. It helped me take the most of this course without wondering whose country's history I'm studying or their people's nationality, etc.

Sure studying this culture means studying a lot of Irish, Scottish, and Welsh history. All the better!

An interesting debate the professor kept going back to in the early lectures was whether Celtic culture started in central Europe and spread out west (Britain, western France, and western Spain) or started on the western fringes of Europe and spread east. Even without a definitive answer I feel like she did an excellent job of providing both viewpoints.

I also have to commend the visuals in this course. The maps were very very helpful in understanding the various migration and invasion movements and patterns. I can't imagine having followed a third of what was being described with just audio.

My favorite lectures:
5- Caesar and the Gauls
7- Celtic and Roman Britain
8- Celts and Picts in Scotland
10- Anglo-Saxons and Celts
23- Celtic music and dance

Three passing shortcomings:

1- Recording continuity issues: At random times (but mostly in the early lectures) the audio of the professor’s voice changes in tone and volume for a sentence or two (obviously having been recorded at a different time from the main lecture discussion and spliced in the middle of a discussion). Once or twice is allowable but by the 5th time and beyond It became a bit distracting. Luckily these did not last the duration of the course.

2- At times it was difficult to follow the complicated relationship between England and Scotland as well as England and Ireland in the Middle Ages. This was exasperated by the shifting alliances between various English lords and Irish/Scottish kingdoms and lords making it difficult at times to determine if England had “conquered” these lands, had conquered only some of these lands, or thought they had conquered them. A complex topic to be sure but a little more big-picture summations at times could've helped.

3- Professor Paxton spends a bit of time discussing Ireland’s independence movement in the 19th and 20th centuries but I don’t recall her describing the actual achievement of independence in the 1920’s or how it came about.

I walked in to this course thinking Celtic People meant a study of Britain and Ireland. I walked out with a much better understanding and appreciation of the Celtic culture and how its world spans beyond the North Atlantic. I didn't realize parts of Spain and France were included! I recommend this course to anyone interested in the topic or regions that were covered. No longer do we have to get bits and pieces on Wales, Scotland, and Ireland from courses on English history!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Excellent investigations into Authors' Purposes

Revisado: 10-19-21

This course was exceptionally better than I imagined it would be going in. I thought there would be a lot of overlap with Professor Bart D. Ehrman's course "Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication" and there would be few new insights gained considering Mr. Ehrman is one of my favorite professors.

Shame on me.

Professor Brakke has entered that rarified air. Sure a number of the same books were covered but he brought a fresh perspective, was easy to listen to, and excelled at anticipating and answering questions that might pop into listeners' minds.

He ends lecture 1 stating: “The apocryphal Jesus is no less historical and nearly as influential as the Jesus of the New Testament”---I was taken aback by this bold statement but he presents a solid case by doing a wonderful job of tracing key elements of the Christian “story” that modern Christians accept (such as specific details of Jesus’ birth story, the assumption of Mary, and Jesus’ childhood) back to specific apocryphal books---elements that are not found in any of the books of the New Testament. He indeed proves how influential these books are on Christian notions of Jesus and his early followers---notions, beliefs, and traditions held not just by Christians from the first few centuries AD but also modern Christians.

His brilliance is realized in two areas: his explanations of the contents of the apocryphal books (which at times can seem archaic and make little sense) and investigations into why the books were written and the purposes of the authors. One common theme is how they fill in the gaps of stories from the canonical books (such as Jesus’ childhood), provide supplemental information on certain characters (such as Joseph, of which we know little in the canonical gospels) or explain why certain things are such in the canonical books (such as why Mary was chosen among all other women to give birth to Christ).

Top lectures for my money were 7 (Gospel of Thomas) and 16 (different views of how Paul viewed women’s role in the church) although my money was well spent on every lecture.

He also provides fascinating insight into why certain books may have been considered heretical to orthodox belief, how the canon of New Testament books was defined, and how Christians responded to the books post New Testament through the years.

I was hard pressed to find any criticisms of this course but perhaps one would be the surprising lack of criticism the professor has for the apocryphal books themselves. He treats the apocryphal books very well...maybe too well. While he would at times call out the unlikelihood of some of the fantastic stories in these books being true and historical, I’m not sure how he could keep a straight face while treating some of these books as serious literary pieces since most people would consider them silly (I expected more criticism from him). I don't know how anyone can discuss some of the wild accounts in some of these books (from the unrealistic miracles meant more for a chuckle vs. awe/historical accuracy to the talking lions, obedient bed bugs, and exaggerated views of abstinence) without at least a smirk every now and then or an acknowledgement that this has veered into the area of the truly outrageous. But again he excels at explaining the "whys" behind the authors' intentions for including all of the bizarre. And those explanations added a tremendous amount of value to the course and insight that wasn't always obvious to me.

Professor Brakke is the real deal. This series of lectures is truly deserving of the moniker "Great Course". Five stars are hard to come by in my grading but here it is earned. Even if you think you know all there is to study on the Apocryphal books and have read them yourselves (like I have) I would recommend this course strongly. What a great way to spend 12 hours. I am so looking forward to listening to his other courses ("Understanding the New Testament" and "Gnosticism: From Nag Hammadi to the Gospel of Judas").

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 3 personas

Beware: Linguistic Analysis to the Nth Degree

Revisado: 09-12-21

Professor Rendsburg's specialty is linguistics and translations of words. Thus he is skillful in dissecting terminology and providing insight into Genesis’ author’s intentions for certain stories based on the author's choice of one word vs. another or the sequence of a word in a phrase. At first this type of insight piqued my interest and I began wondering why the reviews for this course were lower than average. Early thought-provoking examples included:

- The phrase “earth and heaven” in the second creation account vs “heaven and earth” in the first creation account indicating that the author was trying to emphasize the story of man vs the story of the cosmos

- The omission of the words Sun and Moon when mentioning the creation of the stars that dominate the day and night suggests a refusal to name pagan gods

But as I progressed through the course I could recognize that the professor’s talent of dissecting each word selection by the author to decipher his intentions has a flip side: he uses it in too many portions of too many lectures on quite pedantic, banal, and trite matters like when he spends a whole lecture (13) explaining why Abraham’s servant chooses different words when speaking to Rebekah's family than what Abraham told him to say. Sure it’s interesting to see how clever the servant is in shaping his message to fit the situation/win over Rebekah for Isaac (and represents God’s hand in shaping affairs) but in the grand scheme of things it seems to have very little if any relevance or importance to our overall understanding of the Book of Genesis. This became so commonplace that I thought I was taking a Hebrew language course. So many of these word discussions added no real value to either deepening our historical or theological understanding of the episode in question or of our overall big picture understanding of the book of Genesis.

Additionally, I thought this would be a course in which the professor would recount the narrative of the stories in the Book of Genesis and then analyze the book from a big picture or theological perspective (like other religion courses in TGC catalog). Instead it is clear this is a course on studying the literary inventions employed by the author: why he chose certain words in order to meet his literature objectives to gain dramatic effect (along with some analysis on the author’s theological objectives---but surprisingly not as much as the literature aspect). This is evidenced by the professor not covering all of the main stories in the book of Genesis in this course:

- While The serpent in the garden of Eden is mentioned, the professor does not explicitly mention its role in talking Adam and Eve into eating from the tree of knowledge

- The full Cain and Abel story is not told

- There is a little talk of the tower of babel episode but not how it ended

- Gods mating with humans is mentioned but there is no discussion concerning their offspring being giants and their depravity

- Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned but the episode involving them is not related

- There is no mention of Jacob’s ladder vision and him wrestling with God

How do you have a course on the Book of Genesis and not touch on these topics in a little more depth? I guess you can when the course is not so much about the content of the book but about word choice for selected episodes.

While I certainly wouldn't have noticed all of the literary inventions and tactics used by the author without the professor's insight, again I am left wondering: how does all of this matter? Apologies but my interest lies not in how the author creates tension in a story, uses dramatic effect, and employs irony. I'd have purchased any old literature course for that. When it comes to the book of Genesis I'm much more interested in what do these stories all mean in the big picture from a historical or theological perspective.

The image used for this course in The Great Courses catalog lists the topic as "Religion & Theology" and its background color is yellow to signify that designation. However, it should have a purple background: the color signifying courses classified as literature. This was an analysis on the book of Genesis from a literary perspective.

Only when Professor Rendsburg wades into historical analysis do things get interesting such as:
- Authorship theories (lecture 6)
- The history of ancient Israel, especially their transformation from polytheists to practicing monolatry to becoming monotheistic (lecture 8)
- When and where did Abraham live (lecture 10)
- Determining when the book of Genesis was written (lecture 19)

If you are interested in different Bible translations and how one Hebrew word can be rendered in multiple ways and the reasons behind doing so then I would recommend this course. If you are interested in methods the author uses to make it a dramatic story then I would recommend this course. If you want some analysis on the dating of the book and its main protagonists then I would also recommend this course. But I was surprised how little time was spent on what I would think the majority of listeners would expect: placing the historical and theological impact of this book in context.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 16 personas

It's About the People; Where Are the People?

Revisado: 08-25-21

While this course has insight into ancient North American cultures and civilizations from about 9,000 BC to European contact (16th century) that is not found in any other course, most of the content relates to archeology: the types of houses they built/lived in or how their living spaces were organized or the other structures they built like mounds or irrigation systems and little on the culture, beliefs, and beliefs of these ancient civilizations.

I understand the archeological and historical record is sparse but I was surprised that there wasn’t more content on religious beliefs, traditions, or practices of these cultures or what the Spanish chronicles post European contact had to say about the culture and ways of life for these people. I was surprised to find little to nothing on the myth/creation stories of these civilizations (something we do know a lot of from the historical record). At the very least why wasn't a lecture dedicated to this topic?

It also felt like the endings to lectures seemed abrupt at times and their closing lines unsatisfying without a good concluding note.

Both these criticisms were so surprising because I thought Professor Barnhart did a fabulous job with his "Lost Worlds of South America" course in which he excelled in these areas. That course was rich in cultural knowledge detailing the beliefs, traditions, and practices of multiple civilizations.

I did enjoy the early lectures (2-4) on pre-historic/pre-agriculture peoples (especially lecture 2 on migration of the first peoples to North America), lecture 7 on medicine wheels, and lecture 24 which did provide some good historical info on the Iroquois and their “Great League of Peace”.

I would still recommend this course because Professor Barnhart is a polished, easy to understand speaker, absolutely knows his stuff, and there is good info on the archeological process and the main finds. Plus where else can you get info on ancient civilizations of this area? Certainly not in many of the other existing lectures in TGC portfolio in my experience. Just know you won't find very much on how the common ancient North American lived his/her life and what beliefs or religious practices guided them.

Here is a list of the main cultures covered:
Clovis
Folsom
Various peoples of the Archaic period
Poverty Point
Adena
Hopewell
Mississippian
American Southwest
Basketmaker
Mogollon
Hohokam
Ancestral Pueblo
Pecos
Fremont
Utes
Patayan
Chumash
Makah
Great plains
Pawnee
Iroquois
Algonquian

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Excellent insight into ancient S.American cultures

Revisado: 07-15-21

This course far exceeded my expectations. Perhaps it was because I wasn't a big fan of Professor Barnhart's course "Maya to Aztec: Ancient Mesoamerica Revealed": the lectures there seemed to be too drawn out and difficult to follow which civilization was being covered. I guess I expected more of the same with this course but I was pleasantly mistaken.

This course provides excellent insight into the culture of ancient South American civilizations from about 31,000 BC to the present. I don't know if my experience was vastly different this time because I took the video version of the course vs. audio only for the Mesoamerican course but I have to say the visuals, especially the photographs of archeological finds, were very helpful in understanding the topics being discussed and brought home what Professor Barnhart was conveying with words. To be honest I’m not sure words themselves would’ve provided full understanding into the insights being delivered. But to see "the fanged deity" on a piece of cloth while the professor discussed it in detail, for example, helped tremendously. Makes me wonder if I should go back and re-listen to the Mesoamerican course but this time in video....

If you're interested in a list of what specific cultures were examined:
o First South American people as far back as 31,000 BC
o Earliest cities on the coast of Peru
o Chavin
o Salinar
o Paracas
o Nazca
o Moche
o Yaya-Mama/Tiwanaku
o Amazon
o Wari
o Chimu
o Sican
o Inca


Professor Barnhart speaks clearly and at the right pace. He has an easy going, easy to understand presentation style and comes off as down to earth. Most definitely one of the better presenters in TGC stable.

He is not afraid to bring his own thoughts and conclusions to the table even if they differ from the majority of archeologists and experts today. What I liked about this was not just his courage to do so but that he will be sure to call out that he is in the minority and what the prevailing views are today(but also presents his case as to why he feels otherwise)

Favorite lectures of mine were: 7 (Paracas culture), 13 (the Amazon), and 20 (how the Incas impacted conquered lands).

Some minor criticisms:

It was a little unclear if the only pre-Spanish civilizations in all of South America were in the Andean region/west coast or if those were the only ones the professor chose to discuss. Originally I thought the former and they all happened to be on the western side of the continent but then in lecture 19 he briefly mentions Guarani Indians from the east coast but does not discuss them in any detail or any other culture/civilization from anywhere other than the Andean region leaving me to wonder if this course should be renamed “Lost Worlds of the Andean Region of South America”.

Human sacrifice was barely discussed. Considering this is a characteristic of pre-European contact civilizations in the Americas that the common person today will remember the most, absence of any detailed discussion of it was curious at best. Was the professor trying to avoid the topic at worst? Was he fearful it would detract too much from these civilizations' other more admirable traits? If I recall he touched on it heavily in the Mesoamerican course so I would've loved to know how prevalent it was it with South American cultures and a better account of their beliefs concerning it.

Still all in all I walked away with a vastly greater understanding of ancient South American cultures than I did before. Along with the hope that the many hours journey will be entertaining, I can think of no better measure of a Great Course than that and in this case it succeeded decisively. I would certainly recommend this course but would highly recommend the video version.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Fell Short of My Expectations

Revisado: 07-03-21

I respect General Wesley Clark on multiple levels: from his knowledge of the US military and its history of armed conflicts to his vast personal achievements as a general living these wars first hand. It is clear he knows the inner workings of the US military better than just about every man or woman alive today.

However, as a Great Courses lecturer something was lacking. It was hard for me to put him up there with the typical elite presenters of which The Great Courses always seem to have an unending supply. While his knowledge and personal experience brings value to this course others could not, his presentation style wasn't able to fully pull me in and engage me. I had a hard time following his points at times and at others his "lessons" seemed too simplified. In both cases I wish he would've expounded more. His narrative of the conflicts at times just didn't resonate with me.

There were exceptions: Lectures 10 (US-Spanish War), 11-12 (World War II), 17 (Korean War), 20 (Grenada and Panama), and 23 (Afghanistan and Iraq) were keepers and I am happy to retain those in my library. Otherwise if you are familiar with the topics in the other lectures I'm not sure you will gain much here.

Yes, this this is a course one would suspect would dedicate lots of time on tactical battle movements but I was still hoping this would be complemented with more info on strategic aims relating to the individual battles so more sense could be made out of what at times could sound like an endless string of battles: how did they fit in to the bigger picture of the war? What were the objectives?

I was a bit surprised that there wasn’t much history on how the US military evolved over time from their formations to organizational units to their weaponry. There was some of discussion in this realm but not as much as one would think from the course's title. Lectures focused on each engagement in isolation without an analysis on how the military as an entity changed over the centuries.

I was pleasantly surprised to find video clips of World War I battle action...I did not know those existed!

Now for the real annoying aspects of this course: the sound effects! The placement of sounds randomly in the lectures as the lecturer was talking proved highly annoying and distracting. These included:

1- The re-enactment of battle sounds in earlier lectures like yells, shots fired, and clanging while the lecturer was talking. What value did this add? Who in quality control thought a bunch of modern men yelling and simulating cannon sounds would add atmosphere or put the listener in the action? Terrible decision.

2- When the location on a map wanted to be highlighted this weird sound went off: way too loud and piercing, sounding too much like an alarm clock which caused more alarm than learning enhancement. I can't tell you how many times I jumped a little and checked my phone to see if some alarm clock setting was going off until I (begrudgingly) got used to the sound.

This wasn't a bad course. I've experienced quite a few of those through the years. But try as I might I can't stand behind calling this a great one either. There are many other military and US history courses in TGC catalog that do the trick better. To the average TGC listener it is hard for me to recommend the entire course (though I do think there is value in listening to lectures 10-12, 17, 20, and 23). However, my one caveat to that would be this: those who have a military background or have followed General Clark's career may find this course very interesting (especially considering he weaves in many of his personal experiences and stories into the narratives).

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Liked It but Course Too Short

Revisado: 06-13-21

Great survey of myths and interpretations but course too short

This is the fifth course I've taken from Professor Vandiver and I always appreciate her work. She provides great insight and good full-bodied summaries of the topics being discussed. This course was no different but I did walk away with a feeling it could've been so much more and I was left with more of a mixed general feeling of it.

Professor Vandiver covers a good amount of myths from ancient Greece and Rome grouping them and structuring the course under these categories:
o Gods/Goddesses
o Heroes
o Trojan War
o Greek Tragedy (house of Atreus and Oedipus)
o Female monsters
o Roman myth

She provides interesting and thought-provoking analysis in interpreting the contents of the myths to provide insight into the values and morals of the ancient Greek civilization. I won't get into examples here: experience it for yourself!

To me the most interesting myth tellings are related in lectures 7 and 14 (Demeter/ Persephone and Theseus).

But this course was woefully short and it was quite obvious. And to be honest some of the accountability falls on the professor herself. Yes, 24 lectures themselves are just not enough to cover ancient Greek and Roman mythology. We have so much material in this arena that filling 12 more lectures would've been a cinch. But the issue here is not just that (for whatever reason) the good Professor felt restricted to 24 lectures, instead we could've certainly done without lectures 2, 3, a good part of 24, and 8, 12, and 15 could've been consolidated into one lecture. Additionally, I felt like too much time was spent on some of the Greek Tragedy works. There's a whole course on that! And by our esteemed professor herself! I count at least 5 lectures we could have gotten back for more myths. Considering she mentions herself a few times that she had to leave out a lot of other myths she wanted to cover, again I feel like she is her own worse enemy here.

It was painful getting through lectures 2 and 3 on defining what myth is and what it does. The key pieces of these discussions could've easily been fit in to the background lecture (1) and give us more lectures on the actual myths! I don't much care about literary criticism over the years or its history. I care about the myths themselves and the well regarded professor's analysis of them.

A side effect of this lack of time appears to be her very curious decision to not dedicate a full lecture on Jason...perhaps the second most famous Greek hero of them all! Sure he was mentioned at times in various lectures but a full accounting of his adventures was not related anywhere. Why were Theseus and Heracles selected for deep analysis and not Jason?

Another (minor) downside: Professor Vandiver barely takes a breath in most lectures leaving little time for what she is saying to sink in with the listener making it sometimes hard to follow the narrative of the myths (easy to get lost as to who is who and who did what) as well as leaving little time to grasp the deeper understandings/interpretations of the myths she reveals before she is on to the next sentence/topic.

Still a lot to like here. I certainly recommend this course and thoroughly enjoy Professor Vandiver. She obviously has amazing passion for the subjects she covers in her courses and on the whole she provides great teaching and analysis. Just wish we had more time for that here....

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Too Much Common Sense and Little Practical Use

Revisado: 06-05-21

Not what I expected. I thought there would be deep insight into the factors that create one's personality, emotions, and tendencies along with some practical guidelines on how to interact with people that exhibit all different kinds of personalities or at least how to understand their behavior with better context.

Instead I felt the course came up short on both fronts.

1- There seemed to be a lot of thin lectures. An overwhelming majority of the content appeared as common sense to me. And I have no background in psychology, personality study, or any relevant field.

2- Where is the practical application of the personality learnings/studies as far as how to relate to people and manage or at least better understand different personalities?

While the professor does a good job of explaining and describing the various traits that factor in to personality I found it quite shocking, frankly, that there were no in-depth discussions of how to apply the knowledge in social settings or recognize certain behaviors and strategies on responding. Interestingly, I thought the course "Boosting Your Emotional Intelligence" was the opposite: too many real life scenarios and re-created situations that felt contrived and didn't really teach much vs. the science behind it.

I don't know maybe that is another course or out of the realm of Psychology/Personality but going in I would've thought the study of personality would've entailed more of the human and social interaction aspects. It is almost like the entire course is about the academic study itself of these various traits and factors in isolation for the purposes of scientific research/applying scientific labels to what to me were common sense things and no real life application.

While listening to the early lectures I found myself wondering often: “Where are these lectures going? What are they building to? What foundations are they laying down?” Unfortunately, they did not lead to deeper or practical understanding in real life situations/examples at least in my experience.

I will say that his discussion on the 5 big traits in lectures 2, 3 and evolutionary considerations in lecture 14 were interesting but when only 50 minutes of a 13 hour course pique my interest I can't say I got what I wanted out of it.

I do not normally take Psychology or personality courses so your experience may be different and maybe it is just me but I just was expecting a different type of course.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña