Learning is a wonderful concept that involves, atleast ideally should involve, the process of collecting inputs/ information (conscioulsy or sub-conscioulsy), process it and then form a mental map. The sub-conscious ways of learning (as the name suggests) does not involve cognitive recognition of the process. This involves collecting inputs from the environment through sensory organs without actually noticing them and forming a mental map.
On the other hand, Conscious learning, involves making an effort to recognize the learning process and then registering the inputs/processes/feedback in the brain. This is generally done as a part of learning anything to derive pleasure (sports etc), to progress career etc anything that is done with a purpose. Generally, I believe that humans have tried/been trying to institutionalize this kind of learning. For example, schools, training centers etc, offer fora to learn a certain kind of art/subject/vocation etc.
In this article I am trying to classify this kind of learning as Evolutionary Vs disruptive and trying to find out what are the pros and cons of each.
Evolutionary Learning (according to me) is a kind of learning where one learns it from building blocks , the real building units of a concept. Nothing is considered as "given". Everything is learnt from scratch.
For example, I was reading this book called "A History of Pi" by Petr Beckmann. In this book he tries to explain the evolution of Pi and at one place he explains how to measure Pi using rope and how actually it is very logical to have interest in Pi. (you have to read it to understand). For students like me for whom "Pi" is a constant that is just considered as "given" from somewhere, we could not get a chance to appreciate the thinking that went behind in first identifying "Pi", and then how centuries before it was measured using rudimentary techniques.
So, Evolutionary learning involves the process of understanding a concept the way it evolved. This helps a student to appreciate the value of knowledge gained and it may sometimes give a chance of questioning the fundamentals that may lead to the whole change of a concept.
Also, I believe that this kind of learning helps the student to understand the context when a certain concept/invention/discovery was made and understand the importance of it. This will allow the student to "respect" the struggle of the those hard-working souls that made the concept what it is today. For example, if you go through the process of making a fire like a cave man and go through the struggle of getting it, you will really appreciate the hardwork that went behind inventing a gas lighter (this is from the movie "cast away"). So, (as Tom Hanks), you will start appreciating the ease at which we can make fire today. makes sense?
Disruptive learning on the other hand is built on the premise of not re-inventing wheel or not wasting time in learning of is of not present-importance. This will kill innovation or out-of-the-box thinking regarding any concept. This produces alike-thinking machines and not humans who have capacity to use their gray cells. This will ensure that there will be a majority of mediocres and less of thinkers (is this what present day's institutionalized learning producing?). Rather, does this kind of learning produce more of second-handers (Ayn Ryand's definition applicable) while curbing the freedom to think?
