3 ms·
I agree. I've noticed this issue where your anticipated difficulty of something ends up determining your experience of its difficulty. With math—most of the tim
by westoncb 10y ago
I agree. I've noticed this issue where your anticipated difficulty of something ends up determining your experience of its difficulty. With math—most of the time—there's nothing intrinsic in what you're learning that would make it more difficult than say, learning the rules to a complex board game, or the structure of one's government—and yet, people go into learning math with knowledge of its reputation as only being suited to certain special kinds of minds. If you suspect you're one of the chosen you can go into it with relish; if not, you respectfully put in your time, knowing you're in someone else's territory, and sort of meekly do what you can.
I think most of the difficulty is 1) determined by your expectation of it 2) initial foreignness and the invisibility of the gap between the concepts you need to understand something, and the ones you already have (i.e. when an outsider just looks at some mathematical statement they have no comprehension of, it's not clear that there are a few layers of concepts underlying it which could be smoothly traversed, as long as one puts the time into it and is given some direction.)
- projektir 10y ago> I've noticed this issue where your anticipated difficulty of something ends up determining your experience of its difficulty. That assessment didn't come from nowhere. Given that there seem to be aptitude differences for most physical things, I would find it hard to believe that there are no aptitude differences for most mental things, especially for something so unnatural. Not to mention that all the things you speak of are very real difficulties to many people that they're not going to get any visible pathway through.