7 ms·

On the flip side, this approach to learning means you know next to nothing beyond the dozen first bits of terminology or buzzwords for each new topic, much less

On the flip side, this approach to learning means you know next to nothing beyond the dozen first bits of terminology or buzzwords for each new topic, much less the concepts. The moment you finally meet someone interested in discussing one of these things, its going to be immediately apparent the basis of your knowledge is a brief article/book or a weekend watching videos on youtube. Furthermore, these are all going to be little self-contained treatises without any prerequisites -- they are written for a general audience, so you are completely limited to, as the article describe it, the appearance of mastery to people who don't know better. What's worse is that you seriously have to question the qualifications of any single source claiming to be a valid resource for a wide range of topics. Even if the individual course is written/taught by an expert, they are paid or motivated by another entity with their own set of bureaucracy and expectations. What works for learning tennis isn't going to produce the same class format as what works for learning Film Scoring (I'm looking at you Masterclass, for producing that joke of a class). In my mind, the best approach to learning requires you to initially commit to either a top-down or bottom-up strategy. If you want to master the topic, you should go bottom-up; focus initially on theory and gradually more on practice/experience. If you want to ramp up as quickly as possible, go top-down and experience something for a more general audience to get a taste. If you like it, you can keep pursuing that route or commit towards a more bottom-up approach, which provides a higher ceiling albeit on a longer timeline. But don't go to a general resource like the one in the article, go directly to the expert's material, first-hand, for the raw, unadultered version.

elyrly 9y ago
"expert's material, first-hand, for the raw, unadultered version" - Too many people jump to conclusions without valid resources, consuming information "TLDR" is more present today than ever before.
- laxatives 9y ago
  Yes, I agree. Everything is instant gratification. Certainly there are diminishing returns to wanting to mastering a particular subject completely and maybe it is better to be merely "good" at a number of things, but its not really meaningful if the barrier to a particular level of expertise is a couple hours of commitment.
rconti 9y ago
On what do you base this criticism? I've not read any of these books, but they sound like more than a passing summary of the topics; at the very least they sound like a wonderful introduction, the start of the top-down strategy you espouse. Is there a reason you believe these are not a good start to the top-down approach? Is there a reason a person is better off avoiding this series entirely, rather than learn some facts? It seems if I read 152 pages on (say) Teeth, I know vastly more than 99.99% of the population, and could quite enjoyably engage with a dentist or perhaps an anthropologist I met at a party.
- bluedino 9y ago
  >> t seems if I read 152 pages on (say) Teeth, I know vastly more than 99.99% of the population, and could quite enjoyably engage with a dentist That depends on if you wanted to talk to him about teeth, or dentistry, which he might find more enjoyable
jogjayr 9y ago
> The moment you finally meet someone interested in discussing one of these things, its going to be immediately apparent the basis of your knowledge is a brief article/book or a weekend watching videos on youtube. Depends on what you're hoping to get out of the the learning and the conversation. For most people, even being able to carry on a conversation at a dinner party with an expert in the field is sufficient reason to read one of these books. "Oh your dissertation work is on Ancient Egypt?! That's so fascinating! I read about <pharoah-name> and he's buried at <pyramid-name>. Have you done any field work there?" And so on and so forth. If you can ask relevant questions (which an introductory book will create plenty of in your mind) you'll keep the expert engaged and they'll be gratified that you took a genuine interest in their work. And if you're conversing with another layperson? "I read the most fascinating thing about mummies the other day! Mummies <say fascinating thing, see if other person is engaged, continue conversation>." Realistically those are the only outcomes people can expect from reading introductory books. And I'd regard them as being very worthy outcomes.
- laxatives 9y ago
  Yeah I guess that's fair. I guess my point is that when you meet that expert, your contribution to the conversation is typically going to be blurting out <pharoah-name> and <pyramid-name> because thats all you remember from that one read, then more or less passive listening until you change the subject. But probably that's more or less enough depending on your goals. What happens when your expert responds, "No I didn't work on that, I did <x>"? Yeah you can try to engage them, but at that point you may have no more context than before you read the executive-summary. I would argue that having a more bottom-up learning would help you get more from that next conversation by having a lot more context and opinion then the handful of key-phrases you've managed to recall months/years after. That way, the next time you have access to an expert, you can are building on that knowledge, rather than growing a list relevant of words. To be blunt, its the difference between being a student and a tourist.
  - platz 9y ago
    The point is that there are not topics you intend to be an expert in, so you can cover more topics. you can take a rigorous study for topics that you are passionate about, but there can only be so many of those. Otherwise, the alternative is simply to not know anything, even a little bit, about said topic. Now, if you know that you only have interest in topics you are very passionate about obviously you don't see this as a problem.
Asdfbla 9y ago
I thought this superficial kind of learning was more due to the necessity of being brief than the conviction that it's the best way to learn about a topic. We really don't have enough time in our lives to acquire an in-depth understanding of very many things. You can trade learning more things superficially with learning fewer things in but in greater detail, but if you don't want to make a career out of your knowledge (where specialization is best) it seems like either way is fine if you just do it for fun. (Though I agree that specialization probably is more intellectually fulfilling that fact collecting.)
- notduncansmith 9y ago
  On the other hand, the more sound generalizations you develop, the more connections you're able to make across topics. You can think of it like a form of compression that allows you to acquire a deeper understanding of things than is possible through memorizing the inner workings of various disparate systems. Deep not necessarily implying rich, as would come with heavy exposure to the minutiae as well.
mlevental 9y ago
> The moment you finally meet someone interested in discussing one of these things, its going to be immediately apparent the basis of your knowledge is a brief article/book or a weekend watching videos on youtube. no one is saying one should read a short intro and pretend to be all-knowing - they're for breadth not depth. not very many people are such assholes that they'll be upset at someone for being passingly familiar with something they're expert in - if both people are good conversationalists a productive conversation can still be had (wherein the expert explains and the listener, since they've already been introduced to the basic terms, listens in an engaged way).
chongli 9y ago
The moment you finally meet someone interested in discussing one of these things, its going to be immediately apparent the basis of your knowledge is a brief article/book or a weekend watching videos on youtube. Furthermore, these are all going to be little self-contained treatises without any prerequisites -- they are written for a general audience, so you are completely limited to, as the article describe it, the appearance of mastery to people who don't know better. That's only if you insist on explaining things to everyone you meet. If you're smart about it, you can quickly recognize an expert and take the opportunity to ask them questions. I have had many discussions with experts in fields for which I knew only the scantest of concepts and terminology. I begin by asking questions and proceed to go deeper and deeper into the subject. It's amazing how happy people can get when you show a genuine interest in something they care about. By arming yourself with a "Wikipedia summary" of each topic, you have the starting point for very interesting conversations. Don't let the article's title get to you. It's far better to be someone who is interested in everything than it is to just "know everything".
- laxatives 9y ago
  100% the objective is get the most out of experts given the opportunity. Its completely unreasonable to be an expert in everything. But it can be difficult to engage an expert if they aren't there to talk shop. Having the right framework to even phrase a meaningful question often requires quite a bit of context and prerequisite knowledge. If someone tried to strike a conversation with me with vague, malformed ideas and buzzwords, I may respond with a semi-scripted answer because I don't know this person and I'm not going to assume their background is the same as mine. Its completely unfair, but the way that first question is framed, depending on that field, can demonstrate whether this individual is "in the club" and has sufficient information to carry this conversation beyond the most superficial layer. It would be nice have that fluency in many subjects, but browsing wikipedia is certainly not the way to go about obtaining it.
PaulRobinson 9y ago
How do you get into the sea? A fool rushes headlong, is surprised by the temperature or force of the waves and has to spend some time adjusting, perhaps dangerously so. They may even decide too late, that this was a bad idea. I wiser soul might first dip a toe. Then once they know what they're in for slowly move to waist deep. Once adjusted to the temperature and wave patterns, they might decide to go deeper. After years of doing this, they will become expert sea swimmers or surfers. But to follow their lead at that point as a beginner would be rash: they'd tell you to first dip your toe. And so it is with knowledge. Short introductory texts are not meant to be authoritative or to give you immediate mastery. They are there to expose you to the core ideas in a way that might make you think "that's interesting", or perhaps recoil and think "that's not for me", and you move on. There are many reasons why this is a useful approach. Firstly, introductions to a subject are rare. My first programming book (it covered BASIC for 8-bit computers) was written for children, published by Usborne and consisted of less than 100 pages of quite well illustrated concepts. Where is the modern equivalent? Or the adult equivalent. The web is awash with short introductory pieces written by amateurs that often leave the beginner more confused than where they started. Your local library is full of outdated material. A bookshop will have material that is popular but perhaps irrelevant (MS Word, Excel, etc. instruction manuals) or is intimidating for a beginner (700 page slabs on the intricacies of a subset of J2EE). So where to start? The _Very Short Introduction to Computer Science_ and the _Very Short Introduction to Information_ appear from their ToCs to give somebody interested in those topics a quick overview. They are likely more in-depth and better written than the corresponding Wikipedia pages, and a reader new to it who is intrigued will make notes of topics on which to find perhaps more in-depth material. Piqued, they may pick up a copy of _Very Short Introduction to Combinatorics_ and _Very Short Introduction to Big Data_ and make more notes, do a few MOOCs, pick up some Python and start a business that ends up employing thousands of people. Or, alternatively, these introduction might clue them in that this isn't for them, and they might decide to pick up some texts on poetry, philosophy, geology or some other curiosity, and their life becomes a little better in another direction. Would you rather say "no, you must dive into a multi-year programme of study on a subject from the outset", or insist that all information worth learning must be learned in its entirety? Is your argument boiling down to "if you're not prepared to commit to a doctorate thesis on it within 10 years, why bother"? It feels that way. It's OK to be curious, to have a bit of interest in a lot of things. I am interested in chemistry and physics, but will never be a chemist of physicist. I am interested in learning more about pure and statistical mathematics, but I will never be a mathematician. Introductory texts that are entertaining and act as a stimulus, clue to the broader field, and jumping off point into the subjects should be welcomed, and for most of us, are. After all, it was my dip in the toe of programming that led to my mostly satisfying and enjoyable career in computing that is about to reach its third decade...

elyrly 9y ago

"expert's material, first-hand, for the raw, unadultered version" - Too many people jump to conclusions without valid resources, consuming information "TLDR" is more present today than ever before.

laxatives 9y ago
Yes, I agree. Everything is instant gratification. Certainly there are diminishing returns to wanting to mastering a particular subject completely and maybe it is better to be merely "good" at a number of things, but its not really meaningful if the barrier to a particular level of expertise is a couple hours of commitment.

rconti 9y ago

On what do you base this criticism? I've not read any of these books, but they sound like more than a passing summary of the topics; at the very least they sound like a wonderful introduction, the start of the top-down strategy you espouse. Is there a reason you believe these are not a good start to the top-down approach? Is there a reason a person is better off avoiding this series entirely, rather than learn some facts? It seems if I read 152 pages on (say) Teeth, I know vastly more than 99.99% of the population, and could quite enjoyably engage with a dentist or perhaps an anthropologist I met at a party.

bluedino 9y ago
>> t seems if I read 152 pages on (say) Teeth, I know vastly more than 99.99% of the population, and could quite enjoyably engage with a dentist That depends on if you wanted to talk to him about teeth, or dentistry, which he might find more enjoyable

jogjayr 9y ago

> The moment you finally meet someone interested in discussing one of these things, its going to be immediately apparent the basis of your knowledge is a brief article/book or a weekend watching videos on youtube. Depends on what you're hoping to get out of the the learning and the conversation. For most people, even being able to carry on a conversation at a dinner party with an expert in the field is sufficient reason to read one of these books. "Oh your dissertation work is on Ancient Egypt?! That's so fascinating! I read about <pharoah-name> and he's buried at <pyramid-name>. Have you done any field work there?" And so on and so forth. If you can ask relevant questions (which an introductory book will create plenty of in your mind) you'll keep the expert engaged and they'll be gratified that you took a genuine interest in their work. And if you're conversing with another layperson? "I read the most fascinating thing about mummies the other day! Mummies <say fascinating thing, see if other person is engaged, continue conversation>." Realistically those are the only outcomes people can expect from reading introductory books. And I'd regard them as being very worthy outcomes.

laxatives 9y ago
Yeah I guess that's fair. I guess my point is that when you meet that expert, your contribution to the conversation is typically going to be blurting out <pharoah-name> and <pyramid-name> because thats all you remember from that one read, then more or less passive listening until you change the subject. But probably that's more or less enough depending on your goals. What happens when your expert responds, "No I didn't work on that, I did <x>"? Yeah you can try to engage them, but at that point you may have no more context than before you read the executive-summary. I would argue that having a more bottom-up learning would help you get more from that next conversation by having a lot more context and opinion then the handful of key-phrases you've managed to recall months/years after. That way, the next time you have access to an expert, you can are building on that knowledge, rather than growing a list relevant of words. To be blunt, its the difference between being a student and a tourist.
- platz 9y ago
  The point is that there are not topics you intend to be an expert in, so you can cover more topics. you can take a rigorous study for topics that you are passionate about, but there can only be so many of those. Otherwise, the alternative is simply to not know anything, even a little bit, about said topic. Now, if you know that you only have interest in topics you are very passionate about obviously you don't see this as a problem.

Asdfbla 9y ago

I thought this superficial kind of learning was more due to the necessity of being brief than the conviction that it's the best way to learn about a topic. We really don't have enough time in our lives to acquire an in-depth understanding of very many things. You can trade learning more things superficially with learning fewer things in but in greater detail, but if you don't want to make a career out of your knowledge (where specialization is best) it seems like either way is fine if you just do it for fun. (Though I agree that specialization probably is more intellectually fulfilling that fact collecting.)

notduncansmith 9y ago
On the other hand, the more sound generalizations you develop, the more connections you're able to make across topics. You can think of it like a form of compression that allows you to acquire a deeper understanding of things than is possible through memorizing the inner workings of various disparate systems. Deep not necessarily implying rich, as would come with heavy exposure to the minutiae as well.

mlevental 9y ago

> The moment you finally meet someone interested in discussing one of these things, its going to be immediately apparent the basis of your knowledge is a brief article/book or a weekend watching videos on youtube. no one is saying one should read a short intro and pretend to be all-knowing - they're for breadth not depth. not very many people are such assholes that they'll be upset at someone for being passingly familiar with something they're expert in - if both people are good conversationalists a productive conversation can still be had (wherein the expert explains and the listener, since they've already been introduced to the basic terms, listens in an engaged way).

chongli 9y ago

The moment you finally meet someone interested in discussing one of these things, its going to be immediately apparent the basis of your knowledge is a brief article/book or a weekend watching videos on youtube. Furthermore, these are all going to be little self-contained treatises without any prerequisites -- they are written for a general audience, so you are completely limited to, as the article describe it, the appearance of mastery to people who don't know better. That's only if you insist on explaining things to everyone you meet. If you're smart about it, you can quickly recognize an expert and take the opportunity to ask them questions. I have had many discussions with experts in fields for which I knew only the scantest of concepts and terminology. I begin by asking questions and proceed to go deeper and deeper into the subject. It's amazing how happy people can get when you show a genuine interest in something they care about. By arming yourself with a "Wikipedia summary" of each topic, you have the starting point for very interesting conversations. Don't let the article's title get to you. It's far better to be someone who is interested in everything than it is to just "know everything".

laxatives 9y ago
100% the objective is get the most out of experts given the opportunity. Its completely unreasonable to be an expert in everything. But it can be difficult to engage an expert if they aren't there to talk shop. Having the right framework to even phrase a meaningful question often requires quite a bit of context and prerequisite knowledge. If someone tried to strike a conversation with me with vague, malformed ideas and buzzwords, I may respond with a semi-scripted answer because I don't know this person and I'm not going to assume their background is the same as mine. Its completely unfair, but the way that first question is framed, depending on that field, can demonstrate whether this individual is "in the club" and has sufficient information to carry this conversation beyond the most superficial layer. It would be nice have that fluency in many subjects, but browsing wikipedia is certainly not the way to go about obtaining it.

PaulRobinson 9y ago

How do you get into the sea? A fool rushes headlong, is surprised by the temperature or force of the waves and has to spend some time adjusting, perhaps dangerously so. They may even decide too late, that this was a bad idea. I wiser soul might first dip a toe. Then once they know what they're in for slowly move to waist deep. Once adjusted to the temperature and wave patterns, they might decide to go deeper. After years of doing this, they will become expert sea swimmers or surfers. But to follow their lead at that point as a beginner would be rash: they'd tell you to first dip your toe. And so it is with knowledge. Short introductory texts are not meant to be authoritative or to give you immediate mastery. They are there to expose you to the core ideas in a way that might make you think "that's interesting", or perhaps recoil and think "that's not for me", and you move on. There are many reasons why this is a useful approach. Firstly, introductions to a subject are rare. My first programming book (it covered BASIC for 8-bit computers) was written for children, published by Usborne and consisted of less than 100 pages of quite well illustrated concepts. Where is the modern equivalent? Or the adult equivalent. The web is awash with short introductory pieces written by amateurs that often leave the beginner more confused than where they started. Your local library is full of outdated material. A bookshop will have material that is popular but perhaps irrelevant (MS Word, Excel, etc. instruction manuals) or is intimidating for a beginner (700 page slabs on the intricacies of a subset of J2EE). So where to start? The _Very Short Introduction to Computer Science_ and the _Very Short Introduction to Information_ appear from their ToCs to give somebody interested in those topics a quick overview. They are likely more in-depth and better written than the corresponding Wikipedia pages, and a reader new to it who is intrigued will make notes of topics on which to find perhaps more in-depth material. Piqued, they may pick up a copy of _Very Short Introduction to Combinatorics_ and _Very Short Introduction to Big Data_ and make more notes, do a few MOOCs, pick up some Python and start a business that ends up employing thousands of people. Or, alternatively, these introduction might clue them in that this isn't for them, and they might decide to pick up some texts on poetry, philosophy, geology or some other curiosity, and their life becomes a little better in another direction. Would you rather say "no, you must dive into a multi-year programme of study on a subject from the outset", or insist that all information worth learning must be learned in its entirety? Is your argument boiling down to "if you're not prepared to commit to a doctorate thesis on it within 10 years, why bother"? It feels that way. It's OK to be curious, to have a bit of interest in a lot of things. I am interested in chemistry and physics, but will never be a chemist of physicist. I am interested in learning more about pure and statistical mathematics, but I will never be a mathematician. Introductory texts that are entertaining and act as a stimulus, clue to the broader field, and jumping off point into the subjects should be welcomed, and for most of us, are. After all, it was my dip in the toe of programming that led to my mostly satisfying and enjoyable career in computing that is about to reach its third decade...