4 ms·
No, he isn't comparing the two, he's grouping them together. Watching a piano player, meeting him and getting his autograph, _even_ read a book. (roughly paraph
by ricefield 16y ago
No, he isn't comparing the two, he's grouping them together. Watching a piano player, meeting him and getting his autograph, _even_ read a book. (roughly paraphrased).
I think he's trying to point out that besides "just reading the book" (as was given in his example with his customers) there are other ways people think they can learn and master complex skills - talking to famous, successful people, or watching how they work. While there's certainly value in doing so, his point is that that is probably not what you really need to improve.
- zby 16y agoLet's take the quote: "Can't we just read the book and know all we need to know? It turns out the answer to that question is very interesting, because mostly no, you probably can't. At least not in the way you think. There is factual information and then there is mastery of a complex skill. I look at it this way: I can show you a movie of a great piano player, you can meet him and get his autograph, we can even read books on how to play the piano. Will any of that make you a piano player? No, it will not." Isn't that comparing learning from a book to watching a movie of a great piano player? This "we can even read books on how to play the piano" is just a minor addition. It should be the main point, but it is not because the other example is more ridiculous and scores more points. He puts forward an obviously stupid example of learning on your own and insists that it explains why learning on your own in general is stupid.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]