5 ms·

Never heard about the method before but I've noticed long time ago this is the way that works for me. When someone starts with definition I get bored. I want t

Never heard about the method before but I've noticed long time ago this is the way that works for me. When someone starts with definition I get bored. I want to start from example and use case and then I will built a mental formalization on my own. Starting from formalization I just can't be bothered. You can see the diff e.g. how Wikipedia and Investopedia articles are written. Each Investopedia article shows an example and repeats some key things multiple times. Whereas trying to learn any economics or maths stuff from Wikipedia is almost impossible. It can only be a reference if you already know the thing and just need to double-check the formula.

punnerud 6y ago
This is why I like Jeremy Howard’s approach for teaching machine learning. Begin with simple code and examples, then break apart and explain. https://course.fast.ai/ https://course.fast.ai/
hikarudo 6y ago
Same here. I've heard somewhere, in a video about language acquisition, that we have a pattern recognition algorithm in our brains, so all we need is to see examples, and the algorithm does the rest (builds a model by itself).
- nullsense 6y ago
  That's basically how I learned Japanese grammar. All I needed were 3 to 5 example sentences in an Anki and I could get an intuition for it after that.
- epiecs 6y ago
  I would love to see that video. I have been thinking about this a lot since I don't easily learn new languages. If you do find it please paste it here or pm me :)
- cyphar 6y ago
  This is the idea of the "language acquisition device" pioneered by Chomsky in the 60s. Research from the 60s up to the current day has pretty conclusively shown that language acquisition only occurs through comprehensible input (this is known as the "Input Hypothesis" popularised by Stephen Krashen) and that deliberate learning of grammar and vocabulary has very little to no impact on your language skills. Basically, our brains all learn language in the same manner no matter what language and no matter what age. Children don't learn their native language through reading books on grammar, they acquire it through listening and reading stories which they can comprehend. Adults are exactly the same. (The theories of the existence of a physical module in the brain or innate universal grammar are not widely accepted science today, but it is inarguable that the above second-order effects have been observed regardless of the mechanism of action.)
  - tasogare 6y ago
    > (1) language acquisition only occurs through comprehensible input (this is known as the "Input Hypothesis" popularised by Stephen Krashen) and that (2) deliberate learning of grammar and vocabulary has very little to no impact on your language skills (1) is somewhat true while (2) is utter garbage. In fact, the point of (2) is to reach (1). In his book, Nation (2001) explains very well, with data from numerous studies, that cramming vocabulary is in fact an extremely optimized productive use of time and effort. And given how Nation details the dimension of vocabulary learners, he is above suspicion in respect to being biased towards rote learning.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - cyphar 6y ago
      Yeah that part of my comment was a bit sloppy (I didn't mention vocabulary originally and then foolishly added it in a later edit). Cramming vocabulary does help make input more comprehensible, but it should be noted that cramming vocabulary doesn't (by itself) cause you to acquire that vocabulary. Graded readers have been shown to also be very effective, despite a lack of vocabulary cramming (meaning that it's not necessary -- which is the point I was unsuccessfully trying to make). I do agree that it is a productive use of time (at least in the early stages of learning a language) and in my own language learning, I am cramming vocabulary. However, consciously learning grammar definitely does not have significant enough returns to be worth the effort (it can help somewhat in certain cases, but comprehensible input has a much larger effect).
snarkypixel 6y ago
Same, give me an example, and if I don't get it I'll dig in.
shahbaby 6y ago
I've also discovered that this type of bottom up approach is faster than the top down approach. Starting with an example gives a more concrete frame of reference. I don't think this is just a matter of personal preference either. I believe that the way you learn a new concept is the same way as how you learn to navigate a new physical environment. We don't have a GPS in our brain for mapping, we learn locations by reference to other locations.
jiggawatts 6y ago
This is a disease of Mathematics in general. Actual mathematics teaching, as seen in typical University classes typically introduces a new abstract definition, and then immediately follows that up with a number of "worked examples", either in the lecture itself or a follow-up tutorial class. However, the reference material will typically only have the abstract definitions, but at least there will be a sequence of them building up the formalities piece by piece. In principle, a gifted mathematician could follow the trail and get to the "aha!" moment without even having to do the homework problems. Encyclopedias like Wikipedia or Mathworld tend to just mention the most abstract, "end product" of a long chain of mathematics. Terse formulas by themselves are utterly useless to anyone who hasn't gone through the step-by-step learning process and already understands the topic completely. It's like a historian being given a handful of Egyptian hieroglyphic characters before finding the Rosetta Stone. It's just squiggles and shapes! An example I came across personally was the simplification of Maxwell's Equations using Geometric Algebra. In GA, it is possible to write the equations of the EM fields incredibly tersely, down to as little as: □²A = J This is total gibberish to anyone who doesn't already know volumes about Geometric Algebra. It literally states that: Square squared letter A is letter J. What!? The 5 characters in that equation pack in an awful lot: The Geometric Product. Graded vector spaces. The four dimensional spacetime of special relativity. Vector calculus. Natural physical units. Etc... Pasting that equation into an article can't possibly cover all of that...
- nubbins 6y ago
  Out of all resources I have found Wikipedia to be almost uniquely useless for teaching yourself a new concept, its like "explanation by committee". On the other hand if I can understand a Wikipedia article I know I am at least intermediate in a area.
  - chrisweekly 6y ago
    Yep. Highest recommendation for https://betterexplained.com https://betterexplained.com which is at the other pole.
- penguin_booze 6y ago

punnerud 6y ago

This is why I like Jeremy Howard’s approach for teaching machine learning. Begin with simple code and examples, then break apart and explain. https://course.fast.ai/ https://course.fast.ai/

hikarudo 6y ago

Same here. I've heard somewhere, in a video about language acquisition, that we have a pattern recognition algorithm in our brains, so all we need is to see examples, and the algorithm does the rest (builds a model by itself).

nullsense 6y ago
That's basically how I learned Japanese grammar. All I needed were 3 to 5 example sentences in an Anki and I could get an intuition for it after that.
epiecs 6y ago
I would love to see that video. I have been thinking about this a lot since I don't easily learn new languages. If you do find it please paste it here or pm me :)
cyphar 6y ago
This is the idea of the "language acquisition device" pioneered by Chomsky in the 60s. Research from the 60s up to the current day has pretty conclusively shown that language acquisition only occurs through comprehensible input (this is known as the "Input Hypothesis" popularised by Stephen Krashen) and that deliberate learning of grammar and vocabulary has very little to no impact on your language skills. Basically, our brains all learn language in the same manner no matter what language and no matter what age. Children don't learn their native language through reading books on grammar, they acquire it through listening and reading stories which they can comprehend. Adults are exactly the same. (The theories of the existence of a physical module in the brain or innate universal grammar are not widely accepted science today, but it is inarguable that the above second-order effects have been observed regardless of the mechanism of action.)
- tasogare 6y ago
  > (1) language acquisition only occurs through comprehensible input (this is known as the "Input Hypothesis" popularised by Stephen Krashen) and that (2) deliberate learning of grammar and vocabulary has very little to no impact on your language skills (1) is somewhat true while (2) is utter garbage. In fact, the point of (2) is to reach (1). In his book, Nation (2001) explains very well, with data from numerous studies, that cramming vocabulary is in fact an extremely optimized productive use of time and effort. And given how Nation details the dimension of vocabulary learners, he is above suspicion in respect to being biased towards rote learning.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cyphar 6y ago
    Yeah that part of my comment was a bit sloppy (I didn't mention vocabulary originally and then foolishly added it in a later edit). Cramming vocabulary does help make input more comprehensible, but it should be noted that cramming vocabulary doesn't (by itself) cause you to acquire that vocabulary. Graded readers have been shown to also be very effective, despite a lack of vocabulary cramming (meaning that it's not necessary -- which is the point I was unsuccessfully trying to make). I do agree that it is a productive use of time (at least in the early stages of learning a language) and in my own language learning, I am cramming vocabulary. However, consciously learning grammar definitely does not have significant enough returns to be worth the effort (it can help somewhat in certain cases, but comprehensible input has a much larger effect).

snarkypixel 6y ago

Same, give me an example, and if I don't get it I'll dig in.

shahbaby 6y ago

I've also discovered that this type of bottom up approach is faster than the top down approach. Starting with an example gives a more concrete frame of reference. I don't think this is just a matter of personal preference either. I believe that the way you learn a new concept is the same way as how you learn to navigate a new physical environment. We don't have a GPS in our brain for mapping, we learn locations by reference to other locations.

jiggawatts 6y ago

This is a disease of Mathematics in general. Actual mathematics teaching, as seen in typical University classes typically introduces a new abstract definition, and then immediately follows that up with a number of "worked examples", either in the lecture itself or a follow-up tutorial class. However, the reference material will typically only have the abstract definitions, but at least there will be a sequence of them building up the formalities piece by piece. In principle, a gifted mathematician could follow the trail and get to the "aha!" moment without even having to do the homework problems. Encyclopedias like Wikipedia or Mathworld tend to just mention the most abstract, "end product" of a long chain of mathematics. Terse formulas by themselves are utterly useless to anyone who hasn't gone through the step-by-step learning process and already understands the topic completely. It's like a historian being given a handful of Egyptian hieroglyphic characters before finding the Rosetta Stone. It's just squiggles and shapes! An example I came across personally was the simplification of Maxwell's Equations using Geometric Algebra. In GA, it is possible to write the equations of the EM fields incredibly tersely, down to as little as: □²A = J This is total gibberish to anyone who doesn't already know volumes about Geometric Algebra. It literally states that: Square squared letter A is letter J. What!? The 5 characters in that equation pack in an awful lot: The Geometric Product. Graded vector spaces. The four dimensional spacetime of special relativity. Vector calculus. Natural physical units. Etc... Pasting that equation into an article can't possibly cover all of that...

nubbins 6y ago
Out of all resources I have found Wikipedia to be almost uniquely useless for teaching yourself a new concept, its like "explanation by committee". On the other hand if I can understand a Wikipedia article I know I am at least intermediate in a area.
- chrisweekly 6y ago
  Yep. Highest recommendation for https://betterexplained.com https://betterexplained.com which is at the other pole.
penguin_booze 6y ago