4 ms·
> different people learn in different ways. That just avoids the discussion altogether. We can’t evaluate any form of education or presentation or description
by setr 5y ago
> different people learn in different ways.
That just avoids the discussion altogether. We can’t evaluate any form of education or presentation or description because “different strokes for different folks” — but we know some styles are almost-objectively bad (beating you with a shovel once a minute while I teach you is an all-around terrible idea, even if I can’t prove it — different learning styles!), which means we have an metric we can evaluate by and discuss on, even if it’s largely driven by intuition and anecdotal experience.
The question here is, for a novice, does this trick you into thinking you’ve learned something, when you really haven’t? A novice also doesn’t have the knowledge to effectively judge that, because, well, it’s a novice.
- swyx 5y agoi understand that there are some known bad ways. but you are dangerously close to concluding that your way is the One True Way to learn here. neither of us has data so i'm gonna leave it there :)
- setr 5y ago> you are dangerously close to concluding that your way is the One True Way to learn here No I’m not. I’m only arguing that there’s clearly room for discussion. That different strokes for different folks is a cop-out (in fact, I don’t believe it’s ever a useful idiom). In fact, I don’t think I’ve even suggested a preference for any particular strategy — well, other than that beating someone with a shovel is not an effective method of education, but I assume you already agree with that. Unless you’ve determined that any willingness to engage is in itself a signal to extreme preference (or taking an extreme stance against your position) — but I believe thats known as a ridiculous assumption.