3 ms·

Wow! Thanks for the comment. I take a main learnings from your comment: 1. Learning can be pseudo-defined as the total distance[1] traveled from A to B. A is y

by dvrp 4y ago

Wow! Thanks for the comment. I take a main learnings from your comment: 1. Learning can be pseudo-defined as the total distance[1] traveled from A to B. A is your starting learning point, your current level. B is what you want to know how to do. If what you want to do is hard (far from you), you can find simple explanations (shorter distances) or curvy explanations (longer distances). But regardless of the explanation, depending what you want to learn and your current skill, you may need to put in the hours either way! This relates to your mirror example. Once you have attained the knowledge to create a four-inch mirror, the distance to the six one is drastically lower. So, you do not have to assume that you will have to go through all that hardship again. Disclaimer: AB + BC may be longer than AC! This begs the question, when we learn new knowledge “efficiently” and “quickly”. How much knowledge did we really acquire? [1]: I said distance, not Euclidean distance!

ttoinou 4y ago
Disclaimer: AB + BC may be longer than AC It's the opposite ! The triangle inequality doesn't always hold when it comes to learning (unless you meant longer = you learn more, here I meant longer = you spend more time / efforts on it) This begs the question, when we learn new knowledge “efficiently” and “quickly”. How much knowledge did we really acquire? Good question. Sometimes a real breakthrough can also happen without working really hard, it's just not very common. And some of the knowledge you got can be useful quite quickly in your daily life or profession, so there are definitely /some/ benefits in learning efficiently. Ee'll always need to simplify some past discoveries / knowledge and focus our time / energy on more complex problems. Our children will get access to much more knowledge than us anyway, it's all about explicitly deciding where our efforts should be focused on. Some people might loose, some might win. I think it's related to your last link https://perell.com/note/the-paradox-of-abundance/ https://perell.com/note/the-paradox-of-abundance/ in abundance, the ultra smart will rise, the median people will fall behind. For now, I would like to produce more high quality learning material. But if I had to mentor someone to learn stuff, I wouldn't always recommend to constantly look for a ready-made answer online for example.

by dvrp 4y ago

ttoinou 4y ago

Disclaimer: AB + BC may be longer than AC It's the opposite ! The triangle inequality doesn't always hold when it comes to learning (unless you meant longer = you learn more, here I meant longer = you spend more time / efforts on it) This begs the question, when we learn new knowledge “efficiently” and “quickly”. How much knowledge did we really acquire? Good question. Sometimes a real breakthrough can also happen without working really hard, it's just not very common. And some of the knowledge you got can be useful quite quickly in your daily life or profession, so there are definitely /some/ benefits in learning efficiently. Ee'll always need to simplify some past discoveries / knowledge and focus our time / energy on more complex problems. Our children will get access to much more knowledge than us anyway, it's all about explicitly deciding where our efforts should be focused on. Some people might loose, some might win. I think it's related to your last link https://perell.com/note/the-paradox-of-abundance/ https://perell.com/note/the-paradox-of-abundance/ in abundance, the ultra smart will rise, the median people will fall behind. For now, I would like to produce more high quality learning material. But if I had to mentor someone to learn stuff, I wouldn't always recommend to constantly look for a ready-made answer online for example.