3 ms·

I think there's a fundamental philosophical disagreement between people who have experience in advanced science and math subjects and those who are part of soci

I think there's a fundamental philosophical disagreement between people who have experience in advanced science and math subjects and those who are part of society at large. Society at large operates under a philosophy that /anyone/ can learn /anything/ with enough support systems, resources, and instruction in place. Those who have experience in advanced topics realize that there is very real intelligence & personality barrier of entry. If you don't have the intelligence and personality for these topics, the only way you will succeed is via pure grit, because the strongest motivations are intrinsic, not extrinsic. There is a reason there are so many people who claim to be programmers but can't do a FizzBuzz, because colleges manage to churn out thousands of graduates every year who don't have the intelligence and personality to be successful in a technical subject, but are doing it for the money only. Competence is not /only/ trained, it is training on top of talent (intelligence and personality). It requires an above average intelligence to be successful in advanced technical fields, and statistically speaking /most/ people do not have above average intelligence. Trying to solve this problem is likely incompatible with reality.

kiba 3y ago
I am not going to discount intelligence as somehow unimportant. After all I basically skated through grade school without having study skills. This bite me in the ass when I actually do need to use study skills. I believe most people are sufficiently intelligent to learn basically any skills and knowledge that they want. The question isn't if they can do it, it's why it's so hard for them to do it? Self learning can be taught. So is emotional self regulation. Those goes hand in hand to finish any projects that you may desire. Now why do college turns out graduates who can't program? It's probably that college isn't churning out programmers, but people who are taught computer science. That's why they can't do FizzBuzz. They lack skills in the fundamentals.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > Now why do college turns out graduates who can't program? It's probably that college isn't churning out programmers, but people who are taught computer science. That's why they can't do FizzBuzz. They lack skills in the fundamentals. The answer is that people study for the test and passing enough tests is all you need to graduate. There is a correlation between graduating and being able to program, but it's not a perfect correlation. > I believe most people are sufficiently intelligent to learn basically any skills and knowledge that they want. It's easy to see this is untrue. replace intelligence with physical ability and it quickly becomes obvious that not everyone is going to be a great boxer or a great basketball player. If you take away the requirement for success, then sure, anyone can do anything. But lets not take that requirement away as that makes your statement unuseful.
  - kiba 3y ago
    It's easy to see this is untrue. replace intelligence with physical ability and it quickly becomes obvious that not everyone is going to be a great boxer or a great basketball player. The standard is fuzzy by what you mean a 'great boxer' or a 'great basketball player'. I'll simply replied that with a fuzzy answer 'at least highly skilled'. I believe most people can potentially trained to run a marathon. By my standard, that's a high level feat. Now, most people aren't actually capable of running a marathon right now, but my point is that it can be achieved. Now you might see that as wildly optimistic, but as I explained, there are factors that prevents people from learning these skills, which can seem pessimistic. We are clearly not teaching in the most optimal fashion with the most optimal mindsets.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      If it were fuzzy we wouldn't call Mike Tyson one of the all time greats, nor would Mohammed Ali be considered one of the greatest boxers of all time. What you mean by fuzzy is not perfectly predictable, which is true. But the results of certain individuals speak for themselves and very few people will ever be able to do what Michael Jordan has done in basketball. Indeed, the chances of making it into professional sports is so small most people are told to always have a backup plan. So if you want a definition for "great" here, it's that people will look back and consider them great after evaluating them _after_ the fact. Not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Michael Jordan did, not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, et al, did. This is obvious at the extremes, therefore, it's obvious that it also happens at the lesser extremes with the difference being that the sample set of people able to achieve that level of success is greater than at the extremes. paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon.
      - kiba 3y ago
        I would define my standard as something achievable by mere mortals rather than 'great' if we want to say that most people are capable of learning skills/field of knowledge, say a PhD. paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon. I wouldn't say they're blank canvases, but I would say that brains, however different they are, probably has the potential to reach a certain level of competency in any given field. It's not like I am not acknowledging talent. On the contrary, I have experienced what 'high' talent look like in at least one field of endeavor due to how my brain is configured.

kiba 3y ago

I am not going to discount intelligence as somehow unimportant. After all I basically skated through grade school without having study skills. This bite me in the ass when I actually do need to use study skills. I believe most people are sufficiently intelligent to learn basically any skills and knowledge that they want. The question isn't if they can do it, it's why it's so hard for them to do it? Self learning can be taught. So is emotional self regulation. Those goes hand in hand to finish any projects that you may desire. Now why do college turns out graduates who can't program? It's probably that college isn't churning out programmers, but people who are taught computer science. That's why they can't do FizzBuzz. They lack skills in the fundamentals.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> Now why do college turns out graduates who can't program? It's probably that college isn't churning out programmers, but people who are taught computer science. That's why they can't do FizzBuzz. They lack skills in the fundamentals. The answer is that people study for the test and passing enough tests is all you need to graduate. There is a correlation between graduating and being able to program, but it's not a perfect correlation. > I believe most people are sufficiently intelligent to learn basically any skills and knowledge that they want. It's easy to see this is untrue. replace intelligence with physical ability and it quickly becomes obvious that not everyone is going to be a great boxer or a great basketball player. If you take away the requirement for success, then sure, anyone can do anything. But lets not take that requirement away as that makes your statement unuseful.
- kiba 3y ago
  It's easy to see this is untrue. replace intelligence with physical ability and it quickly becomes obvious that not everyone is going to be a great boxer or a great basketball player. The standard is fuzzy by what you mean a 'great boxer' or a 'great basketball player'. I'll simply replied that with a fuzzy answer 'at least highly skilled'. I believe most people can potentially trained to run a marathon. By my standard, that's a high level feat. Now, most people aren't actually capable of running a marathon right now, but my point is that it can be achieved. Now you might see that as wildly optimistic, but as I explained, there are factors that prevents people from learning these skills, which can seem pessimistic. We are clearly not teaching in the most optimal fashion with the most optimal mindsets.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    If it were fuzzy we wouldn't call Mike Tyson one of the all time greats, nor would Mohammed Ali be considered one of the greatest boxers of all time. What you mean by fuzzy is not perfectly predictable, which is true. But the results of certain individuals speak for themselves and very few people will ever be able to do what Michael Jordan has done in basketball. Indeed, the chances of making it into professional sports is so small most people are told to always have a backup plan. So if you want a definition for "great" here, it's that people will look back and consider them great after evaluating them _after_ the fact. Not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Michael Jordan did, not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, et al, did. This is obvious at the extremes, therefore, it's obvious that it also happens at the lesser extremes with the difference being that the sample set of people able to achieve that level of success is greater than at the extremes. paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon.
    - kiba 3y ago
      I would define my standard as something achievable by mere mortals rather than 'great' if we want to say that most people are capable of learning skills/field of knowledge, say a PhD. paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon. I wouldn't say they're blank canvases, but I would say that brains, however different they are, probably has the potential to reach a certain level of competency in any given field. It's not like I am not acknowledging talent. On the contrary, I have experienced what 'high' talent look like in at least one field of endeavor due to how my brain is configured.