3 ms·

I would tweak his hypothesis: 1. It is now easier than ever to achieve "ultra-learning" because the vast majority of knowledge is available everywhere for fre

I would tweak his hypothesis: 1. It is now easier than ever to achieve "ultra-learning" because the vast majority of knowledge is available everywhere for free online. The "learn to code the hard way" crowd will disagree, but I would say working knowledge of almost anything can be gained in between a week and a month, depending on how specific the topic (eg creating websites: week, creating a kernel: month). You will NOT be an expert at either, but you will be someone who can imitate. Imitation and application of existing knowledge is extremely quick once you learn how to learn how to learn. I would say the researcher from the article and Steve Jobs are masters of the "working knowledge and apply" school, but the low barrier to entry explains why every day we all read about the "LinkedIn for this" or "Instagram for that." 2. I would define "deep-knowledge" as knowledge that doesn't already exist or isn't already accessible. This is true innovation or discovery. This is the internet, nuclear fission, DNA sequencing. This kind of knowledge is rare because it takes time, persistence, and capability. One has to gain working knowledge and keep digging until you hit the bottom of all knowledge about the topic... and then break out a drill bit and push on, or go to the tallest building in the world and add a story on top. Unfortunately, our society rewards the first category far more than the second.

loxs 14y ago
See my other comments in the thread to find out about me. 1. This is true. Weeks to month(s) is usually enough to learn enough to roughly be aware of the kinds of problems you can solve with a tool. Finding the right and interesting problem is not quite as easy though. Usually after I know enough to have a feeling about the kinds of problems, I stop learning the new tool. It's not interesting to learn more just for the sake of learning. Once I find a good problem(s), I put months or years in learning the tool and solving problems with it. One of the reasons I moved away from medicine is because you can't learn while solving problems. You have to learn a lot upfront before you are allowed to the "field". This is really justified, but I lost interest. 2. This is not really always the case. There are fields (medicine for example), where true innovation is not always result of "deep knowledge". For example antibiotics, vaccines etc. In those cases true innovation happened because of trying to solve a problem (and quite accidentally), not because someone by his really deep knowledge predicted these phenomena. I wouldn't try to judge which way is "better". And I wouldn't use the word "unfortunately" for these. Probably we need very much both to progress.

loxs 14y ago

See my other comments in the thread to find out about me. 1. This is true. Weeks to month(s) is usually enough to learn enough to roughly be aware of the kinds of problems you can solve with a tool. Finding the right and interesting problem is not quite as easy though. Usually after I know enough to have a feeling about the kinds of problems, I stop learning the new tool. It's not interesting to learn more just for the sake of learning. Once I find a good problem(s), I put months or years in learning the tool and solving problems with it. One of the reasons I moved away from medicine is because you can't learn while solving problems. You have to learn a lot upfront before you are allowed to the "field". This is really justified, but I lost interest. 2. This is not really always the case. There are fields (medicine for example), where true innovation is not always result of "deep knowledge". For example antibiotics, vaccines etc. In those cases true innovation happened because of trying to solve a problem (and quite accidentally), not because someone by his really deep knowledge predicted these phenomena. I wouldn't try to judge which way is "better". And I wouldn't use the word "unfortunately" for these. Probably we need very much both to progress.