3 ms·

Is there anything substantive here? It’s just a bunch of arbitrary unprovable assertions. Everyone here seems to have, broadly speaking; neither a) the qualif

Is there anything substantive here? It’s just a bunch of arbitrary unprovable assertions. Everyone here seems to have, broadly speaking; neither a) the qualifications to knowledgeably comment of the (honestly poorly understood, afaik) function of “creativity” or b) anything more meaningful than “here is my naive personal lived experience and opinion” to contribute on the topic. It’s just armchair psychology. If you want to wax philosophical, by all means, but I think anyone taking “thoughtful insight” away from this article or thread is fooling themselves.

adin8mon 2y ago
[dead]
bubblyworld 2y ago
Whatever the epistemic quality of the article is, it's triggered some interesting discussion here which I think is valuable. No need to denigrate talking about human experience with other humans, I think?
threatofrain 2y ago
One might talk about it from the perspective of birdsong, which is used by mates to judge sexual fitness. First a tutee bird learns from a tutor bird, and then eventually applies variability to the original song. It's strongly suspected that anterior forebrain pathway (AFP) may be a source of behavioral variability. We naturally age over time, including our vocal musculature, so in some sense we must constantly relearn how to use our muscles to deliver a song. When a bird is deafened its birdsong will naturally drift, but when we precisely damage the AFP along with deafening we find that birdsong remains stable for a longer period of time, until of course inevitably it must drift due to aging vocal musculature.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kreetx 2y ago
You'll experience the creativity outlined in the article directly when you start doing deliberate memorization, i.e spaced repetition. No qualification needed.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
I think semi-obvious would be a better criticism than unprovable. You can't make connections unless you have things to connect to. You can't recognize (your own discovered/inspired) novelty unless you have memorized normality. If you are creative in the absence of knowledge of what already exists then that's considered as reinventing the wheel, and not very useful, even it it's Ramanujan reinventing much of established mathematics.
calf 2y ago
It's pseudoscience, author would benefit from reading (and memorizing) the current scientific literature on learning and cognition. There's a bad trend, Hacker News gets this kind of blog-style self-promotion every month that gets much comment attention, but the essays are not well-researched and with made-up assertions written by programmers talking out of their lane ("Engineer's disease") and not having done homework on the subject.
- Eudaimion 2y ago
  > It's pseudoscience, author would benefit from reading (and memorizing) the current scientific literature on learning and cognition. How so? Can you share what you have read and that is relevant and applicable in real life? > There's a bad trend, Hacker News gets this kind of blog-style self-promotion every month that gets much comment attention, but the essays are not well-researched and with made-up assertions written by programmers talking out of their lane ("Engineer's disease") and not having done homework on the subject. You are on the wrong site, this is not a scientific journal there is no need for scientific rigor in every post and comment. P.S. The real life world is full of events and things happening if you cannot learn by yourself (create theories models on how the world works aka. pseudoscience apparently) and need academic verification for everything. Then you some kind of disorder :/ good luck
  - calf 2y ago
    There absolutely is a need for fact checking and basic scientific literacy and you're helping foment the opposite by suddenly making this about academia and scientific journals. What's the harm of that? Snake oil promotion and creation of filter bubbles. There's absolutely an expectation of not rejecting science just as with discussing global warming or Covid. But explain, why do you pervert an expectation of scientific literacy into an expectation of professional scientific expertise? Just as there are scientifically informed books and articles on a e.g. health and fitness and dieting, there is a ton of material on education psychology. Why do you allow the author to not do due diligence and at least read the basics which are very much accessible to nonexperts? Why make an exception when in every other STEM topic this would be incredibly ignorant? If it were a Time magazine article or a newspaper article they would surely include scientific sources in an effort to be truthful. Surely any high-school student knows the steps to write a well-researched essay, so why are you making this about the irrelevant standards of professional academia here? Could it be due to a misunderstanding of the role of science in public education? Are you some kind of Covid vaccine denier or anti-science on some other topic? In summary, you have wrongly conflated scientific literacy, being scientifically informed, public scientific awareness on a topic, etc., with professional academic scientific expertise. That is irrelevant and absurd. It also offends me that you made a bad faith construal of my statement. As to your remark about HN, my criticism applies to ANY scientifically informed public discourse, even as HN is a STEM website. Finally: I'm a reader giving my time and attention to a badly written essay because it got posted on a forum. It is not my job to fix their essay if it is antiscience in the way an antivaxxer makes up pseudoscience reasons why their idea is right. I'm not going to patiently explain to the nth antivaxxer why they are spouting pseudoscience, I'm just going to say that bluntly. This endless handwringing that HN people have over self help and rote memorization is just more of that, it's on them to have read a few simple books and articles on the topic before choosing to write about it for the public. PS. In "real life", people express sarcasm and maybe your 'disorder' (completely out of line of you to say that, BTW, and against site guidelines to use personal attacks of that sort at fellow users) was failing to detect a sarcastic comment if you actually, literally, thought I meant "the author needs to memorize scientific literature" in context of their argument about memorization. That would have nothing to do with the actual accusation of pseudoscience, where being scientifically informed on a topic is just a basic standard of discourse to avoid misinformation and snake oil promotion.
Eudaimion 2y ago
> Is there anything substantive here? There is plenty. If you did not find anything interesting or anything that made you think, in the comments or the post itself. Then is your own failure.

adin8mon 2y ago

[dead]

bubblyworld 2y ago

Whatever the epistemic quality of the article is, it's triggered some interesting discussion here which I think is valuable. No need to denigrate talking about human experience with other humans, I think?

threatofrain 2y ago

One might talk about it from the perspective of birdsong, which is used by mates to judge sexual fitness. First a tutee bird learns from a tutor bird, and then eventually applies variability to the original song. It's strongly suspected that anterior forebrain pathway (AFP) may be a source of behavioral variability. We naturally age over time, including our vocal musculature, so in some sense we must constantly relearn how to use our muscles to deliver a song. When a bird is deafened its birdsong will naturally drift, but when we precisely damage the AFP along with deafening we find that birdsong remains stable for a longer period of time, until of course inevitably it must drift due to aging vocal musculature.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kreetx 2y ago

You'll experience the creativity outlined in the article directly when you start doing deliberate memorization, i.e spaced repetition. No qualification needed.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

I think semi-obvious would be a better criticism than unprovable. You can't make connections unless you have things to connect to. You can't recognize (your own discovered/inspired) novelty unless you have memorized normality. If you are creative in the absence of knowledge of what already exists then that's considered as reinventing the wheel, and not very useful, even it it's Ramanujan reinventing much of established mathematics.

calf 2y ago

It's pseudoscience, author would benefit from reading (and memorizing) the current scientific literature on learning and cognition. There's a bad trend, Hacker News gets this kind of blog-style self-promotion every month that gets much comment attention, but the essays are not well-researched and with made-up assertions written by programmers talking out of their lane ("Engineer's disease") and not having done homework on the subject.

Eudaimion 2y ago
> It's pseudoscience, author would benefit from reading (and memorizing) the current scientific literature on learning and cognition. How so? Can you share what you have read and that is relevant and applicable in real life? > There's a bad trend, Hacker News gets this kind of blog-style self-promotion every month that gets much comment attention, but the essays are not well-researched and with made-up assertions written by programmers talking out of their lane ("Engineer's disease") and not having done homework on the subject. You are on the wrong site, this is not a scientific journal there is no need for scientific rigor in every post and comment. P.S. The real life world is full of events and things happening if you cannot learn by yourself (create theories models on how the world works aka. pseudoscience apparently) and need academic verification for everything. Then you some kind of disorder :/ good luck
- calf 2y ago
  There absolutely is a need for fact checking and basic scientific literacy and you're helping foment the opposite by suddenly making this about academia and scientific journals. What's the harm of that? Snake oil promotion and creation of filter bubbles. There's absolutely an expectation of not rejecting science just as with discussing global warming or Covid. But explain, why do you pervert an expectation of scientific literacy into an expectation of professional scientific expertise? Just as there are scientifically informed books and articles on a e.g. health and fitness and dieting, there is a ton of material on education psychology. Why do you allow the author to not do due diligence and at least read the basics which are very much accessible to nonexperts? Why make an exception when in every other STEM topic this would be incredibly ignorant? If it were a Time magazine article or a newspaper article they would surely include scientific sources in an effort to be truthful. Surely any high-school student knows the steps to write a well-researched essay, so why are you making this about the irrelevant standards of professional academia here? Could it be due to a misunderstanding of the role of science in public education? Are you some kind of Covid vaccine denier or anti-science on some other topic? In summary, you have wrongly conflated scientific literacy, being scientifically informed, public scientific awareness on a topic, etc., with professional academic scientific expertise. That is irrelevant and absurd. It also offends me that you made a bad faith construal of my statement. As to your remark about HN, my criticism applies to ANY scientifically informed public discourse, even as HN is a STEM website. Finally: I'm a reader giving my time and attention to a badly written essay because it got posted on a forum. It is not my job to fix their essay if it is antiscience in the way an antivaxxer makes up pseudoscience reasons why their idea is right. I'm not going to patiently explain to the nth antivaxxer why they are spouting pseudoscience, I'm just going to say that bluntly. This endless handwringing that HN people have over self help and rote memorization is just more of that, it's on them to have read a few simple books and articles on the topic before choosing to write about it for the public. PS. In "real life", people express sarcasm and maybe your 'disorder' (completely out of line of you to say that, BTW, and against site guidelines to use personal attacks of that sort at fellow users) was failing to detect a sarcastic comment if you actually, literally, thought I meant "the author needs to memorize scientific literature" in context of their argument about memorization. That would have nothing to do with the actual accusation of pseudoscience, where being scientifically informed on a topic is just a basic standard of discourse to avoid misinformation and snake oil promotion.

Eudaimion 2y ago

> Is there anything substantive here? There is plenty. If you did not find anything interesting or anything that made you think, in the comments or the post itself. Then is your own failure.