10 ms·

Learning the equations of motion is manifestly more useful in life than learning about imaginary elf politics. All knowledge is not equal.

card_zero 2y ago
I agree that "all knowledge is not equal", but I have lots of confusing things to say about that. * Knowledge is something I value. Is "useful in life" a metric for its value? This only passes the buck to other values, such as being well fed. I'd rather say that some knowledge is more "useful to the growth of knowledge". * Elf politics are not fun to the uninterested. Do equations become fun when you're interested? I think so, but only sometimes, somewhat. There are things, culturally, that we'd mention if put in a focus group and asked to itemize fun. Things other than equations, on the whole. * People, curse them, exist in different problem situations. So elf politics may be statistically more relevant to the problems people in the world grapple with than the equations of motion are. This is different from being deep. But it still means that the elf politics is what those people need, and what we want them to learn about, if they're into it. * Ideally, we should only be having fun. In practical reality we have to deal with contingent shit we don't like. This is not an effective way to gain great understanding, but that form of learning is "useful" since it pays the rent. Excuse the inconclusiveness.
- James_K 2y ago
  My answer to all of those questions: it doesn't matter. A person is considered to be smart when they are apt at solving the problems they tend to encounter. My point is that reading books alone doesn't confer this ability to any notable extent, whereas you'll find smart people read books relevant to the problems they solve which is why they are considered smart. The notion that reading exercises the mind to create intelligence in the same way one might exercise a muscle to improve it is disproved by showing that other exercises of the mind fail to have that effect.

card_zero 2y ago

I agree that "all knowledge is not equal", but I have lots of confusing things to say about that. * Knowledge is something I value. Is "useful in life" a metric for its value? This only passes the buck to other values, such as being well fed. I'd rather say that some knowledge is more "useful to the growth of knowledge". * Elf politics are not fun to the uninterested. Do equations become fun when you're interested? I think so, but only sometimes, somewhat. There are things, culturally, that we'd mention if put in a focus group and asked to itemize fun. Things other than equations, on the whole. * People, curse them, exist in different problem situations. So elf politics may be statistically more relevant to the problems people in the world grapple with than the equations of motion are. This is different from being deep. But it still means that the elf politics is what those people need, and what we want them to learn about, if they're into it. * Ideally, we should only be having fun. In practical reality we have to deal with contingent shit we don't like. This is not an effective way to gain great understanding, but that form of learning is "useful" since it pays the rent. Excuse the inconclusiveness.

James_K 2y ago
My answer to all of those questions: it doesn't matter. A person is considered to be smart when they are apt at solving the problems they tend to encounter. My point is that reading books alone doesn't confer this ability to any notable extent, whereas you'll find smart people read books relevant to the problems they solve which is why they are considered smart. The notion that reading exercises the mind to create intelligence in the same way one might exercise a muscle to improve it is disproved by showing that other exercises of the mind fail to have that effect.