3 ms·

I did enough computer stuff before kindergarten that I could type very quickly without looking at the keyboard or thought. I did hunt and peck initially, but as

I did enough computer stuff before kindergarten that I could type very quickly without looking at the keyboard or thought. I did hunt and peck initially, but as I used a computer more it just got faster. When I think of any character I immediately know where on the keyboard it is. This is even if I can't see the keyboard, since the layout of any local area is uncommon enough to quickly and automatically orient. My kindergarten had a class where they wanted to teach touch typing. They did it via an automatic program where it'd explain some concept, then have you type some sequences to practice it. I decided to give this strategy (with the home row, feeling the bumps, etc.) a chance. I was quite a bit slower with it. Eventually, I got frustrated with the slow progress and just sped through typing each sequence in the way that I knew how. I finished a few month course in like 30 minutes. Today I type the fastest out of anyone whom I know, beating many people who use traditional touch typing methods. From this anecdote, I hope to show that it is possible to learn to type well with general keyboard use. Note that this is the very skill where it's useful. So, I posit: touch typing doesn't need to be taught because the people who use a keyboard enough to benefit from it will learn something better automatically.

squigz 1y ago
> So, I posit: touch typing doesn't need to be taught because the people who use a keyboard enough to benefit from it will learn something better automatically. This is a pretty poor argument that can be applied to practically any skill. "Why should we teach people in a structured way? They can just learn it by doing it!" For many people, having a structure to learn from is extremely helpful, even if they do diverge from it to learn in their own way. Also I don't think we should focus solely on "people who will benefit from it" - presumably you're talking about people whose livelihoods depend directly on typing efficiently. What about those who only use it casually but still want to communicate effectively?
lazyasciiart 1y ago
I learned to read before kindergarten by having my parents read to me (but not, they say, attempting to teach me). Therefore reading doesn't need to be taught because people exposed to books enough will learn it automatically?
- john01dav 1y ago
  No, not all skills are conducive to learning by exposure. I do think that we should emphacize what the specific person could actively use more than we do, though.
IAmBroom 1y ago
You extrapolate from N=1 to N=8 billion.

squigz 1y ago

> So, I posit: touch typing doesn't need to be taught because the people who use a keyboard enough to benefit from it will learn something better automatically. This is a pretty poor argument that can be applied to practically any skill. "Why should we teach people in a structured way? They can just learn it by doing it!" For many people, having a structure to learn from is extremely helpful, even if they do diverge from it to learn in their own way. Also I don't think we should focus solely on "people who will benefit from it" - presumably you're talking about people whose livelihoods depend directly on typing efficiently. What about those who only use it casually but still want to communicate effectively?

lazyasciiart 1y ago

I learned to read before kindergarten by having my parents read to me (but not, they say, attempting to teach me). Therefore reading doesn't need to be taught because people exposed to books enough will learn it automatically?

john01dav 1y ago
No, not all skills are conducive to learning by exposure. I do think that we should emphacize what the specific person could actively use more than we do, though.

IAmBroom 1y ago

You extrapolate from N=1 to N=8 billion.