3 ms·

Education itself is supposed to teach us learning, not the mere facts/methods, not just the hard knowledge. Hard knowledge comes with it anyway as some sort of

Education itself is supposed to teach us learning, not the mere facts/methods, not just the hard knowledge. Hard knowledge comes with it anyway as some sort of 'side product'. You cant learn on nothing, something will be used for it, that something forms the hard knowledge eventually. Typically broad set but shallow hard knowledge. Ironicly, this is what I feel chipping away in modern collaborative developments. The appreciation of learning capability. In the self interest of the organization (short term self interest, long term is too unpredictable, so does not exists in the practice) specific technical knowledge parcticed individuals are sought out for the purpose of easy replacement: not to be dependent on personnel, have it like a plug and play component. The ability to learn is not valuable while inside the organization. Should be practiced enough for years beforehand and applied intensely after joined. For the sake of claiming evolving organization the teaching may be outsourced in a very limited time to some sort of external enterprise making money on disseminating hard knowledge with made up examples or generic (artificial) applicability, instead of doing it in the actual context of the organization. Be part of the organization. Daily. Application of the new hard knowledge in the specific context of the organization will be casual by the random enthusiast. If they can break through of the company policy and established ways of management. Eventually the policies and practicies must be rigid as well, shouldn't they, so the personnel working in the management could be as easily replacable as the foot soldiers of code. For the sake of the organization. Call this approach the Organization Oriented Development.

physicsguy 1y ago
> You cant learn on nothing, something will be used for it, that something forms the hard knowledge eventually. Typically broad set but shallow hard knowledge. As a counterpoint though, the way things have gone in the U.K. is to go deep on niche topics without building up appreciation of the broad strokes. To give an example, there’s a GCSE History course for 14-16 year olds where the syllabus is effectively “medicine through time” and “the American West” without ever going near the British Empire, colonialism, the Tudor or Elizabethan periods, the reformation, the Industrial Revolution, Irish home rule and independence, etc. etc. any one of which gives much more insight into the formation of the state and cultural affairs as it stands today. To my mind it’s too narrow a focus at too young an age when teaching a subject that a lot of children take. It also means there are constantly “we don’t even teach that at school” debates.

physicsguy 1y ago

> You cant learn on nothing, something will be used for it, that something forms the hard knowledge eventually. Typically broad set but shallow hard knowledge. As a counterpoint though, the way things have gone in the U.K. is to go deep on niche topics without building up appreciation of the broad strokes. To give an example, there’s a GCSE History course for 14-16 year olds where the syllabus is effectively “medicine through time” and “the American West” without ever going near the British Empire, colonialism, the Tudor or Elizabethan periods, the reformation, the Industrial Revolution, Irish home rule and independence, etc. etc. any one of which gives much more insight into the formation of the state and cultural affairs as it stands today. To my mind it’s too narrow a focus at too young an age when teaching a subject that a lot of children take. It also means there are constantly “we don’t even teach that at school” debates.