3 ms·

Willpower - or not. Some of us learned languages unhesitatingly, with delight. So what? Do the other people have to take part too? (Actually I remember hating

Willpower - or not. Some of us learned languages unhesitatingly, with delight. So what? Do the other people have to take part too? (Actually I remember hating C when I got to the part of K&R about pointers. I threw the book across the room. I hated it for about 12 hours. Then I woke up the next morning and was all like "pointers are brilliant", it was weird.) I guess you can guide people into a subject, assuring them the whole way through that the subject is probably going to get enjoyable, and in the meantime making the experience enjoyable through social effects and entertainment - while allowing them freedom to back out if in fact you're boring them. But that doesn't demand their willpower. It hinges on their interest.

mindslight 1y ago
> Do the other people have to take part too? Yes? It's great that learning things was fun for you. I'm there with you myself. I had amazing lucid dreams the night after I learned Ocaml... But this entire thread is about teaching children, many of whom need guidance, support, and unfortunately sometimes control to mitigate their attraction to easy-but-unhealthy activities. Not everyone is going to be a programmer. But even if we're talking about structuring learning such that it's compelling on its own, then we're kind of assuming everyone is going to have a calling and also find it relatively young. That feels pretty naive.
- card_zero 1y ago
  They don't have to learn the things you assume they have to learn. To push people into academic crap that they hate is: 1. Pompous, 2. Counterproductive.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    I likely agree with 80% of where you're coming from, but simply making unsubstantiated blanket assertions is not a coherent argument.
    - card_zero 1y ago
      Blanket assertions are often naive or simplistic, but not incoherent. They are attempts at elegant simplicity, so it's the nuanced version which is less coherent, because reality is messy. Practical difficulties, then, can be used as an excuse for saying that an arbitrarily chosen 20% of control is vital, which is a reassuringly normal strategy, although there's no common agreement about which 20%, since this is just a performance.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        The incoherence is not with itself, but rather failing to address the messy realities of the real world. Like kids wanting to satiate themselves with easy dopamine hits before having self-discipline or work ethic that makes them seek out harder things. The 80% figure I meant is not that I think this is applicable to 80% "of learning" or something, but rather trying to convey to you that I greatly sympathize with where you seem to be coming from. I'm mostly self-taught as well, even in college my classes were basically spent reading ahead the next chapter in the textbook to occupy my interest (and doing homework due in my next class), while half-listening to the lecture to confirm what I already knew (from reading ahead the previous class). But still I think it would be naive to assume that all kids can do without most structure.

mindslight 1y ago

> Do the other people have to take part too? Yes? It's great that learning things was fun for you. I'm there with you myself. I had amazing lucid dreams the night after I learned Ocaml... But this entire thread is about teaching children, many of whom need guidance, support, and unfortunately sometimes control to mitigate their attraction to easy-but-unhealthy activities. Not everyone is going to be a programmer. But even if we're talking about structuring learning such that it's compelling on its own, then we're kind of assuming everyone is going to have a calling and also find it relatively young. That feels pretty naive.

card_zero 1y ago
They don't have to learn the things you assume they have to learn. To push people into academic crap that they hate is: 1. Pompous, 2. Counterproductive.
- mindslight 1y ago
  I likely agree with 80% of where you're coming from, but simply making unsubstantiated blanket assertions is not a coherent argument.
  - card_zero 1y ago
    Blanket assertions are often naive or simplistic, but not incoherent. They are attempts at elegant simplicity, so it's the nuanced version which is less coherent, because reality is messy. Practical difficulties, then, can be used as an excuse for saying that an arbitrarily chosen 20% of control is vital, which is a reassuringly normal strategy, although there's no common agreement about which 20%, since this is just a performance.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      The incoherence is not with itself, but rather failing to address the messy realities of the real world. Like kids wanting to satiate themselves with easy dopamine hits before having self-discipline or work ethic that makes them seek out harder things. The 80% figure I meant is not that I think this is applicable to 80% "of learning" or something, but rather trying to convey to you that I greatly sympathize with where you seem to be coming from. I'm mostly self-taught as well, even in college my classes were basically spent reading ahead the next chapter in the textbook to occupy my interest (and doing homework due in my next class), while half-listening to the lecture to confirm what I already knew (from reading ahead the previous class). But still I think it would be naive to assume that all kids can do without most structure.