3 ms·
This is exactly my experience. Because the barrier to doing things is lower, you just do more things. But it doesn't actually expand one's capabilities or make
by globular-toast 8mo ago
This is exactly my experience. Because the barrier to doing things is lower, you just do more things. But it doesn't actually expand one's capabilities or make learning happen any faster. That needs time (mostly sleep).
Compare playing Counter Strike with having a game of cricket.
Cricket takes a while to organise and set up. You have to contact your pals, physically travel to the field and set up the wickets. Then expect to commit several hours to the game.
Meanwhile, Counter Strike takes no effort. You move your arm to the mouse and click. A game is like 5 minutes of commitment.
The trouble is, before you know it you've spent 5 hours on Counter Strike. You could have easily played cricket in that time, caught up with your pals and exercised your body to boot.
- sdf2df 8mo agoAnother addition to the list of really bad analogies on here.
- jukea 8mo agoCare to explain why? I think it’s not a bad analogy: contrasting two things with the same goal, one fast paced, saturates your cognitive load , and one that leaves more space for reflecting on what is actually happening, inherently less exhausting. You may disagree with the analysis, but it works in this framework.
- triage8004 8mo agoAble to improve at CS because the time between rounds is so short (even instant almost in death match etc). Wonder if any relation to how fast time can fly
- globular-toast 8mo agoYeah, when I used to play CS it was incredible how much time you could "accidentally" spend on it. The commitment per round is so low you just end up having "one more game" over and over again. It's what I've found with coding agents except it's "one more feature". There's less thought going into what is worth doing and what isn't, so you the up doing more in the long run.