Live data from Hacker News

People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

freakonomics.com

381–390 of 453 posts

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure he means "it is an easy equation to memorise, but it's not trivial". People can remember the formula, but have no idea how it actually works.

Memorizing equations is "religion" not "math". "Understanding" is "math".

I wish more math teachers would actually understand this.

The amount of crap I got for using the "wrong way" to calculate something in math class, was probably one of the major reason I never really got into it.

I remember math classes in the beginning actually being fun, I loved figuring out more convenient/to me more logical ways to calculate something, only to be constantly shut down by the teachers for using them, as he/she demanded I use the solution given by the book.

I do understand the value of getting to the same solution in different ways, I even did back then, but teachers didn't frame it like that; their insistence on the book solution just felt like an accusation against me of not understanding, telling me my way of calculating is wrong (even tho they usually proof calculated right) when to me it looked like it was them not understanding, by insisting on that one formalized, and often awkward, solution, and only that.

So as a somewhat rebellious character, it didn't take long for me to start actually despising math classes.

If I could go back I'd probably try to do it differently, I'm in my mid-30's now and consider myself "math illiterate". Sure I can do most basic stuff and even the occasional Pythagorean theorem (which fascinates me to this day, take two knowns to figure out the third unknown!), but I still feel like I missed out on something I could probably really have enjoyed.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure he means "it is an easy equation to memorise, but it's not trivial". People can remember the formula, but have no idea how it actually works.

Memorizing equations is "religion" not "math". "Understanding" is "math".

I happen to like a little metaphor of mine; Math is like cooking: either you blindly follow a recipe (rote "learning") or you truly learn how ingredients combine together (from discovering, to understanding, to — ultimately — grokking).

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#383
post #358

I think people are dumb, and I'm not being derogatory about 'the 'masses' or any such crap. I'm unbelievably dumb. It often takes me a ridiculously long time to come to a solution to a problem, where the answer seems like it should be obvious. Instead my slow, feeble mammal brain takes forever to grope blindly around the issue before getting any traction. Lets say there is a scale of sentience that goes from 1, which…

> So we are literally at the dumbest, most intellectually feeble level of sentience required to get where we are, otherwise we'd have done it sooner.

But do we all want to be "super thinkers": Is that actually progress? Especially in the context of "sentience", maybe it's not just a blessing but also a curse?

Imho animals mostly run on instinct in a kind of "intuition mode", this even applies to humans. What makes humans, and maybe some other animals, different is their ability to have self-awareness, which allows them to have an inner monologue and active thought to influence their actual actions and decisions, instead of just leaving it all to intuition.

But we don't all constantly do that, "thinking" that is. When speaking with friends and family about this, how do they perceive their thinking, I was shocked to learn that some don't know/understand this "inner monologue" aka "active thinking" at all.

These people are not stupid, that's not what I'm suggesting, these are very productive people, who often manage to stay positive, wise and happy through some rather nasty hardships that would probably have broken me, due to my tendency to overthink things.

As weird as it might sound, sometimes I wish I could just turn the thinking off. That's when I pursue hobbies, to take my mind off, but usually results in my thinking being refocused on something more enjoyable, but in the end I'm still thinking about something.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful, this might sound intuitive but be deathly wrong

Care to elaborate on your concerns? We're obviously speaking theoretically here at a high level of abstraction

My concern is that it might be possible to watch each other while keeping authority. You say it's not possible as if there was some kind of proof.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we're all watching each other, we still all have our own incentives and not so obvious irrationalities.

Then the problem becomes identifying and accounting for these incentives and irrationalities.

We solved these kind of problems: electronic systems in space have multiple redundancies, where the result returned by most of them is picked as input to other systems. This ensures that one system's quirks are kept in check

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#386

I would really really encourage everyone here to watch Alan Kay's recent talks on how poorly we understand systems and why it's critical we get better at managing them. Some good ones: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1R2jH4PQEo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c7_8Gp7gI Some people have strong opinions about Alan Kay's CS / programming work and I'd really encourage them to put them aside and deeply understand h…

For similar reasons, I highly recommend a book called Capital: Critique of Political Economy. And likewise, some people may have strong opinions about the author’s work. I'd really encourage them to put them aside and deeply understand his points + context.

I would complement it with a second book about capital: Capital in the Twenty-First Century - Thomas Piketty. I am not sure neither of this books have the solutions but they were enlightening for me.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dividing fractions is also easy. Did you mean summing fractions? Because, yeah, summing fractions is significantly harder than multiplying fractions, simply due to pure misfortune.

I may be wrong, but I think the issue is: what does it mean to divide x by 1/2? It means to multiply it by 2. We can easily understand that dividing by 2 means to split something into 2 pieces. What does it mean to split something into 1/2 pieces? Why does dividing by 1/2 mean to multiply it by 2 and does it always work that way? Can you prove it? Summation of fractions is much easier to visualise, even if it is hard…

Informally speaking, that can be visualised by asking "how many half pieces can you get if you have x pieces?" If I have two pieces I can break them down into 4 half pieces, which nets the same result as multiplying by two.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Memorizing equations is "religion" not "math". "Understanding" is "math".

I wish more math teachers would actually understand this. The amount of crap I got for using the "wrong way" to calculate something in math class, was probably one of the major reason I never really got into it. I remember math classes in the beginning actually being fun, I loved figuring out more convenient/to me more logical ways to calculate something, only to be constantly shut down by the teachers for using them…

Easiest way of visualising the pythagorean theorem is to think about it the way it was initially written: think about areas formed by tree squares.

This image[0] from wikipedia shows it all: the area of square a plus the area of square b equals the area of square c. It's just really convenient that we can use that to calculate triangle sides without resorting to trigonometry.

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Py...

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#389
post #358

I think people are dumb, and I'm not being derogatory about 'the 'masses' or any such crap. I'm unbelievably dumb. It often takes me a ridiculously long time to come to a solution to a problem, where the answer seems like it should be obvious. Instead my slow, feeble mammal brain takes forever to grope blindly around the issue before getting any traction. Lets say there is a scale of sentience that goes from 1, which…

> So we are literally at the dumbest, most intellectually feeble level of sentience required to get where we are, otherwise we'd have done it sooner. But do we all want to be "super thinkers": Is that actually progress? Especially in the context of "sentience", maybe it's not just a blessing but also a curse? Imho animals mostly run on instinct in a kind of "intuition mode", this even applies to humans. What makes hu…

Though I hesitate to suggest it because it's a fad right now, you might want to give "mindfulness" meditation a try for a month or so.

> sometimes I wish I could just turn the thinking off

I have this same feeling, a lot. Sometimes it just goes into overdrive. It's so easy to get wrapped up, when I want to be doing something else. It's fun, but doesn't always have a positive result.

Taking 10, 15, 20 minutes every day to do this exercise of being still and just watching the monologue has been really valuable to understand and recognize that state, which makes it easier to deflect. And I haven't lost anything; that thinking mode is still available if I really need to puzzle something out. But it's in service of something, rather just than a runaway train.

Re: People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard

#390
post #358

I think people are dumb, and I'm not being derogatory about 'the 'masses' or any such crap. I'm unbelievably dumb. It often takes me a ridiculously long time to come to a solution to a problem, where the answer seems like it should be obvious. Instead my slow, feeble mammal brain takes forever to grope blindly around the issue before getting any traction. Lets say there is a scale of sentience that goes from 1, which…

I doubt that is true given the literal forms of intellectual disorders. Given sufficient time a society with say limited to be just shy of mentally disabled could progress but slower. Say a few centuries "tech period" at 1700s Europe scale. We could still have done much better however in reduced generation times between advances just by not being stubborn about inconvenient new facts and theories from upstarts.

Also ability to drive things forward is limited/driven by things other than just intelligence. Look at Hero's steam engine - without the other metalworking technologies it was a curiosity. Having slave workers do the task was more efficient than having them gather more expensive fuel for an expensive machine to do the task. Also look at the "discovery" that Aristotlian flight paths for thrown objects was wrong. Who already knew for centuries? Literally anyone who actually worked or fought with projectiles but they weren't in contact with them. (Eastern warrior-elites generally would also mock them given the prevalence of aristocratic archery there).

By geographic time scales (read: compared to every other species) we still look like a division by near zero near assimtope.

Post reply on HN