Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Lesson to Unlearn

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 588 posts

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#561

Post by donmatito »

The most interesting class I took in my entire studies (Soft Matter physics) was also the one with the most interesting exams.

Our year's 2-hour exam was the following. The professor gave us a small cup of water, a piece of paper, and a piece of toilet paper. There was only 2 questions - place one end of the paper in the water. Describe what happens. Explain - place one end of the toilet paper in the water. Describe what happens. Explain

The year before us was with a small piece of glass and a small piece of potatoe - breathe on the glass. Describe. Explain - rub the potatoe on the glass. Breathe on it. Describe. Explain

You REALLY needed to understand the class material to succeed in these seemingly simple tests

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#562

Post by closeparen »

mwfunk wrote: post #355
knzhou wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have to try, because the alternative to standardized testing isn't some egalitarian utopia, it's nepotism.

Yeah. I love HN and many of the thoughts expressed on it, but if there's one thing that always jumps out at me as being an incredibly widely held cognitive bias in the tech community, it's a tendency to view certain things in a very black and white, binary fashion, and to treat certain very complicated, messy problems with lots of social nuances as if they were simple problems, if only everyone could be rational abou…

Exercising power over other people is a serious thing. It's extraordinarily presumptuous to believe you have designed a rule that will do more good than harm. I'm much more worried about the cognitive bias that says that because someone is currently the decision-maker, they must be competent at it.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#564

Post by adyer07 »

I’m returning to school for a BFA in art, and I’m constantly surprised by exactly how un-hackable the assignments are, compared to my experience studying engineering. It’s finals season, and many people (myself included) take it as an excuse to push and make work that is harder and more complex than they could during the rest of the semester. Most classes are pass/fail, so the only reward is having better work (and a better portfolio). You could duct tape a banana to the wall, but that’s on you to live with.

Maybe there aren’t a lot of fine artists starting YC companies, but how about designers who went to art school? Do they treat these problems differently? Do they have less to unlearn, or different bad habits?

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#565

Post by OnlineGladiator »

susijdjdjxa wrote: post #558
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as you grow, that ten percent of underperforming people becomes large in absolute numbers, and is very painful to deal with. I think you could reduce the 10% to 1% simply by actively firing bad employees, and the easiest way to do that is with a probationary hiring period (let's say 6 months, maybe a year). I am fully aware of how systemic rot can be, and how hard it can be to remove. The real problem is when y…

I’m a pretty good engineer, and I’m never going to join any job with a probationary period. It could turn out to be a bad manager or something and I would end up with a messed up resume. Why would I accept some kind of second-class status when Google etc. are willing to hire me with normal employment terms? I think you’d have a serious adverse selection problem if you only hire people who are willing to take such a j…

I can honestly say the place I worked that had a probationary period had the most talented team of anywhere I have ever been, and I have worked with FAANG before, as well as unicorns.

Like I said, it's not for everyone. A bad manager can ruin your experience anywhere and fire you regardless. That place was just very forthcoming about the fact that you need to demonstrate value if you want to keep your job.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#566

Post by speleding »

prox wrote: post #34
manmal wrote: post #20

My wife and I are contemplating unschooling our kids. The longer our son is in primary school, the more we see the deterioration of his willingness to learn anything school-related. He hates homework (as do most kids), and this is even more painful to see given that it has been shown that homework is essentially useless for learning performance. He still likes to write and do math, but as long as he is in school, we…

I remember this history teacher who was a breath of fresh air. He told us in advance his test where very simple. And the reason was quite genius: if you just listened and took a few notes here and there, you’d pass the test. Which freed the mind to really absorb the knowledge and have fun with the subject matter. He was also very good in discerning knowledge and teaching why a certain topic was good to know. I think…

Sounds good, but I could easily see this backfire with students that have been taught to hack the system: "Great, we're getting an easy pass here, let's spend zero time on it and focus on those other subjects that require rote memorising"

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#567

Post by Kaiyou »

taeric wrote: post #291
knzhou wrote: post #264

As somebody who has designed some of the tests Paul Graham is complaining about, it really is hard from the other side! For example, it's long been known in the physics education research community that students come away from introductory courses with very little physical understanding, even if they can do the plug and chug problems on typical tests just fine. Students can all recite Newton's third law, but immediat…

It is amusing how many of my peers still hold to the notion that heavier things fall faster. Not a higher terminal velocity, but the intuition that they accelerate faster. Hilariously tough for folks to shake.

If your model can't be used to predict things in reality, then what good is it? If I throw a feather down from a rooftop and then I let a brick fall down, the brick will hit the earth first. The heavier thing falls "faster".

You can use a bunch of words to explain what's really going on there, but it won't change that the brick hits the earth first, hence it falls faster. Unless you can predict the future correctly and communicate this simply to your peers, what's the point of being correct in the terminology?

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#568

Post by Kaiyou »

rglullis wrote: post #279
knzhou wrote: post #264

As somebody who has designed some of the tests Paul Graham is complaining about, it really is hard from the other side! For example, it's long been known in the physics education research community that students come away from introductory courses with very little physical understanding, even if they can do the plug and chug problems on typical tests just fine. Students can all recite Newton's third law, but immediat…

> If the people aren't motivated, any standardized measure will miss the mark Shouldn't that be a sign that trying to come up with standardized measures is a fool's errand? Short of blatant social engineering, I don't see how we can have a system that could improve people's motivation and drive for education. And if we don't have a way to actually change human nature, why do we keep trying to design this system that…

It's pretty straightforward to motivate people. You just have to make that what you teach them has value that they can use immediately. For example, to motivate someone to train in self-defence, just beat them up every week. Now learning self-defence will have value in their life. If they don't get beat up weekly, what's the point of learning self-defence? If it's only once a year, then who cares. Spending time every day to counter something that only happens once a year isn't worth it. It's less trouble to get beat up once a year than it is to spend learning self-defence daily.

There just has to be an immediate value in what you teach. If there isn't, there's no point in teaching it. Students will just forget it anyway after the test.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#569

Post by mncolinlee »

Perhaps one of the most noticeably hackable tests I've participated in is democratic elections. I ran for office a few times and learned a lot about how the system actually works. I believe this is why politics has such a negative connotation. Ultimately, voters want politicians to do what's right and politicians learn they have to gain the genuine love of one group and appease a large enough cross-section of groups without offending an important one.

If there's one thing I learned in politics, the biggest hack is in having a great narrative. Ultimately, brands, companies, and politicians are characters in our consciousness that only achieve meaning through the stories they tell.

Essentially, the story must be believable and ring true to the audience being targeted according to their past experience. For example, evangelicals love a good redemption and hard work story. Each group has their own highest morals. I'd recommend "Don't Think of An Elephant" by George Lakoff, which explains how politicians hack the human mind by crafting an entire language that plays into their hopes and fears.

I'd love to have every test in life be genuine and unhackable. But when tests are clearly so hackable, it doesn't help to not call out how the hack works. Call it responsible cultural exploit disclosure.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#570

Post by taeric »

Kaiyou wrote: post #567
taeric wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is amusing how many of my peers still hold to the notion that heavier things fall faster. Not a higher terminal velocity, but the intuition that they accelerate faster. Hilariously tough for folks to shake.

If your model can't be used to predict things in reality, then what good is it? If I throw a feather down from a rooftop and then I let a brick fall down, the brick will hit the earth first. The heavier thing falls "faster". You can use a bunch of words to explain what's really going on there, but it won't change that the brick hits the earth first, hence it falls faster. Unless you can predict the future correctly a…

I distinguished between velocity and acceleration.

My point was strictly that many people will falsely think gravity somehow meaningfully pulls lighter objects at a lower rate. This despite days off lessons that gravity on Earth is basically a constant.

That is to say, if your model of speed of things falling is hinged solely on gravity, it will not be predictive in the extremes.

Of course, most folks aren't playing in the extremes, so the simple model will be fairly predictive of everything they do actually toss around the room. Can easily explain why the stack of books fell at the same speed as the basketball when the dresser was knocked over. :)

Post reply on HN