81–90 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the author is mostly suggesting you buy his book entitled ULTRALEARNING (all caps), and reading anything more into his content-driven marketing strategy is a waste of time.
You have fallen victim to the Genetic fallacy
Possibly an over-simplification. Take this example: I want to sight-sing hymns. I know a bit of music theory but it's been cobbled together over the past year in an haphazard fashion. I pick up a hymnal to sing the first hymn and immediately need to look up the key signature (I never memorized them). Then I see the hymn is 12/8 time and realize I only superficially covered rhythm and time signatures. I go on YouTube…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'll take it a step further and ask, do adages actually contain any signal at all? If you have a saying "try try again" and another saying "don't bust your head against a brick wall" which one wins? When? Yes, they do and there are certain factors you need to consider before saying they don't contain any signal. Some factors are: 1. What is it really trying to say? In your example, try and try again does NOT mean tr…
>> In your example, try and try again does NOT mean try and try the SAME thing again. Who says? For surfing, "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" may seem to apply. And maybe you get on the board again and nail it. Or maybe you get on the board and get a concussion. Because aphorisms are just very reductive phrases they contain almost no data. I contrast this with a sentence that has a ton of signal "The av…
Other adages work similarly: they connect disparate memories together based on some abstract similarity and provide a hook that can be used to recall them.
Possibly an over-simplification. Take this example: I want to sight-sing hymns. I know a bit of music theory but it's been cobbled together over the past year in an haphazard fashion. I pick up a hymnal to sing the first hymn and immediately need to look up the key signature (I never memorized them). Then I see the hymn is 12/8 time and realize I only superficially covered rhythm and time signatures. I go on YouTube…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have fallen victim to the Genetic fallacy
I don't think I have. I think that the vagaries of SEO and the goal of promoting the author's brand/book is definitely the reason this article is several screens instead of a 3 word aphorism that we all just shrug at and move along.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am someone who wants to get better / generally back into Chess Who/what should I watch? Where can I find good videos/analysis?
How strong are you? The St. Louis Chess Club has a great collection of Chess lectures at various levels: https://www.youtube.com/user/STLChessClub I also like Agadmator's YouTube channel - he analyzes famous games as well as games from current tournaments and such: https://www.youtube.com/user/AGADMATOR I also like chesstempo for puzzles: https://chesstempo.com/ I'm not very strong, though, so take what I say with a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How strong are you? The St. Louis Chess Club has a great collection of Chess lectures at various levels: https://www.youtube.com/user/STLChessClub I also like Agadmator's YouTube channel - he analyzes famous games as well as games from current tournaments and such: https://www.youtube.com/user/AGADMATOR I also like chesstempo for puzzles: https://chesstempo.com/ I'm not very strong, though, so take what I say with a…
Is there any way to know which videos are good for which levels on the St. Louis Chess Club channel?
1. Kids' Beginner - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7kkP5en4Qo&list=PLVWaFpMwta...
2. Beginner - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8XxkotWVkY&list=PLVWaFpMwta...
3. Intermediate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym8KgIfeMtE&list=PLVWaFpMwta...
4. Advanced - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_g5Wyb57xQ&list=PLVWaFpMwta...
Possibly an over-simplification. Take this example: I want to sight-sing hymns. I know a bit of music theory but it's been cobbled together over the past year in an haphazard fashion. I pick up a hymnal to sing the first hymn and immediately need to look up the key signature (I never memorized them). Then I see the hymn is 12/8 time and realize I only superficially covered rhythm and time signatures. I go on YouTube…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_note
The basic idea is to make it much easier to sight-read songs in different keys. With shape notes, the "Do" in solfege is always the same symbol, regardless of the key signature. So it'd be a "C" in C Major, but the same shape appears for an "F" in F Major. Once you can recognize the 7 shapes, you can suddenly do two things very easily:
- Find "Do" and feel your way around the song using it as an anchor, without any risk of losing it
- Re-pitch the song so that the melody is in a more comfortable range
The first point helps out a lot with interval training, as it short-cuts the key signature translation steps. You no longer have to remember that a C -> an E (or was it an Eb in this key?) is a major third, you just look at the "Do" shape and the "Mi" shape following it, and hear what you should do.
The second point was especially useful as a song leader in my youth. Some of the composers had an optimistic idea of how high our tenors could comfortably sing, so over time I learned to nudge the key up or down a few steps to keep the voices comfortable. (This was a congregation of worshipers, not a trained choir.) Shape notes made that easy to do, since everybody in the audience could still follow the music and often without realizing that I'd changed the reference key on the fly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You want to start running? Put on some shoes and go for a run. I did that, went for a run every day, overexerted my ankle, couldn't walk normally for a week and couldn't run for weeks after that, and got out of the habit of running again for a very long time. Your advice might work in specific cases for specific people, but for others it might be harmful. It is, in my opinion, not advice fit for "broadcast": you ne…
Sounds like you didn't respond to your bodies natural negative feedback mechanism. You are bashing the method when in this case you were completely responsible for the failure. He never says in the article to keep doing something even if it is painful. If you went for a run and experienced pain, I think it would be safe to start trying to stretch or figure out why this happens. This is still compatible with the metho…
And your refinement of the advice only coincidentally happens to work because my injury was non-acute. There's plenty of sports where you can seriously hurt yourself if you don't know what you're doing, without any prior warning.
And the advice also only works under the assumption that you get multiple chances, that you will not catastrophically fail on your first go. All of the following sound absurd: - if you want to fly an airplane, just fly an airplane - if you want to build bridges, just build a bridge (not a toy one, that's not "the real thing", one that people will actually use) - if you want to skydive, just knit a parachute and jump out of a plane
Of course, you'll say that that's not what you or the OP mean with "doing the real thing" and they're obviously insane. But they're just edge cases to prove a point, you don't need to fail this catastrophically to cause serious harm. OP writes about someone rejecting a job that requires fluency in French, without posting any details about that job, then judges the person for rejecting that job out of hand. That is just crazily irresponsible, it may very well have been a job where she has to communicate in French with French-speaking clients, and where a miscommunication might cost her company a large contract, cost her or her colleagues their jobs, or just sink the company altogether.
I think if your advice has this many edge cases where it is harmful, you should think carefully about who you are delivering it to. I'm not saying it is bad advice in all circumstances, it might be exactly what some people need to hear. But it is bad advice to broadcast unqualified.
Definitely agree with the article, and would like to offer a useful supplement to "doing the real thing": "watch someone very skilled do the real thing". Watching a pro can really accelerate skill acquisition because it will expose you to high quality ideas that would have been difficult to develop on your own. Want to get better at Backgammon/Chess/Go? Play a lot of games (at various time controls). Yes. But also wa…
However, the part not touched on is that things you do passively do build up knowledge too - and it's not an exertion like active learning is. Absentmindedly watching Chess streams when relaxing is good to call out as not an intentional active learning experience, but as long as you're treating it as relaxing it's the kind of thing that is fuel for shower thoughts and can refuel capacity for active learning. As the article says, the "real thing" is hard and tiring, and doing "fake things" can add depth to understanding as well as recuperate for the next struggle. Being mindful and aware of what you're doing and pushing yourself to be doing the real thing when possible is my takeaway from the article.