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

You can't tell people anything (2004)

habitatchronicles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 201 posts

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

toohotatopic wrote: post #41
jerf wrote: post #7

I often think of this as "it's hard to tell people the solution to a problem they don't have", or don't know they have. I think it's one of the major problems in the entire structure of the educational system... it's all telling people solutions to problems they don't have yet. Sometimes this is just unavoidable; I'm not sure how to turn geography into a problem you have. (I mean, you can fake it, but people's brains…

This comes with the assumption that everything worthwhile to learn is interesting. Having boring stuff to learn has its own merits. If everything is fun to learn, how do people learn to learn? Or rather: How do they learn to find the interesting angle in a boring problem?

Everything worthwhile to learn is interesting, more specifically, if you identify what makes you worthwhile to you to learn, that also makes it interesting.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#152

Post by cmonnow »

analog31 wrote: post #123
ChuckMcM wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is very insightful. I hated higher level mathematics specifically because I couldn't see any use for it. Due to a variety of circumstances I ended up taking my math classes out of sequence with the physics and EE classes in my EE degree and as a result I'd get a concept introduced in math that had no apparent use, only to find out the next semester or year what you would use it for. Very frustrating at t…

>>> I hated higher level mathematics specifically because I couldn't see any use for it. That's why I loved it. But I think this is a dilemma of teaching any number of subjects: How to convey both the useful aspect and the intrinsically interesting aspect, for lack of a better term.

You loved something because you didn't see any use for it ?

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#153

Post by cmonnow »

deanCommie wrote: post #114
d23 wrote: post #61

I also call this the head nod effect. It's particularly a problem in technical discussions. I've come to the conclusion that 90% of the time 90% of people don't understand what 90% of what's being said. You essentially have to start from a point of already understanding entirely what the person is saying to be able to keep up, unless they're just saying something completely trivial. The glue that keeps the illusion t…

> No one wants to be the person that stops the speaker every 30 seconds to get clarification on every piece of jargon I have found that one of the best thing about attaining Seniority at work (as an SDE) and the trust associated with it is you don't have to worry about proving yourself to anyone, and can afford to look stupid. I actually learned this from Principal engineers who over and over would start questions wi…

> one of the best thing about attaining Seniority at work.. you don't have to worry about proving yourself to anyone

but to reach Senior, you must head nod a lot when you're junior (and then later research it yourself if interested), because otherwise you'll likely be deemed stupid and won't make it to Senior.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#154

Post by memexy »

vl wrote: post #131
memexy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of VR, do you have a favorite headset? Or have you used one that you thought was good?

Discussed in detail here today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23620374 Short answer: Oculus Quest

Thanks.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#155

Post by pathsjs »

cmonnow wrote: post #152
analog31 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> I hated higher level mathematics specifically because I couldn't see any use for it. That's why I loved it. But I think this is a dilemma of teaching any number of subjects: How to convey both the useful aspect and the intrinsically interesting aspect, for lack of a better term.

You loved something because you didn't see any use for it ?

Why not? It's a stereotype for pure mathematicians to like what they do because it's not applied, even though - like all stereoptypes - it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The thing is, once something is applied, it has to deal with all the complexity and uglyness of the real world. But if you stick to abstract ideas, you are only limited by your imagination and logic. The mundane aspects of an applied field can detract from the pure beauty of an abstract subject.

I am not saying that this is always true, and sometimes it is nice to see applications of some abstract concepts. But many people intentionally shy away from applications towards a more theoretical field.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#156

Post by [deleted] »

qwertygnu wrote: post #124
Mirioron wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think stories like this are important. They teach you to take a hypothetical scenario seriously. It teaches people to ask "what if X were true?" and to seriously consider the ramifications. This is a springboard into abstract thinking. Without people taking the hypothetical seriously they will want to deal with concrete things and will have trouble with abstract reasoning. Imagine you were trying to hav…

So if a kid doesn't watch enough superhero/disney/scifi movies they won't understand racism...? I agree that stoking kids' (and adults') imagination is useful and has benefits. But it sounds like you're claiming they literally won't be able to conceptualize anything outside of reality without them.

[deleted]

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#157

Post by dkersten »

throw681158 wrote: post #149
gfxgirl wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mulan is great! The Lion King though, The evil dark skinned lion and his dark skinned underlings with immigrant accents take over and the world goes to shit. Only the light colored royal lineage can be in charge if you want a nice world.

Ehh, that reads like shoehorning in a political agenda to me. The hyenas aren't dangerous because they're foreign, they're foreign because they're dangerous. Their actions make them a threat - they're sneaky, mean and evil. That's why the lions don't accept them. Timone is also foreign. But like, if you want a parable they already gave you one: they aren't immigrants, they're Nazis.

> they're foreign because they're dangerous

They’re only dangerous because they’re excluded from the kingdom and are given little chance to survive. The entire narrative of Scar having control over them is based on him providing them with food, because their lands contain none. In the scene where they’re introduced, Scar brings them meat and his entire promise to them is “stick with me and you’ll never go hungry again”

Scar is evil and seeking power, but the hyenas are only following him because they’re looking for a better life, because what they have at the start is meagre.

At the end, when they turn on Scar, the threat seems to end, so it seems that only Scar has an agenda and the hyenas just want to live their lives. With Scar remover, the lands return to normal despite the hyenas still existing (although we’re not shown what happened to them, iirc).

Sure, they’re ruthless, but that’s at least somewhat understandable given their situation.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#158

Post by throw681158 »

dkersten wrote: post #157
throw681158 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh, that reads like shoehorning in a political agenda to me. The hyenas aren't dangerous because they're foreign, they're foreign because they're dangerous. Their actions make them a threat - they're sneaky, mean and evil. That's why the lions don't accept them. Timone is also foreign. But like, if you want a parable they already gave you one: they aren't immigrants, they're Nazis.

> they're foreign because they're dangerous They’re only dangerous because they’re excluded from the kingdom and are given little chance to survive. The entire narrative of Scar having control over them is based on him providing them with food, because their lands contain none. In the scene where they’re introduced, Scar brings them meat and his entire promise to them is “stick with me and you’ll never go hungry agai…

I don't think this is accurate. The hyenas are fundamentally sadistic and difficult to satiate. That's why they're poor - it's what got them banished. They make them hyenas to reinforce it's not brought on by the situation, they're just like that. You run the risk of a racial analogy whenever you use species to articulate personality but i don't think it's intended, even subconsciously.

I think it's actually a very deep analogy to real fascist regimes. Recruit the type of poor who beat people up in bars via rhetoric that implies the rich are responsible for both their situation, and that behaviour. One implication is that the rich are the only ones who are exploitative, and the leader of the revolution in particular is not. "When we win, I will be good to you." Then you end up with a dictator.

At a meta-level the point is that the hyenas are the type of people who are insatiable, which is why they're persuaded by empty promises of power and why everything turns to wasteland once they're in charge.

But even then, conflict is a fact of life. If the hyenas hate you, allowing them to take charge will suck for you, even if it's nice for them. It's not a nice point but IMO it's an important life lesson.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#159

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

throw681158 wrote: post #145
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #71

Training is hard. I've been training remarkably difficult-to-train people for decades, with really spotty success. Part of it was that I have never been "trained to train," so I cleared the minefield by dancing through it. I have learned to take Responsibility for communication. In my experience, if "they" don't "get it," it's my fault. The biggest problem that I have, is starting at too high a baseline (sounds like…

This reads like sales speak. My experience is the opposite. Some people take to concepts like a duck to water, some people are dopey and forget things you told them an hour ago, some people (most people) want you to hold their hand every step of the way and will actively try to avoid figuring things out independently. I want to say it's enthusiasm that matters, but a lazy smart person takes less time to train than an…

> This reads like sales speak.

I am not a sales person. I have been training people as a volunteer for decades. I have never made a dime (in fact, I am usually out-of-pocket by a fair amount). I am not a professional trainer or orator (or even a particularly good one), but I am an experienced one.

The people I have trained have faced enormous challenges in life, and are trying to get back up, after having been knocked down. I have not had the luxury of an eager, high-functioning audience. In fact, the audience has sometimes been actively hostile, and my training has not been effective (more often than I’d like).

Their enthusiasm is often unlike anything many folks will ever encounter; born of desperation, but so are the challenges. Many are folks with “knee-jerk” reactions to authority figures, which means I have needed to approach them carefully, and my personal demeanor and attitude could have a huge impact on my effectiveness.

The stakes have often been quite high (life and death). It’s been important for me to ensure that people get the help; not that I feel proud.

I simply wrote about my personal experience. This was not a typical “Internet armchair expert” post. Please note that I made a point of stating this was my experience.

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." –Attributed to Nasrudin, but made famous by Will Rogers.

I understand that your experience is different. I appreciate and honor that. I only ask that you provide me the same courtesy.

Please have some compassion. The world needs as much of that as possible, and I feel that social media has been highly corrosive to empathy.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#160

Post by Theodores »

jerf wrote: post #7

I often think of this as "it's hard to tell people the solution to a problem they don't have", or don't know they have. I think it's one of the major problems in the entire structure of the educational system... it's all telling people solutions to problems they don't have yet. Sometimes this is just unavoidable; I'm not sure how to turn geography into a problem you have. (I mean, you can fake it, but people's brains…

The example of git has another aspect to it - teamwork. If you are working on your lonesome then you really can have just the one branch and use git for backup purposes. You get a nice record of your work and you can roll back files to before the stage when you broke them. The rest of git beyond that seems a bit complicated, perhaps something that a genius linux developer might need but not necessary for your simple presence on the web. Heck, tarballs seem better suited to the task in hand and git really does seem to be solving a problem you think you don't have.

However, if you are working in a team with live code that needs to be updated in a formal way then the rest of git makes sense. It no longer seems to be theoretical mumbo jumbo, you have to learn this stuff to get work done and to stay on the team. At that stage you have someone such as a team lead who is able to actually teach you. It does relate to the project in hand and is not just some textbook example. You become a convert and git is solving problems you do have.

There is a slight chicken and egg with this though as you need to be able to use git to be in the team but learning it properly needs the team environment. It is like learning to play cricket all by yourself.

Maths is not something that the real world provides great examples for. Personally I get excited if I have to use basic trigonometry for work. If I have to use something like simultaneous equations I am ecstatic about it. Yet in maths education this real world 'advanced stuff' is just beginner grade. It doesn't even get a mention in the two inch thick maths textbooks from my undergraduate degree. The two inch thick maths textbook is utterly devoid of a single real world application, it is just symbols all the way.

If I was to make a TV series then it would be on the history of mathematics. In the day job I once used a formula that some Persian guy worked out 2500 years ago. I can't remember the specifics but I had a great feeling of standing on the shoulders of giants. This Persian guy didn't have a calculator, a computer, a biro, paper as we know it, the internet to quickly find answers or even the number zero. Yet his maths was neater than every example on Stack Overflow I found to help me with what I needed. So what was the problem he had to solve to come up with brilliant maths? How can we use his maths to solve problems in today's world? As soon as you start looking at maths with some incredible history telling the story it comes alive and is interesting. Importantly in this way of learning maths the actual formulas can be looked up rather than learned by rote. It is the application that matters rather than the abstract.

Post reply on HN