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

Study Tips from Richard Feynman

piggsboson.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#61

Post by mod »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #47
paulpauper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like an MLB player telling you if you want to get better at baseball to throw the ball faster . thanks.

This reminds me of this poem I read somewhere: === Are you willing to put in the time to learn to throw the ball faster, even if it takes hours and hours of throwing that ball over and over again? Or will you say that it's only for those who are good at throwing the ball very fast and submit voluntarily to being average?

This poem reminds me of Carol Dweck and the growth mindset.

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#62

Post by kaba0 »

harry8 wrote: post #24
pkoird wrote: post #3

There's the famous Feynman method i.e. Study hard, Teach it to others, Identify the gaps in your own knowledge, and Simplify/Synthesize. But people often also forget that there is another method associated with Feynman aka The Feynman Algorithm (which was outlined by his colleague Murray Gell-Mann, a noble prize winning physicist himself). This method goes as follows: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3.…

>Not to discount or discredit anything (or anyone) here but we must understand that Feynman was no average person and that his advice on anything related to learning or problem-solving must be viewed through an optics that adequately adjusts for his intellect as well. I wonder about this a little. Let's assume the premise, Feynman was "no average person". To what extent is this explained by the hardware, as it were,…

Arguably, the human brain is both hardware and software - while neural networks are not representative of real neuron networks, but we can sort of use them as a basis - without sufficient connections/neurons, you simply mathematically can’t solve certain problems (as in the end, neural networks just subdivide an n-dimensional problem space).

So while brains can and do develop new connections, there is likely a non-linear effect of having “better” connections by default.

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#63

Post by hatmatrix »

v-erne wrote: post #60
felix318 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t believe in talent until after I spent over ten years trying to learn music, and then seeing 5 year-olds on YouTube doing stuff I can only dream of. True, some, perhaps most of it is hard work, but talent makes the process a lot easier.

I suspect that there is some overgeneralization going on with the term "talent". We see something that is hard for us and we immediately throw it in the same bag. Even if there can be some better explanation. There is a lot of micro abilities that goes into any complex thing and if You skip on any of is it can change things from easy to impossible. Just look at any disabled person - and compare how hard is for them t…

I think "talent" can be interpreted as being the amalgamation of those relevant microabilities. But in addition to innate talent, there is luck as well - besides being lucky enough to have been born into the first world, I think connecting with the right teacher or the right material that speaks to the way you learn makes a big difference.

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#65

Post by corobo »

qiskit wrote: post #8
pkoird wrote: post #3

There's the famous Feynman method i.e. Study hard, Teach it to others, Identify the gaps in your own knowledge, and Simplify/Synthesize. But people often also forget that there is another method associated with Feynman aka The Feynman Algorithm (which was outlined by his colleague Murray Gell-Mann, a noble prize winning physicist himself). This method goes as follows: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3.…

> Teach it to others If there's no one around, try explaining it to yourself. An easy method to determine whether you superficially understood a topic or not. After reading some material, it's remarkable how little of it you've truly understood sometimes.

Record it and play it back too! That way you get both the explaining and the being explained, now you can notice new things while past you is talking too :)

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#66

Post by spaetzleesser »

felix318 wrote: post #16
willis936 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Feynman might disagree. https://youtu.be/IIDLcaQVMqw

I didn’t believe in talent until after I spent over ten years trying to learn music, and then seeing 5 year-olds on YouTube doing stuff I can only dream of. True, some, perhaps most of it is hard work, but talent makes the process a lot easier.

Try any sport and see how some new people come in and start at a level that others won’t achieve even after years. This makes you believe in talent quickly.

With physical abilities this is more accepted but I don’t see a reason why mental capabilities would be any different. Some people just have more powerful brains by birth. You can achieve a lot by exercise and discipline but some people can achieve higher levels than others.

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#67

Post by usgroup »

I study a lot . I’m ok at it —- certainly no great talent. I haven’t learned any methods worth a damn and not for lack of trying, but I feel I know things about my own learning machinery which has made me much better at it over time.

In my opinion, learning how to learn is nuanced and operator specific. Lots of us are in the long tail of people for who highlighting, skimming, Anki, etc makes no difference. So, the advise from Feynman and generally I usually find is insufficiently meta — or overly first order if you prefer.

You’ll get more purchase starting at the second order, but few articles are titled “learning how to learn how to learn”.

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#68

Post by posed »

throwaway9278 wrote: post #54
harry8 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't actually know this. I acknowledge it might be true but it also might not. How do you know what you're calling brilliance isn't a different kind of study, for example? Feynman suggests he got a buzz out of puzzles his whole life from a very early age and sought them out. With his local reputation among family, friends, school others brought them to him as well. He did inter-school stand-up math competitions,…

No. We do know this. We know cognitive ability varies between people. It's obvious to everyone who's competed with others in mental competitions, and it's born out by a century of psychological research. You can't just train to win the Putnam if you don't have the talents. Have you ever sat and worked problems with someone exceptional in that area? Try it if you get the chance. The variation in ability will blow you…

Disagreed. Look at the Polgar sisters for example.

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#69

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #4
pkoird wrote: post #3

There's the famous Feynman method i.e. Study hard, Teach it to others, Identify the gaps in your own knowledge, and Simplify/Synthesize. But people often also forget that there is another method associated with Feynman aka The Feynman Algorithm (which was outlined by his colleague Murray Gell-Mann, a noble prize winning physicist himself). This method goes as follows: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3.…

My variation on that method: 1. load my brain with all the context of the problem 2. go out for a run, which bounces it all around in my brain until things fall into place 3. write the solution when I get back

[deleted]

Re: Study Tips from Richard Feynman

#70

Post by whatshisface »

amelius wrote: post #58
whatshisface wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nice to get free stuff from nature but you can't go back and ask for more.

How do we know if that is true?

Because right now nootropics (pills that make you smarter) don't actually work and performance enhancing drugs shorten your lifespan and damage your health in various different ways. Furthermore based on the way drug discovery goes you're not likely to go off and invent a safe and effective version of either of those.

That means that for now, a philosophically resigned stance combined if you're contributing to research with curiosity to motivate you rather than an expectation of any results, is the most appropriate stance as far as anyone knows.

Post reply on HN