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

A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

kqed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#11

Post by PartiallyTyped »

zlg_codes wrote: post #9
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what’s the damn point To churn out proletariats who will be happy and replaceable little cogs in the capitalist machine. No, for real, schools follow the same damn paradigm established in the Industrial Revolution. They have no interest in deepening your understanding and you can see that in the people hired to teach.

You are correct, but it's sad that education isn't about knowledge. We're forced by market conditions to seek money more than knowledge. I've developed quite a cynical view of the world, with each new truth that's revealed about our society and the nature of people, my faith and trust lowers. But is it really cynical if, everywhere you look, you find evidence of its truth? Rhetorical question but I think about it dai…

You can very much make education about knowledge, god knows i have always been thirsty for knowledge, but that’s the adhd in me seeking novelty.

I think that the broader society doesn’t encourage those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge, the know-it-alls, it doesn’t promote curiosity because curious minds question everything and leave no stone untouched, you don’t want that, you dont want people questioning your authority or capacity to rule metaphorical kingdoms.

But I don’t think this view implies something sinister either. I think it just shows how much trauma we carry through from our upbringing. I don’t think the average person wakes up and chooses some form of punishment for others.

I think ultimately we are all just trying to live some decent lives, and part of that includes avoiding confrontation with our shortcomings because that’s a difficult thing to do, especially if you are not used to.

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#12

Post by whatever1 »

To an outsider I look like a programming language fast learner. I picked up python in a month and passed multiple big tech interviews.

Reality is that I had been programming in C++, fortran and DSL for over a decade.

Similar examples from colleagues in college and schoolmates. People with strong foundations seem to learn faster, but the reality is that there is past effort that you don’t see.

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#13

Post by closed »

People questioning the headline are missing the point of the underlying article.

The underlying study is not about just rate of learning, but rate of learning under favorable conditions.

The article describes where the data comes from:

> In particular, we model learning using 27 datasets with over 1.3 million student performance observations from 6,946 learners in 12 different courses ranging across math, science, and language learning, across educational levels from late elementary to college, and across educational technologies including intelligent tutoring systems, educational games, and online courses

And the authors argue this is favorable learning conditions because of providing things like immediate feedback on errors, etc..

Lots of room for nuance, but "favorable learning conditions" is key here.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2221311120

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#14

Post by g42gregory »

vannevar wrote: post #5

It seems unlikely that everyone learns at an identical rate, and the article itself seems to contradict that conclusion: "The fastest quarter of students improved their accuracy on each concept (or knowledge component) by about 2.6 percentage points after each practice attempt, while the slowest quarter of students improved by about 1.7 percentage points." That's a small difference in a single incremental component,…

If this is true, which I think it is, this bring another, very important question: How this article got published? Who initiated it, who paid for it and why? What was the motive behind this publication?

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#15

Post by mrnotcrazy »

zlg_codes wrote: post #9
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what’s the damn point To churn out proletariats who will be happy and replaceable little cogs in the capitalist machine. No, for real, schools follow the same damn paradigm established in the Industrial Revolution. They have no interest in deepening your understanding and you can see that in the people hired to teach.

You are correct, but it's sad that education isn't about knowledge. We're forced by market conditions to seek money more than knowledge. I've developed quite a cynical view of the world, with each new truth that's revealed about our society and the nature of people, my faith and trust lowers. But is it really cynical if, everywhere you look, you find evidence of its truth? Rhetorical question but I think about it dai…

I think depends on the context as to whether or not it’s cynical and how much is hard evidence vs personal perception. You think the world is in bad shape cause the national trend is towards a lower trust society? I don’t think that is necessarily cynical. If you doom scroll and have now collected a bunch of scary things you Have to be anxious about, probably a bit cynical.

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#16

Post by christofosho »

toss1 wrote: post #4

Big, if true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm not sure that single study meets the bar. It is certainly a valid issue to measure starting point as well as ending point to measure learning rates, but to claim that this entirely accounts for apparent differences in learning rates such that there are no differences exceeding 1% just strains credulity. Just looking at my own learning rates on…

There are so many factors. Compounding knowledge, ability to focus, and environment are crucial components to learning. That plus motivation and interest, diet, sleep, and knowing how your brain learns best.

It's interesting to look back in time at things you did that maybe didn't add much to your schema/knowledge bank. Also interesting to look around at what others focused on.

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#17

Post by lhuser123 »

whatever1 wrote: post #12

To an outsider I look like a programming language fast learner. I picked up python in a month and passed multiple big tech interviews. Reality is that I had been programming in C++, fortran and DSL for over a decade. Similar examples from colleagues in college and schoolmates. People with strong foundations seem to learn faster, but the reality is that there is past effort that you don’t see.

> but the reality is that there is past effort that you don’t see.

This. Always this.

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#18

Post by lIl-IIIl »

I remember reading a study that a classic bell curve doesn't exist for home schooled students - all students reached a certain level of aptitude. However, if you graph "time taken to reach target aptitude", the bell curve comes back.

Unfortunately now I can't find where I read that despite extensive searching. I want to say it was attributed to Maslow.

Anyway, this article claims the exact opposite by saying people learn at the same rates.

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#19

Post by ecshafer »

whatever1 wrote: post #12

To an outsider I look like a programming language fast learner. I picked up python in a month and passed multiple big tech interviews. Reality is that I had been programming in C++, fortran and DSL for over a decade. Similar examples from colleagues in college and schoolmates. People with strong foundations seem to learn faster, but the reality is that there is past effort that you don’t see.

Learning a second programming language is always easier than the first, or rather second language within a paradigm. Going from C++/Java to Prolog is for example a really alien experience. But to C#, its largely just syntax.

Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist

#20

Post by rapind »

vannevar wrote: post #5

It seems unlikely that everyone learns at an identical rate, and the article itself seems to contradict that conclusion: "The fastest quarter of students improved their accuracy on each concept (or knowledge component) by about 2.6 percentage points after each practice attempt, while the slowest quarter of students improved by about 1.7 percentage points." That's a small difference in a single incremental component,…

> And there is a bit of a compounding effect, as the accumulated advantage of the fast learner would unlock progress on additional components that the slower learner lacked enough background for.

I’m not sure about this. Could you give an example (any subject) that would help me understand?

Post reply on HN