Based on this article, anyone complaining about how hard their classes were just didn't drink as much I did. They certainly couldn't have studied less. That I'm certain of.
A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
41–49 of 49 posts
Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
#42It 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,…
Look, the politburo has demanded that there be no difference in learning rates and thus there shall be no differences in learning rates.
Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
#43It 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,…
Look, the politburo has demanded that there be no difference in learning rates and thus there shall be no differences in learning rates.
At least among castes. Can you imagine a world where an epsilon-minus semi-moron has a learning rate equal to an alpha-plus?
Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
#44It 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,…
> That's a small difference in a single incremental component, but it represents a difference in learning rate of a whopping 35% I guess I see the glass as half full, because that’s easy to overcome. If a top learner is only 30% better, an average person could study for an hour and a half instead of an hour and easily surpass them. Time management is the ultimate superpower, and it’s something you can get better at,…
> I guess I see the glass as half full, because that’s easy to overcome.
It means that some will effectively be at grade 8 level in grade 12, that is not easy to overcome.
> an average person could study for an hour and a half instead of an hour and easily surpass them
That is just for homework, you won't get 50% longer schooldays. 50% more work means you have to spend many hours extra every day to learn as much as the faster kids do just by going to class. And that time is lower quality, you make much better connections when you don't strain yourself by spending all day studying.
Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
#45It 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?
Math is the canonical one. You need arithmetic to get to algebra. You need algebra to get to geometry. You need geometry to get to calculus. Everything builds on each other, so you can’t skip to calculus when you barely know how to add.
There is a component of most domains where you figure out the fundamental building blocks and you can learn a bunch of different branches in any order without much overlap, but that’s usually after the initial mastery equivalent to math’s calculus.
Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
#46This is not natural science, but these scientists are doing the best they can to support their theories anyway.
I wouldn't consider myself an expert in non-natural science, even though I do understand some of it to an extent.
So I could take this at face value, it's quite plausible that nobody has ever been fast.
This fully explains the confirmation of different learning rates universally observed over the millennia, we're all just different degrees of slow.
Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Math is the canonical one. You need arithmetic to get to algebra. You need algebra to get to geometry. You need geometry to get to calculus. Everything builds on each other, so you can’t skip to calculus when you barely know how to add. There is a component of most domains where you figure out the fundamental building blocks and you can learn a bunch of different branches in any order without much overlap, but that’s…
Understood and I agree. What I’m not convinced of is that learning speed would have a compounding effect because of this. If we assume a vacuum where the only difference is learning speed than any leaps the fast learner make by combining previous knowledge would eventually be made by the slow learner. It’s just a linear control (assuming all else is the same) and subject / lesson shouldn’t matter.
I could see plenty of real world impacts of course. Discouragement / encouragement due to peer comparisons, limited availability of resources like teachers, etc.
Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The world needs ditch diggers as much as it needs PhD’s. We can come up with fictional stories about how robots or AI will magically do everything, but in the real world you need people to dig holes. Training people to follow instructions is a necessary kind of education. You can already see problems forming as a result of how education has changed in the last few years. Lots of people who can code but a massive shor…
It doesn't help that those jobs are hard on the body and are not compensated enough to make up for that deficiency.
I love problem solving but the trades do not look like a healthy place to work.
Re: A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then saw they don't exist
#49FWIK public school systems create workers. Private school systems create employers. Courtesy General Education Board / JD Rockefeller / a time when labor advantages in America were in demand.