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

We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

zettelkasten.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 188 posts

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#11

Post by cyanydeez »

Etheryte wrote: post #7

> If you can’t produce a comprehensive answer with confidence and on the whim the second you read the question, you don’t have the sufficient background knowledge. While the article makes some reasonable points, this is too far gone. You don't need to know how to "weigh each minute spend on flexibility against the minutes spent on aerobic capacity and strength" to put together a reasonable workout plan. Sure, your wo…

The US is, however, learning exactly what happens when rationality is not part of the equation. This is all a dance around what is a "fact" and how to string facts into a reasoning model that lets you predict or confirm other potential facts, etc...

It's simply different people we're talking about. Certain personalities are always going to gravitate to the "search for reason" model in life rather than "reason about facts".

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#14

Post by RicoElectrico »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #2

It’s the same with math. A lot of people say they don’t need to be able to do basic arithmetic because they can use a calculator. But I think that you can process the world much better and faster if at a minimum you have some intuition about numbers and arithmetic. It’s the same with a lot of other things. AI and search engines help a lot but you are at an advantage if at least you have some ability to gauge what sho…

With or without calculator some people have an aversion to calculation and that's the problem in my opinion. How much bullshit you can refute with back of the envelope calculations is remarkable.

This, and knowing by heart all the simple formulas/rules for area/volume/density and energy measurements.

The classic example being pizza diameter.

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#15

Post by mock-possum »

> Looks good alright? Or does it? How do you know? You can’t if you don’t have sufficient background knowledge … If you can’t produce a comprehensive answer with confidence and on the whim the second you read the question, you don’t have the sufficient background knowledge.

> “I just ask ChatGPT for that, too!”, the AI generation might ask. Ok, and then what? How can you assess the answers … you are taking on an impossible task, because you can’t use enough of your brain for your cognitive operations.

So it’s Zeno’s paradox of knowing stuff?

It can’t be impossible to know things, you’ve just got to decide when you know enough to get going on. Otherwise you’re mired in analysis paralysis and you never get anything done.

I do agree that deep knowledge of the foundations a subject - particularly a skilled practice or craft - is a path to proficiency and certainly a requirement for mastery. But there are plenty of times when you can get away with ‘just reading the documentation’ and doing as instructed.

You do not first need to invent the universe in order to begin exercising, you can just start talking a 20 minute walk after lunch.

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#16

Post by scottLobster »

alphazard wrote: post #4

> Rowlands et al. wrote about the so called “digital natives” that they lack the critical and analytical thinking skills to evaluate the information they find on the internet. This doesn't match the cultural shift in the last 20 years. A generation of people grew up with chat rooms and immediately discovered the ability to misrepresent oneself on the internet. "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog", as they say…

Well it doesn't help that the media, even when it doesn't lie, often simply refuses to report on various issues depending on the whims of producers.

I'm an older millennial, probably one of the last generations who was formally taught that organizations like the New York Times and CNN were authoritative, bibliography-worthy sources of information due to their reputation and standards. I haven't cared much about what either outlet has produced in years. For every good investigative piece there's a mountain of obvious propaganda or refusal to cover topics they find uncomfortable with any objectivity.

The signal to noise ratio is so low, why pay attention? There's a lot of bad takes on twitter and non-mainstream media (to put it mildly) but it at least makes me aware of more things.

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#17

Post by procaryote »

> The reduced engagement with the material reduces the emotional weight of the whole line of action. You mind is an engine that is fuelled by emotion. Without any emotion, you don’t think. Rather, you try to imitate thinking efficiently.

This doesn't sound true and they don't seem to offer any support for the claim.

There's a whole host of emotion-driven cognitive biases, where an effective counter is to reduce the emotional weight of the whole line of action.

Of course, to their credit, it's only by remembering those biases that I could see their error

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#18

Post by mmargenot »

> You have to remember EVERYTHING. Only then you can perform the cognitive tasks necessary to perform meaningful knowledge work.

You don't have to remember everything. You have to remember enough entry points and the shape of what follows, trained through experience and going through the process of thinking and writing, to reason your way through meaningful knowledge work.

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#19

Post by nradov »

cyanydeez wrote: post #11
Etheryte wrote: post #7

> If you can’t produce a comprehensive answer with confidence and on the whim the second you read the question, you don’t have the sufficient background knowledge. While the article makes some reasonable points, this is too far gone. You don't need to know how to "weigh each minute spend on flexibility against the minutes spent on aerobic capacity and strength" to put together a reasonable workout plan. Sure, your wo…

The US is, however, learning exactly what happens when rationality is not part of the equation. This is all a dance around what is a "fact" and how to string facts into a reasoning model that lets you predict or confirm other potential facts, etc... It's simply different people we're talking about. Certain personalities are always going to gravitate to the "search for reason" model in life rather than "reason about f…

At least in the field of sports science and exercise physiology, we have very little in the way of facts. Much of what we once thought were facts have been disproven or at least called into question by later research. So we need to be humble, and very circumspect in what we label as a "fact".

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#20

Post by NitpickLawyer »

wolttam wrote: post #9

I remember things just fine, just not at the sufficient detail to remember all aspects at the drop of a pin. What I hold on to are the core concepts that allow me to hit the ground running when I have to interact with the subject-matter again.

> What I hold on to are the core concepts that allow me to hit the ground running when I have to interact with the subject-matter again.

Exactly. And those also come with doing the thing, or watching the thing being done, or reading about the thing, or thinking about the thing. You often don't have to actively try to kastle / cram / grok / etc the information to remember it. Just being exposed to it will make you remember some of it. Knowing where to get more accurate info is often a greater skill / benefit than knowing the details yourself. Especially in fields where knowing all the details yourself is almost impossible.

Weak article.

Post reply on HN