Live data from Hacker News

I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

experimental-history.com

231–240 of 360 posts

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "To my shame I've never read Dickens" I suggest dropping the shame; you're not missing much. IMHO Dickens is hugely overrated. Paid by the word and it shows.

Go for "Great Expectations", "David Copperfield" and "Bleak House". If they are not great novels, I don't know what are.

"A Christmas Carol" will never be a great novel, but there is a reason it is beloved the world over for what it is.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#232
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s certainly true that an adult would tend to have more additional knowledge and be better able to understand a lot of writing, but if you avoid exposing kids to anything they don’t have total understanding of the context of, you won’t really be able to teach them anything. Discussing books can help provide some of that context they’re missing. It’s probably fine to teach arithmetic before algebraic number theory t…

I'm honestly of the opinion that teaching children arithmetic (as in, having them perform arithmetic algorithms) is not just a complete waste of time, but actually detrimental as it sours them to the idea of anything labeled "mathematics".

At their young age, it typically takes children the ritual of performing arithmetic algorithms at least several dozens of times if not a hundred times to get them to understand and internalize the algorithm itself. You can't actually teach the algorithm itself because they haven't studied basic algebra yet, so the only approximation is using the algorithm on multiple numbers. Then afterwards just give them a calculator.

In contrast, in high school, when a student has sufficient mental maturity to understand algorithms abstractly, it suffices to have the student do a few integrations by hand (say using the integration by parts technique) and then hand them a computer algebra system.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#234

The anecdote about the garden of earthly delights is going to be relatable even for art students. I've met art teachers that ended up "trapped" in Madrid by the Prado Museum: A green, American future Ph.D student that was heading to Greece to specialize in old greek art. But instead of flying straight there, they stopped at Madrid to see the Prado, and were never able to leave. Changed their direction immediately, an…

Totally. The right way to approach an art gallery is definitely just to walk round until something hits you. Most astonishing time that happened to me was a wall-sized Rothko that just floored me, in a way I never would have expected a slab of color to. Dali’s La Gare de Perpignan stopped me in my tracks too. Rarely been as stunned by more famous works as when I got blindsided by something that leapt out and said ‘lo…

^^ this. I was never an art person and then one day I felt like I was just punched in the face when it hit me. It's not like "I like this, it's interesting", it's like "Oh. That."

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#235
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s certainly true that an adult would tend to have more additional knowledge and be better able to understand a lot of writing, but if you avoid exposing kids to anything they don’t have total understanding of the context of, you won’t really be able to teach them anything. Discussing books can help provide some of that context they’re missing. It’s probably fine to teach arithmetic before algebraic number theory t…

I'm honestly of the opinion that teaching children arithmetic (as in, having them perform arithmetic algorithms) is not just a complete waste of time, but actually detrimental as it sours them to the idea of anything labeled "mathematics".

You’re saying people shouldn’t be taught how to add and subtract?

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#236
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the archaic language can obscure the awesome idea. "Why are you Romeo?" may sound less poetic to modern ears, but isn't that how people back then would have parsed it - just as easily as everyday language, because it was their everyday language? I feel like in a way we're losing Shakespeare's intended effect, because we insist on using a "language" that isn't used anymore. Yes, I understand that it's consid…

I disagree. Shakespeare was not "plain" even in the 16/17th century. It wasn't archaic, but it was far, far from plain. The same is true for a lot of great literary works, even recent ones. Many great works have a lofty diction, which is easy to lampoon when inferior works veer into purple prose, but when it works, really elevates language.

True. But I think you can agree that the (now) archaic language and cultural context that would have been common knowledge back then gives an extra layer of difficulty over the already poetic/literary nature of the work

Watching Shakespeare has a similar feel to me as watching cartoons in Spanish as an intermediate Spanish learner. I can understand a lot of it. But I have to use so much of my brain power interpreting the language and get so distracted by unfamiliar phrases or words that I can't really get immersed in the story

I don't know, I guess it's just not for me. I think the 1700/1800's are about as far back as I can go

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#237
As they say, when the student is ready the teacher will appear. I think thick works though are not necessarily works with a lot of detail, but works where when you revisit them, you get something more from them. This does not have to be a detail, but more subtle, as if coming to contact with it the first time changed you as a person, and allowed you to see it with different eyes the second time.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#238
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly of the opinion that teaching children arithmetic (as in, having them perform arithmetic algorithms) is not just a complete waste of time, but actually detrimental as it sours them to the idea of anything labeled "mathematics".

At their young age, it typically takes children the ritual of performing arithmetic algorithms at least several dozens of times if not a hundred times to get them to understand and internalize the algorithm itself. You can't actually teach the algorithm itself because they haven't studied basic algebra yet, so the only approximation is using the algorithm on multiple numbers. Then afterwards just give them a calculat…

>Then afterwards just give them a calculator.

If problems were properly designed the students shouldn't even need calculators. In math the specific numerical value of a result is far less important than how it relates to the inputs. Raw calculation doesn't develop the intuition of when one operation is more appropriate than another.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly of the opinion that teaching children arithmetic (as in, having them perform arithmetic algorithms) is not just a complete waste of time, but actually detrimental as it sours them to the idea of anything labeled "mathematics".

You’re saying people shouldn’t be taught how to add and subtract?

I'm saying young children shouldn't be led to believe that that's what math is. People should probably learn how to do basic operations, but it should have much, much less emphasis than it does now, and it would be much more useful to teach intuitions regarding how to stop when you've made an error, how to estimate, which operations useful when, etc. As an example of what I mean, my mom is an accountant and I've caught her on at least one occasion multiplying a monthly interest rate by 12. That's an OK method to estimate, but it's pointless when you're doing it on a calculator anyway.

Re: I like 'em thick: an apology to my English teachers

#240

I disagree with many of the points. First, as a point of style it makes no sense for the author to have chosen “thick” rather than the more common adjective “deep”. They describe the same thing, and “deep” even works much better for the cave analogy which is central to the author’s argument. Deep also has ties to game theory, where increasing depth introduces exponential complexity. The deeper you calculate in chess…

This comment is just truly bleak and I hope you find something artistic that you can enjoy the depth of. The fact that some things are considered classics is not a mercenary logistical concern. Some movies are considered classics and this has nothing to do with library budgets. Standing the test of time indicates that it’s not just a product of the cultural trends of the time and speaks more universally.

If you think my comment is bleak you should read Jane Eyre. Then come back to my comment if you’d like to get cheered up. It is truly a miserable book.
Post reply on HN