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

$30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 257 posts

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#241

Post by npunt »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #210
npunt wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, disagree. If kids can't read, write, or do math, they won't be able to adapt to whatever is relevant in their adult lives. These are the foundations of every other skill, and schools teach these and are assessed by them. And if they don't need to read, write, or do math in their adult lives, it's likely something has gone horribly wrong for the human race and the only way out is to learn to read, write, and do ma…

I haven't dug into the gritty details of the article and the testing, but it's easily conceivable that "read" means Shakespeare, "Write" means fiction, and math means ... well actually pretty much all math is important :lol: As a marginal choice I'd rather every kid know how to write a good opinion piece on current events, or a technical document closer to RFCs, than writing some fiction. Of course, even better if we…

I think you vastly underestimate the importance of fiction. Fiction may be the best canvas for creative and abstract thought, the place where possibility is explored and the 'what' and 'why' is established, without being mired in details. Before we invented things, we thought of things to invent, and in those moments we were writing fiction.

Technical writing is 'how', and that's being absolutely consumed by AI. When AIs can build anything, the question of what we should build and why is the most important.

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#243

Post by pas »

Teever wrote: post #233
eudamoniac wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that old. "Just ban phones" worked perfectly fine when I was in high school in 2010. "Just ban cigarettes" also worked, and no one was smoking in the classroom. It's not a hard problem; the administration just refuses to solve it.

How do you expect anyone to take what you just wrote seriously when there's such a blatantly obvious difference in the detectability of the use of these two different products?

what do you mean? if some kid doesn't want to pay attention they can draw doodles, daydream, read a book under the table, talk to other students, and finally ... be on their phone. we did all of these! (played snake on a 3310.)

up to a point the teacher's job is to notice these, and motivate the student to pay attention (report cards, detention, extra homework), or ask for them to be removed from class if they are disruptive, if necessary permanently.

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#244

Post by qsera »

bob001 wrote: post #232
qsera wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The peer review process provides a minimal level of verification But this is only true if you trust the peer more than the author. Because both the author and the peer are not accountable to you or to mostly none. So "peer review", without any other qualification is as good as shit. Every time I see people go "BUT IS IT PEER REVIEWED !??" I can't help but chuckle.

> But this is only true if you trust the peer more than the author Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. Not one. Not the other. The failure mode is that BOTH are untrustworthy and not that EITHER is untrustworthy on their own. This is different from no peer review where the author is a single point of failure. There is furthermore the overall system of peer review with some level of c…

>Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy.

The point is that trusting two is not better than trusting one when both of them have equal chance to be malicious.

> human society if built on the exact same vague fuzzy framework.

May be, but we can try to call a spade a spade and not pretend that something is more trustworthy than it is.

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#245

Post by bob001 »

qsera wrote: post #244
bob001 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this is only true if you trust the peer more than the author Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. Not one. Not the other. The failure mode is that BOTH are untrustworthy and not that EITHER is untrustworthy on their own. This is different from no peer review where the author is a single point of failure. There is furthermore the overall system of peer review with some level of c…

>Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. The point is that trusting two is not better than trusting one when both of them have equal chance to be malicious. > human society if built on the exact same vague fuzzy framework. May be, but we can try to call a spade a spade and not pretend that something is more trustworthy than it is.

> have equal chance to be malicious.

Is A has a p chance of being malicious and B has a q chance of being malicious then the chance of them both being malicious is pq. pq I'm honestly not sure why its so hard for you to understand that TWO people being malicious at the same time is less likely than either being mailicous on their own.

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#246

Post by qsera »

bob001 wrote: post #245
qsera wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. The point is that trusting two is not better than trusting one when both of them have equal chance to be malicious. > human society if built on the exact same vague fuzzy framework. May be, but we can try to call a spade a spade and not pretend that something is more trustworthy than it is.

> have equal chance to be malicious. Is A has a p chance of being malicious and B has a q chance of being malicious then the chance of them both being malicious is p q. p q I'm honestly not sure why its so hard for you to understand that TWO people being malicious at the same time is less likely than either being mailicous on their own.

This is why "scientists" cannot be trusted. They "thinking" is disconnected from real world dynamics.

> both being malicious is pq.

Not if p -> q. If p is malicious, a malicious q is most probably maliciously picked by p to review this study.

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#247

Post by mlrtime »

bandrami wrote: post #200
mlrtime wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this troll response all the time stating families don't want "poors" as some kind of attempt at manipulation to feel I am a bad person. I [given the chance] would also vote against apartments in my particular neighborhood, and it has nothing to do with being poor at all.

Saying it's about poor people is the polite version, unfortunately

Nope, you are wrong. But I'm sure you feel confident that you're right. Hope that works out for you.

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#248

Post by mlrtime »

array_key_first wrote: post #237
mlrtime wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this troll response all the time stating families don't want "poors" as some kind of attempt at manipulation to feel I am a bad person. I [given the chance] would also vote against apartments in my particular neighborhood, and it has nothing to do with being poor at all.

It's about it lowering the value of surrounding property, which is just "oh no poors" but roundabout. But it's not your fault, it's a systemic issue. The fact you even care about your property value is the problem, not the fact you have to care about it. That's not your fault, you're just playing the game you have to play like everyone else.

Not directly, no it's not about lowering of property value. It's also not your fault that you make assumptions about how other people make decisions without critical thinking.

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#249

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #230
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That basically is the suggestion. The world is not an RPG, where being good at one thing necessitates you being bad at everything else. On the contrary, aptitude in one task is pretty well correlated with being good at any task. We need, for a nation the size of the United States, millions of teachers. Quite literally. The process that somehow selects not one good (or more literally, very few , just so the pedants d…

Are people really arguing that there are few good teachers? In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, most people can list a mix of good and bad teachers they had over their educations. The goal is just to increase the proportion of good teachers, and hopefully raise the floor of the how good the worst teachers are. Increasing pay probably won't raise the ceiling on how good the best teachers are. If they've got that…

> Are people really arguing that there are few good teachers?

Yes, in general, people from both the left and right argue this, though they quibble over details. And people like you chime in with "we could get better teachers if we paid them more", which strongly implies that you don't think that the current batch are sufficient.

If they're already good, then why do you want to pay them more? I don't see extraordinary outcomes that deserve extraordinary pay. And in any even, even if you do see extraordinary outcomes, the pay they're receiving is sufficient, because they agreed to accept it.

>most people can list a mix of good and bad teachers t

Sure. And one or two truly bad teachers can spoil a child for their entire school career. Hell, here in the United States, they don't have multiple teachers per year until 7th grade, give or take... one bad teacher can truly fuck that kid up. Even later on though, they can do alot of damage. I don't think the "there only one little turd in your soup" defense holds up when it comes to education.

>The goal is just to increase the proportion of good teacher

Let's just double pay to have 0.4% more good teachers, huh?

Re: $30B for laptops yielded a generation less cognitively capable than parents

#250

Post by array_key_first »

mlrtime wrote: post #248
array_key_first wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about it lowering the value of surrounding property, which is just "oh no poors" but roundabout. But it's not your fault, it's a systemic issue. The fact you even care about your property value is the problem, not the fact you have to care about it. That's not your fault, you're just playing the game you have to play like everyone else.

Not directly, no it's not about lowering of property value. It's also not your fault that you make assumptions about how other people make decisions without critical thinking.

Unfortunately I am forced to make assumptions when people choose not to tell me their intentions. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt - I couldve assumed the reason was much worse, which is frankly probably the case since you refuse to say it.

If you don't want to be on the defensive, try to make your position comprehensible.

Post reply on HN