31–40 of 49 posts
In my town we have something called The Science Cafe. The presenter has describe an interesting topic in 20 minutes without [computer] slides, followed by Q&A. This is not easy now that conference talks and course lectures heavily use powerpoint. TED science talks are similar.
I could do my maths/stats stuff with a whiteboard or flip-chart for occasional images.
How do the biologists or ecologists get on? Actual (large, paper) charts?
"If you’re not learning you’re standing still" This is a large understatement. In our industry, if you're not learning you are drifting backwards rapidly. I aim for twenty hours a week of (unpaid) reinvestment and learning. Some weeks I still feel like that's not enough to stay current. Does anyone else feel the same way?
I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Most of the "new" things in the industry are just rehashes of old things with a different coat of paint and some added abstractions to slow it all down.
In my town we have something called The Science Cafe. The presenter has describe an interesting topic in 20 minutes without [computer] slides, followed by Q&A. This is not easy now that conference talks and course lectures heavily use powerpoint. TED science talks are similar.
"If you’re not learning you’re standing still" This is a large understatement. In our industry, if you're not learning you are drifting backwards rapidly. I aim for twenty hours a week of (unpaid) reinvestment and learning. Some weeks I still feel like that's not enough to stay current. Does anyone else feel the same way?
> if you're not learning you are drifting backwards rapidly I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Most of the "new" things in the industry are just rehashes of old things with a different coat of paint and some added abstractions to slow it all down.
And this doesn’t even touch on learning outside of ones field, which is great for well-roundedness and for discovering parallels one doesn’t necessarily find within a single domain.
--
This is not a novel concept, and it’s just a bit of fortuitous branding that Richard Feynman’s name got attached to it, but the Feynman technique is a framework for learning new things. It’s very simple:
1. Pick a concept you want to learn, such as “what is company stock?”
2. Ask some very practical questions, like:
- “What is it?” - “Why do we need it?” - “What alternatives are there?” - “When did it come about?” - “Who uses it?” - “What are its various forms?” - “Where is it commonly used?”
3. All of these questions will invariably branch out into even more jargon and concepts, such as “equity,” “preferred stock,” “voting rights,” “limited liability” and so on.
4. Repeat #2 for each of those branches. By the end, you should know the first principles so well you could teach the concept to a college freshman.
Three things about this framework immediately jump out at me:
(1) Learning something deeply is necessarily a lot of work. It’s not like you’re just answering “what is X.” You’re asking ten questions about it, each trying to get at it from a different angle, and then asking ten questions about each of those underlying concepts. The bottleneck to knowledge then is not so much ability, but effort.
(2) Learning something deeply is largely a function of the questions you ask. The greater “coverage” your questions span on the concept surface area, the better you will understand it. In this framework, asking good questions is a necessity.
(3) Questions are also where new insights come from. Once you understand all the factors which compose “company stock,” you’re able to toggle individual factors on and off, and ask questions such as: “can you have stock with unlimited liability?” or “what would stock in people look like?”
.
[1] https://alexpetralia.github.io/2017/12/25/NL-2017-12-25.html
There is a youtuber junior md called Ali Abdaal. He has very good scientific videos about learning. Talks about subjects such as “active recall” and “spaced repetition”. Worth a look imho. Here is the youtube channel link: https://m.youtube.com/user/Sepharoth64 Video on a.recall and s.repetition: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukLnPbIffxE
That's usually how you can identify good people: when they can explain complicated things using simple words, in a way that their audience can understand it. People that need lots of expensive words and leave you feeling dizzy at the end of their presentation often don't know very well what they are talking about either.
---
So what if—just another fancy idea of mine—what if Chomsky cannot find anything in my work that goes "beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old because" because, when he deals with continental thought, it is his mind which functions as the mind of a twelve-year-old, the mind which is unable to distinguish serious philosophical reflection from empty posturing and playing with empty words?
--Slavoj Žižek
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1365-some-bewildered-clarif...
> When you write out an idea from start to finish in simple language that a child can understand (tip: use only the most common words), you force yourself to understand the concept at a deeper level and simplify relationships and connections between ideas. If you struggle, you have a clear understanding of where you have some gaps. That tension is good –it heralds an opportunity to learn. I have lived with my grandpa…
Apply it to people who you disagree with politically. Apply it to your relationships at home and work. It's basically what Fred Rodgers, Dale Carnegie, Marshall Rosenberg (and hundreds of others) all talk about.
Although I think Shane's article serves as a good introduction to the Feynman Technique, I feel it could go further when it comes to how to actually implement it. Notably, I'd argue the Feyman Technique - and Feynman was especially good at this - revolves around asking good questions . Here's a related excerpt from my blog post on the topic[1]: -- This is not a novel concept, and it’s just a bit of fortuitous brandin…
Although I think Shane's article serves as a good introduction to the Feynman Technique, I feel it could go further when it comes to how to actually implement it. Notably, I'd argue the Feyman Technique - and Feynman was especially good at this - revolves around asking good questions . Here's a related excerpt from my blog post on the topic[1]: -- This is not a novel concept, and it’s just a bit of fortuitous brandin…
This is the truth and it makes me struggle when I want to learn something but not so deeply. When learning a new concept, I often find myself dfs the tree and end up somewhere very far in a single branch without gaining the comprehensive understanding of the concept.