Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
scientificamerican.com
Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#2I was going to write a "Previously on Hacker News" comment, but no one commented the one time this was posted before ...
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#3I was going to write a "Previously on Hacker News" comment, but no one commented the one time this was posted before ...
There was a small Scrabble-related discussion recently:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40391290 Scrabble, Anonymous
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#4> For example, it may one day be possible to give people precise information about their abilities, and of the likelihood of achieving success in particular domains given those abilities.
As a technical matter, sure.
However, part of me would like to suggest that using tech as some sort of Delphic Oracle for human lives (especially the young) may not be in optimal taste.
Possibly just letting life be life, and not getting too frisky with putting boundaries on human potential, may be preferred.
Shifting from the singular to the plural, this kind of analysis might actually be helpful. Telling the young person that the marriage has a diminishing likelihood of existing over time could help to cool some hormones.
And then, obviously, corporate risk management is not new, and anyone making large moves without banging the numbers won't be making large moves for long.
Just don't tell the kids to stop believing. Hold on to "that feeeeeeeling".
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#5[flagged]
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#6[flagged]
Indeed. The mistake is thinking it’s a language game. It’s about symbols and territory.
Tournament winners often don’t know any of the language the symbols are borrowed from.
But… when played less competitively, like with kids, it’s a wonderful word learning game.
Also to your joke about Risk: I grew up with a math version of scrabble where you wrote equations. I loved it.
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#7[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#8I was going to write a "Previously on Hacker News" comment, but no one commented the one time this was posted before ...
[deleted]
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#9[flagged]
Indeed. The mistake is thinking it’s a language game. It’s about symbols and territory. Tournament winners often don’t know any of the language the symbols are borrowed from. But… when played less competitively, like with kids, it’s a wonderful word learning game. Also to your joke about Risk: I grew up with a math version of scrabble where you wrote equations. I loved it.
Note that TROOZE and KIBI are not legal words (or existent words), and AA, while derived from a real word, is misspelled.
Re: Scrabble and the Nature of Expertise (2015)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The mistake is thinking it’s a language game. It’s about symbols and territory. Tournament winners often don’t know any of the language the symbols are borrowed from. But… when played less competitively, like with kids, it’s a wonderful word learning game. Also to your joke about Risk: I grew up with a math version of scrabble where you wrote equations. I loved it.
Note that TROOZE and KIBI are not legal words (or existent words), and AA, while derived from a real word, is misspelled.
Aa lava? I always spelled it that way in undergrad. Now I’m curious. I guess one could argue without the accents it’s incorrect. But then we get into the pedantry of how most words are wrong as they’re mostly borrowed and mutate over time. No true Scotsman in the dictionary.