gwern comments on Open Thread, September 15-30, 2012 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 15 September 2012 04:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (206)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 17 September 2012 02:04:51AM 4 points [-]

Evidence is building that High intensity interval training, e.g. Tabata sprints, is more effective at physical conditioning than low intensity endurance techniques. In terms of weightlifting, "low-rep, high-weight" workouts seem to be better than "high rep, low-weight" workouts.*

I wonder if something analogous is true for mental training. E.g., will you improve mathematical ability faster by grinding through a bunch of relatively easy problems, or by spending a shorter amount of time mentally exhausting yourself on problems that push your limits? Anyone know of any solid evidence?

My experience seems to reflect the latter being more effective. I spent a lot of time my last year or two of undergrad grinding through a bunch of relatively easy calculus problems in order to finish up my degrees in a reasonable amount of time. In my second year of grad school, I took a measure theoretic probability & statistics sequence that was the opposite - a small number of problems, but each one was a struggle. It was rare that I could finish more than 25% of the problems the first time I attempted them. Unsurprisingly, I felt like I improved much more in mathematical ability after taking that sequence than I improved after my undergrad calculus grind. The effect seems stronger than this though - I felt like the measure theory sequence improved my ability to do difficult yet standard calculus problems more than the calculus grind ever did even though I wasn't actually doing those types of problems during the measure theory sequence. The effect was probably mediated through improving my general mathematical/logical reasoning abilities. Now these are just my impressions - untrustworthy for the whole gamut of reasons - plus even if we take them at face value there's a ton of confounders. Nonetheless, it's Bayesian evidence. Anyone else have a similar experience?

* I'm not an expert here and could very easily be wrong. If you have evidence one way or the other to share, please allow me (and others) to update.

Comment author: gwern 17 September 2012 02:59:55AM 2 points [-]

How about 'deliberate practice'? I'm fairly sure that it implies that you're working on a problem that challenges you and pushes your limits.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 18 September 2012 06:39:30PM 1 point [-]

I remember an unconference now from the July minicamp on deliberate practice now. IIRC the speaker suggested something similar to beoShaffer's comment.

Comment author: beoShaffer 18 September 2012 10:13:30PM 0 points [-]

I forgot to mention that I was basing my info on a keynote speaker that I suspect may have done the minicamp unconference. Was the speaker a female psychology professor who made numerous movie references.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 19 September 2012 01:19:08AM 1 point [-]

Nope, it was a male. I think it was Mark E, known around LW as Mark E

(I don't recall how to say/spell his last name, I just remember it being somewhat complicated and that it's also part of his LW name)

Comment author: beoShaffer 19 September 2012 04:35:50AM 0 points [-]

Nevermind then.

Comment author: beoShaffer 17 September 2012 03:17:09AM 0 points [-]

From what I understand deliberate practice would generally favor the small number of hard problems, especially for building overall mathematical competence/your ability to tackle hard problems. However, doing the easy problems in a challenging way, like trying to do them as fast as possible while still maintaining a high standard of accuracy, would also lead to improvement, particularly for you ability to do that specific type of problem quickly and accurately.