pedanterrific comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong

63 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 January 2007 03:46AM

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

Comments (336)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Peacewise 26 October 2011 06:48:18AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for your response Manfred.

So it's a "9 point" positive to say something that reiterates a commonly perceived problem and offers no solution and also makes a factual error, but to direct someone to a place that actually addresses their problem is a -1. Cool, I'm getting a feel for the website now, cheers.

Let's try this. It's actually pretty easy to test for deeper learning. For example multiple choice questions have previously been considered as examples of shallow learning, or if you prefer shallow testing, and in the past that was accurate and indeed in some still existing multiple choice questions there isn't a path towards deep learning. However consider this question.

The 11 letters in the word PROBABILITY are written on 11 pieces of paper, and a piece of paper chosen at random from a bag. Which of the following statements are true? a)The probability of selecting a "B" is less than the probability of selecting an "I". b)There is a greater chance of obtaining a consonant than of obtaining a vowel. c)A vowel is less likely than a consonant. d)If you repeated the experiment a very large number of times, approximately 63% of the results would be consonants. Make your selection, note that you may select more than zero answers.

Now since "advertising" for CDU might be deemed as somewhat negative, am I permitted to share the details of a book one could read to understand how deep learning for mathematics can be taught to middle school students? Or would that be advertising also?

Elementary & Middle School Mathematics : Teaching Developmentally by John A. Van De Walle, Karen S. Karp and Jennifer M. Bay-Williams, published by Pearson International.

Comment author: pedanterrific 26 October 2011 07:14:43AM 4 points [-]

So it's a "9 point" positive to say something that reiterates a commonly perceived problem and offers no solution and also makes a factual error,

If you're Robin Hanson, sure. Also note that the comment is from '07: the voting system wasn't put in place until after the move from Overcoming Bias (Hanson's blog) to LessWrong. If a similar comment was made today it would probably be voted up much higher. Or maybe downvoted, who knows.

but to direct someone to a place that actually addresses their problem is a -1.

Here, I gave you an upvote. Now it's a 0. Karma means too little to stress out over like this.

Cool, I'm getting a feel for the website now, cheers.

Good day to you too.