= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
falenas108 comments on Leveling IRL - level 1 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (91)
I think it should be a "do a certain number of the below" style thing, to account for different skill sets in people. For example, I have close to no programming experience, and there are others who have no abilities in writing or memorization.
For chess, there are programs online that have computers of various difficulty levels, that would be an easy way to judge chess ability. But, this would be another example of specialized skill sets; I know some people who are extremely intelligent but have no chess ability whatsoever, and they shouldn't be held down to a low level solely due to lack of ability in this one area.
I brought this up too - it's also relevant in cases where a person isn't interested in gaining skill in a certain area. I consider the issue to still be up for discussion, but in the meantime I don't see a problem with taking a 'this bit is useful to me, so I'll do it; this bit isn't, so I'll ignore it' approach.
Is OP really suggesting that to get Level 1, you need to do all those things? (I think the quote kind of suggests that.) I think a lot more reasonable approach (and one I thought OP was advocating) is to just measure Levels separately for each skill.
This looks pretty clear to me, though it is noted as "what I [the OP] think":
Hmm, you are right. It's just that kind of system makes no sense to me. Not everyone needs or wants to learn programming/chess/etc..., which I guess was your original point. :)