= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on How to learn a new area X that you have no idea about. - 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 (39)
Edit2: thank you for your kind support! I found it good feedback :)
It has given me cause to have some concerns arising from you finding it useful.
The reason is - From interacting with you over the lesswrong site; I don't evaluate your opinion to be mainstream in society; or even mainstream within Lesswrong (to make this clear; thats a good thing for you). The concern is that you may be effectively a, "canary in the coal mine" kind of indication that I have not done what I set out to do in writing this.
I have two theories as to why you found it useful:
you happened to need it and I provided it at an opportune time.
This guide is not actually helpful to the boring ordinary humans; or the more-frequent-in-number and less-often-expressive lesswrong user.
I am glad you found it useful; but also I want to not deluding myself that this was helpful to many people if it was not. I expect it will lower the chance of me making more things like this if it is not helpful to the broader slice of people.
Can you perhaps enlighten me on your thoughts on 1 & 2?
Edit: for making my statement more clear.
LOL
I hope my reasons are reasonable about that...
Well, you are on LW. It's... unusual to find here reactions which can uncharitably be summed up as "OMG, the freaks like it, what's WRONG with it??!?"
It sounds that bad? Dangit!
I am aiming to generate rationality content that is applicable to mainstream; clearly I am not doing that if my hypothesis was correct.
Does that statement make sense?
I have a nasty mind and a propensity for snark, so I can't guarantee that my reaction matches the mainstream :-P
If you actually are aiming at a target, you need to define it a bit better. "Mainstream" is very very fuzzy and a lot of that mainstream is pretty dumb.
how about replace "mainstream" with "a large number of people"
That's just making things fuzzier.
There is usual advice that one should write for a particular audience. Who is your intended audience?
My purpose was, "generate rationality content". And create a guide where I could not previously find a guide describing how to learn a new skill X.
Who might find this guide useful? (a similar question to who is my intended audience)
I am not sure how to better test for those two groups of people.
So, let's try a couple of different examples. Let's take (1) the skill of sailing a small boat; and (2) the skill of starting a social interaction with strangers. Do you think your guide would be useful for these two specific examples?
Trying to understand how learning actually happens, or how, from your point of view, it's supposed to happen?
Say you're aiming to catch a bear. So you put out a a pile of fish. A crow eats one. Does that mean that bears don't like fish? No, and while you're thinking about that you might any bears going for the fish.
Cryptic as that is; I understand; trouble is that the bears didn't eat many fish. So maybe these bears don't like the fish that I put out...