<author>
"To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach."
I've noticed it myself, too. You really do forget what it's like until you find someone who /really/ wants to learn but doesn't know anything at all. I think there's a lot to be said for the apprenticeship system for use in human learning. I have severe doubts about the ability of a human to master a thing without a student to teach.
I think the real question is how do we retain information better, if that would happen, then surely you don't need someone to actively remind you of hidden information. If I retained 1% of the stuff I've read in the past, I'd be the equivalent to an encyclopaedia. I write tutorials sometimes, and my ability to write good ones has never depended on the presence or absence on participants.
Interesting thread, I see these huge lists all the time full of links, resources etc. But something to think about is that someone who wants to program most likely already has a plan. And if they don't, I don't think they have the time or ability to decipher this material.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
To me, the real turning point is if and when we learn how to precisely control our personalities - in short, reengineering human nature itself. Of course there's the nature vs nurture matter in this, not to mention all the potential factors than even go into a personality, let alone alter it. But I'm 100% against uncontrolled transhumanism, or even mere unregulated genetic modification or augmentation.
Though, let's suppose there was a way to correct obviously harmful behaviorial defects with at least a partial genetic basis, particularly behavior every society would see as egregiously harmful, and especially criminal (supposedly anti-social personality disorder- such as psychopathy - is one of these). Would the prospect of even reducing that behavior be worth it?