This is my live document called "learning". Here, I want to keep track of my thoughts about learning itself. Thoughts are separated by long horizontal line. They are not blog posts, merely notes to self (and maybe others).
START THOUGHT 1:
The best way to maximize both instantenous learning (knowledge directly applicable to X, K(X)) and the future rate of learning (reducing the amount it will take us to learn abstractions of X, A(X)) is to self-study. This is what we will refer to as "goals" of learning X. Thus, by learning X, we do not only want to learn X, but also make it easier for us to learn X-adjacent topics in the future. Our goal is essentially to max(K(X)) and min(A(X)). The latter (A(X)) is especially ignored in the traditional school system by the educators, and thus, as it does not appear in any M(X), students as well.
In a regular setting (classroom), you are given a map of X (M(X)) and then have a tour-guide walk you through the realm of X, as described in M(X). In better cases, the student knows the entire M(X) beforehand. In the worse cases (although I'd think these are appearing the most), the students is discovering M(X) as they walk through it, even though M(X) is already computer at T=0.
Usually, one does not have much flexibility when it comes to M(X). Of course, you can pick up and learn whatever subset of X you want (as is the point of this rant), but, assuming you are in a regular setting, this might not be possible and/or optimal.
This is especially concerning for those who want to "raise" future leaders / shapers / or whatever fancy meaningless word you've came up with this time. How are these brilliant minds going to shape a space they did not map themselves?
There's actually 2 problems to being given and following a pre-created M(X).
- M(X) was merely handed to you (duh): thiis is supressing your ability to orient in unknown spaces, creating a dependency on map-creators and increasing your A(X).
- You have not created this M(X) yourself: this is not the same as the point before. By merely adapting M(X), not creating it yourself, you are adhering to a dogmatic M(X), inheriting all preconceived assumptions and pitfalls you will be carrying with yourself for a non-trivial period of time (in the better case). This is especially visible with e.g. students of average computer science programs. One could also argue that this is hindering our ability to progress in X.
How does one determine "X-adjacentness"? TBD but Adj(A, B) for any A, B should be non-zero.
What is self-studying? Self-studying is 1v1ing X with little to no previous experience in X itself. Having knowledge in X-adjacent fields is beneficial, as described above.
Problem 1: Corectness of your knowledge. This is a tough one, TBD.
The more time you spend 1v1ing new concepts & googling, the smarter you become. The school making you smarter is just a side-product of this process. A bad teacher might end up being the best teacher you've ever had. If you're motivated enough to 1v1 the class. Everything is out there. Tell me one thing you will not learn given enough time and an internet connection. I honestly can't think of one.
START THOUGHT 2:
Learning a topic X is applicable for topic X and all levels of its derived abstractions, naturally with diminishing returns.
This also means that in order to obtain the greatest knowledge of Y, one should, theoretically, obtain knowledge of X, where Y was abstracted on top of X.
This works in an inter-disciplinary fashion, as well as intra-disciplinary fashion.
Examples:
maths -> stats? (implying stats is an extension / abstraction on top of pure mathematics) lowlevel compsci -> high level compsci?
The uber-example: philosophy ---> all of sciences.
END THOUGHT 2