Great, informative read. Have to complain about this bit tho:
But learning from experience is the worst possible way to learn something. Learning from experience is one up from remembering. That's not great. The best way to learn something is when someone else figures it out and tells you: "Don't go in that swamp. There are alligators in there."
Works great for avoiding alligators. Fails miserably for riding bikes.
I dunno about that. I think it's probably easier to learn to ride a bike with someone experienced helping you.
If someone sets up the seat for you and explains how to shift and brake and rides with you a little bit, I'm sure learning would go much faster than if you were just left in a driveway with a bike and told to figure it out.
Not to detract from your point necessarily, but my anecdotal experience contrasts with this. I had no luck being told how to ride (I guess someone skilled in teaching rather than bike riding may have helped). In the end I was literally left in the driveway with a bike and not allowed back inside until I could ride. I picked it up in an afternoon.
When learning to ride a bike brakes and shifters are really irrelevant. You're going to crash anyway.
As for how I learned to ride, my dad took me to a hill, sat me on the bike and pushed me down. I learned how to ride pretty quick...well until I hit a small stump hidden by the grass.
After that I was mostly fine and learned to ride pretty quick.
If you want a kid to learn to ride a bike, remove the fear of failure. Do it on a gently sloping grassy hill that levels out, for example.
When I first learned to ice skate I learned that falling on ice fucking hurts. I didn't learn to ice skate. I learned to not fall over. Then my friend dressed me up in his team's goalie's pads - I pretty much bounced back up again if I fell over. By the end of an hour I could do the sprint exercises with the team and keep up (over short distances anyway!).
Yeah, I flinched at that part too, but for a different reason: it assumes that everyone else is honest and has the same goals you do.
Hiking destinations. I have a longtime friend and hiking buddy who really likes tough, exposed hikes up to the top of something, with a perverse derision towards anything resembling a freshwater source anywhere along the hike. But he also can't stand mosquitoes. At all. So, he might say, "Don't go in that meadow, there are mosquitoes in there." For me, they're annoying, but I like little hidden meadows, so maybe I want to go there.
And, also, there's a chance that you'll figure out something that nobody else has. You go in that swamp, even though someone warned you about the alligators, and you manage to avoid the alligators but you get a cut while you're in there and you discover that the swamp muck does something interesting with cuts, it actually disinfects them and helps them heal better.
My dad used to say that a smart man learns from his mistakes and a wise man learns from others'. The older I get, the more skeptical I become about that.
More likely, some exotic bacteria gets in the cut and you develop necrotizing fascitis.
Learning from your own mistakes instead of others' is a high-variance strategy. Our culture is better off because of the people that do it, but if you're selfishly looking to maximize your own expected value, you'll put great weight on the majoritarian view.
It would certainly be depressing to live in a world of John Nashes. On the other hand, if everyone were perfect bounded rationalists, we'd merely have to replace Causal Decision Theory and Evidential Decision Theory with something that can solve coordination problems--probably a variant of Timeless Decision Theory, which could already solve this particular problem in many ways.
LambdaMOO is a fascinating virtual world. Users are allowed to expand the virtual world by building areas, and users with the Programmer Bit are also allowed to program new objects and areas.
A recklessness on the part of the author within an otherwise thought-provoking set of ideas: his analogy concerning Calvinism and the "Book of Revelations" limps badly for a strawman. Evidently, not much time was spent reading John Calvin's "Brève Instruction chrétienne" (Brief Outline of the Christian Faith) nor "Revelation" (singular).
Yes, it's a good read, but it's eight years old (not that old is bad, just that it's not "news") and this essay has appeared in many places over the years, including the book "Best of Software Writing I", edited by Joel Spolsky.
Thanks for that, the full text is a much better read than Jeff's cut down version.
Great, informative read. Have to complain about this bit tho:
But learning from experience is the worst possible way to learn something. Learning from experience is one up from remembering. That's not great. The best way to learn something is when someone else figures it out and tells you: "Don't go in that swamp. There are alligators in there."
Works great for avoiding alligators. Fails miserably for riding bikes.
I dunno about that. I think it's probably easier to learn to ride a bike with someone experienced helping you.
If someone sets up the seat for you and explains how to shift and brake and rides with you a little bit, I'm sure learning would go much faster than if you were just left in a driveway with a bike and told to figure it out.
Not to detract from your point necessarily, but my anecdotal experience contrasts with this. I had no luck being told how to ride (I guess someone skilled in teaching rather than bike riding may have helped). In the end I was literally left in the driveway with a bike and not allowed back inside until I could ride. I picked it up in an afternoon.
When learning to ride a bike brakes and shifters are really irrelevant. You're going to crash anyway.
As for how I learned to ride, my dad took me to a hill, sat me on the bike and pushed me down. I learned how to ride pretty quick...well until I hit a small stump hidden by the grass.
After that I was mostly fine and learned to ride pretty quick.
Indeed.
If you want a kid to learn to ride a bike, remove the fear of failure. Do it on a gently sloping grassy hill that levels out, for example.
When I first learned to ice skate I learned that falling on ice fucking hurts. I didn't learn to ice skate. I learned to not fall over. Then my friend dressed me up in his team's goalie's pads - I pretty much bounced back up again if I fell over. By the end of an hour I could do the sprint exercises with the team and keep up (over short distances anyway!).
Yeah, I flinched at that part too, but for a different reason: it assumes that everyone else is honest and has the same goals you do.
Hiking destinations. I have a longtime friend and hiking buddy who really likes tough, exposed hikes up to the top of something, with a perverse derision towards anything resembling a freshwater source anywhere along the hike. But he also can't stand mosquitoes. At all. So, he might say, "Don't go in that meadow, there are mosquitoes in there." For me, they're annoying, but I like little hidden meadows, so maybe I want to go there.
And, also, there's a chance that you'll figure out something that nobody else has. You go in that swamp, even though someone warned you about the alligators, and you manage to avoid the alligators but you get a cut while you're in there and you discover that the swamp muck does something interesting with cuts, it actually disinfects them and helps them heal better.
My dad used to say that a smart man learns from his mistakes and a wise man learns from others'. The older I get, the more skeptical I become about that.
More likely, some exotic bacteria gets in the cut and you develop necrotizing fascitis.
Learning from your own mistakes instead of others' is a high-variance strategy. Our culture is better off because of the people that do it, but if you're selfishly looking to maximize your own expected value, you'll put great weight on the majoritarian view.
I am often grateful that humans are not perfect game theory machines.
It would certainly be depressing to live in a world of John Nashes. On the other hand, if everyone were perfect bounded rationalists, we'd merely have to replace Causal Decision Theory and Evidential Decision Theory with something that can solve coordination problems--probably a variant of Timeless Decision Theory, which could already solve this particular problem in many ways.
LambdaMOO is a fascinating virtual world. Users are allowed to expand the virtual world by building areas, and users with the Programmer Bit are also allowed to program new objects and areas.
Is there any MUD/MUSH/MOO where this doesn't happen? SMAUG allows you to do that as well.
A recklessness on the part of the author within an otherwise thought-provoking set of ideas: his analogy concerning Calvinism and the "Book of Revelations" limps badly for a strawman. Evidently, not much time was spent reading John Calvin's "Brève Instruction chrétienne" (Brief Outline of the Christian Faith) nor "Revelation" (singular).
Mind expanding your thoughts there?
Yes, it's a good read, but it's eight years old (not that old is bad, just that it's not "news") and this essay has appeared in many places over the years, including the book "Best of Software Writing I", edited by Joel Spolsky.