Comment by MarsAscendant | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MarsAscendant | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> If one has great work ethics, the connection to the teacher doesn't really matter because one would learn regardless.

That doesn't sound right to me, but I'm not to question it, since I realize how different people can be about such basic matters.

What I'd like to bring here is: could it be that people differ in "types" of work along the same lines as they do politically? Not correlated, but semantically related.

I wonder if there's a divide between the type of student who could dutifully learn something because it's the thing they're supposed to do, and the type of student who won't learn much if they aren't interested, but will quickly become proficient, if not master, the subject if they have the passion for it? The classic divide between dutiful order and creative chaos, in other words.

> One year, we had a teacher who made us stand up in the beginning of the class and he would then ask for vocabulary. You had only little time to answer and if you got it correct, you were allowed to sit down.

Isn't it related to the concept of "eustress" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress]? Fearful stress versus "challenge" stress. I keep hearing bits and pieces about it (particularly from Tim Ferriss), but don't have the large picture.

> I wonder if there's a divide between the type of student who could dutifully learn something because it's the thing they're supposed to do, and the type of student who won't learn much if they aren't interested, but will quickly become proficient, if not master, the subject if they have the passion for it?

I'm not really a fan of the word "divide" here because the dutiful learner can absolutely benefit from the positive effect of being interested in the subject matter. On the other hand, he/she won't suffer the negative consequences of not really being interested.

> Isn't it related to the concept of "eustress"?

Related in the way that some students probably had a positive response. As for me...it was definitely a negative threat, although not as bad as citing a poem in front of the class for example. It also didn't lead to any growth in that department, it was an ever-recurring hurdle to be feared. But, as I said, it worked really well when it came to the aspect of learning the vocabulary. For that alone it was absolutely worth it.

"Divide" is bad choice of words on my part. I meant to suggest that the two instances of a hypothetical student are extremes on a spectrum, upon which we all lie somewhere.

I know I burn out quickly if I'm disinterested, but could work on something exciting — a website redesign was the latest — for hours, forgetting about food and rest.

Back in the uni, I'd postpone some assignments until the very last date if they weren't interesting. They'd still be good, but making them on time wasn't important to me. Same with revising/learning for a test, or an exam.

(To be fair, a lot of it is also in the anxiety. I'd postpone any project — more so one that involves public presentation — if I was afraid to not do well enough, let alone fail.)

Ah, I know what you mean but I don't really like the visualization of a spectrum either. A radar chart with both being pretty much opposite each other should work better, right? At least that's how I would best visualize it.

That's actually another very interesting aspect. The environment (on the basic level) can absolutely matter. Students that pay attention in class and do everything they are told with utmost care may slack with homework because their home is completely different from school. The opposite can be true as well, with students, not being comfortable at all within a school setting, excelling at studying on their own.

> A radar chart with both being pretty much opposite each other should work better, right?

Not when there's only two values measured. What else do you have in mind?

I'd never encountered people who experience separate influences, academically (that I know of). The best-indicative situation I'd seen (or, perhaps, only noticed) are people who don't do well in school because their home environment is discouraging and negative.

That said, my experience is such that, at school, I'd enjoy doing tasks – exercises, experiments etc. – but would avoid homework as much as possible. I wouldn't be able to sit down and learn anything by rote in a library: somehow, it increased internal tension, I was unable to sit down for the process.

On the other hand, I once memorized the Latin noun declension system in an evening, before the exam – more as a result of procrastination on my part than a motivated necessity.

I didn't really have any other value in mind (though, there are likely possibilities, depending on the perspective from which you want to view the whole thing). The problem is, if you only place a single dot...where would you put me? As mentioned above, I'm one of the dutiful learners that benefit from being interested in the subject matter (like maths, history, computer science). If both values weigh against each other, I would be somewhere on the "dutiful learner" side. However, both values don't exclude each other, that's why I'm not really a fan of a spectrum.

I'm one of the people I've described (first example). I do excel in school/work environments. Paying attention for hours on end, regardless of whether it was "boring" or not, was never an issue. That's how I aquired pretty much all my knowledge. However, at home, I had trouble doing my homework, doing assignments or even learning for a test. The latter two I would usually do the day/evening before (at the latest possible opportunity). Homework, I sometimes skipped cough cough. If one class would have been suddenly canceled, I would have had no troubles doing the homework in that time frame at school. My home environment was generally neutral and it's also not like I did something more interesting with my time that I couldn't do it.

That's pretty good. Latin is a case where I wish I had been forced to learn vocabulary at home...because it was absolutely necessary since we basically only read Latin texts during class, every single time, with the exception of grammar every blue moon.

> However, both values don't exclude each other, that's why I'm not really a fan of a spectrum.

I see what you mean. It reminds me of the way modern computer RPGs handle character morality.

It used to be (Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Fallout: New Vegas) that the player character's goodness/badness would be measured on a spectrum. You'd be considered more "good" (moral, altruistic, kind) the more "good" things you did, and vice versa. Your "good" actions could eventually negate all the "bad" actions you've done over the course of the game, as long as there are enough opportunities to gain those morality points.

Nowadays (Mass Effect, Tyranny), it leans more towards a two-scale solution, where your "good" actions are measured alongside your "bad" ones. In this case, your saving the smith's child doesn't make people forget how you'd ruthlessly killed an innocent merchant for their stuff earlier. You could be totally "good", totally "bad", and anywhere in between; a divisive figure (with both "good" and "bad" scales tipped up high), or someone who doesn't take that bright of a stance, opting for not rocking the boat instead.

(Tyranny, in particular, handles the social reaction to your actions brilliantly, in my opinion.)

> However, at home, I had trouble doing my homework, doing assignments or even learning for a test.

Now that you say it like that, I do remember that I found doing the homework at the uni more... "possible", I guess, to doing it at home. There were often "windows" in our schedule – periods where there are no classes between any other two. I knew that, if I were to go home during a "window" (maybe I was tired, or maybe I was depressed that day), I'm not going back to uni. It felt like the work day was over, in this case.

Do you have any idea why is that so? Is there some sort of mode-switching happening between the workplace and home, where different priorities take hold?

> Latin is a case where I wish I had been forced to learn vocabulary at home

Vocab is a bitch, whatever the language. It's the meanest problem I have. Grammar, phonetics, even subtle semantic differences – I grasp all that pretty well, but vocab? Can't handle it unless I rote it – which, even if you're learning a language at the uni, is a tough nut to crack for me. I just can't memorize stuff that way. I need to work with the lexicon within a context: a book, a newspaper, a film – anything. Otherwise, it doesn't work for me.

> Nowadays (Mass Effect, Tyranny), it leans more towards a two-scale solution, where your "good" actions are measured alongside your "bad" ones.

That's good to hear. It always bothered me in a way that you were able to make your "bad" deeds become forgotten by doing some "good" things here and there. One notable exception was the "Childkiller" status in the early Fallouts (haven't played 3 and beyond) which led to possible encounters with bounty hunters.

> Do you have any idea why is that so? Is there some sort of mode-switching happening between the workplace and home, where different priorities take hold?

I do think it's because of the "tension" disappearing when you are at home. However, even that doesn't work entirely for me. For instance, I'm a night owl. On weekends, it's impossible for me to get up the same time I would on a work day, regardless of how often the alarm bell goes off. So while I would easily get up at 6:00 in the morning on a Monday while going to bed at 2:00, it would be impossible to get up the same time on a Saturday, even if I went to bed 2 hours earlier. One exception would be having to get up to travel somewhere. Now, one could argue that that "tension" isn't tied to a physical environment but that would point against the learning at home/homework stuff we experienced. Of course, there is the possbility that our body distinguishes between getting up at the right time to get to school/work and doing school stuff at home after school due to undetermined differences. I'm also trying to remember how it was when I had, for instance, two hours of school, four hours of free time and then another two hours of school. I do think the tension disappeared once I was home (unless I had a test or something later that day) but it gradually came back when sitting in class. So it's probably a mode that is on as soon as you wake up until you are home again. That mode is likely also emotionally and physically taxing on our body due to the tension. As soon as we hit home and are powering down, we (ideally) recuperate. Getting back up and increasing the tension again is maybe not ideal for our body (?) which would mean that longer pauses (like the four hours I mentioned) are not really beneficial. Something like that, I would guess.

> Grammar, phonetics, even subtle semantic differences – I grasp all that pretty well, but vocab?

We are similar then, as we grasp the feeling for a language rather easily. For instance, I was very good at writing French words (and also pronouncing them) and getting all the accents right. That was due to the sound of the word but also how the word "flowed" or looked. Of course, if I didn't know what the word meant, it would be pretty pointless. At least for me, ideally, I learn the language from the ground up, seperately from any other language. This really helps with trying to translate something from one language into another one when it simply can't really be done, as is often enough the case. And yes, learning words from context is the best.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com