Hacker News Reader

> I also think part of what makes a lot of modern life so disastrously ineffective is the belief by those running society that everyone can reach a similar intellectual level given the right "system".

Well, it's a nice belief to have, even if it's not true. But I think what's worse is the belief that everyone can reach a similar intellectutal level given the same "right system".

I'm pretty sure no system could teach me how to say draw legible sketches of pretty much anything, a valuable, intellectual skill. I'm ok with that and will move on with my life. But I'm even more sure a system that could teach me that skill would be unable to teach very many others. If you want to get everyone to the same intellectual level or maybe to at least some specific level, you've got to be flexible about how and what to teach and how long it's going to take.

I know plenty of people who can do basic 3d sketching with no specific instruction, but that's not me. I've got things I can pick up too. Some people are going to need a lot more time for things...

But schools will say they want to do flexible, student driven teaching, but then it's more of the same one size fits some.

>>I know plenty of people who can do basic 3d sketching with no specific instruction, but that's not me

I used to think that I am tone deaf and have no memory for melodies. Bu t after I forces myself to spend a lot of time singing, playing guitar and listening to music it occured that I just lacked some basic skills that combined suddenly creates magical ability of recalling melodies in my head and even repeating them. The same was with drawing and public speaking and general movement coordination (strength training can do wonders in this department).

This made me believe that some of problems of education system comes from general inability to convince students to spend more (dozen times more) on practicing basic skills (being this writing, small/big motoric skills, logical thinking oraz even some seemingly unimportant stuff like voice emission)

I think there are three things here - which are not mutually exclusive.

1. No amount of practice will enable me to break the 100m world record - or even probably be within 30-40% of it.

2. However, training would dramatically improve my time.

3. Most importantly, in life I could beat Usain Bolt by simply starting running 5 seconds earlier - ie for most things peak performance isn't what matters - it's effort/persistence.

Which were the basic skills you thought you were lacking in terms of remembering tone?

I really do not know the proper name here but it is akin to visualisation (but with music). I could not recall intervals and rythm that makes given song recognizable (could not replay the song in my head) just like if you lack visual imagination you cannot solve even the easiest geometric problems without pen and paper or create good shape composition plan for painting.

And basing my intuition on example of one (me) both visual and tone imagination and memory can be developed from almost zero.

How did you develop them from zero if you were missing those basic skills?

I am a musician and I'm keenly interested in music education. I believe you when you say that you lacked some basic facilities; I think it's rare, but more common than people think that someone is genuinely tone-deaf, or can't "visualize" pitches and intervals, or can't memorize songs, or can't feel a rhythm. I always wonder if those deficiencies can be overcome. I'm really interested in your tale, if you wanted to write more privately, would you consider sending me an email? It's in my HN profile.

>> How did you develop them from zero if you were missing those basic skills?

It is really hard to answer this question because it seems that they were an emergent property of dozens of hobbies that I had (I tend to be seriali hobbyist). Seems like trying to explain how I did learn to ride a bike - I can name few basic skills that are required, but showing which exact part of learning bike riding made it stick is no easy task for me (I remember it as trial and error process and this was the same with my children - they just practiced riding bike and the skills developed thanks to them sticking to the practice). It all looks like a kind of tacit knowledge that can only be developed by pure practice (melodic memory through remembering and playing songs, aesthetics through creating your own compositions, logic through solving problems)

My own story is rather simple - I used to play guitar, a bit of keyboard, sing using karaoke, listening to songs paying full attention and than playing guessing games aking to local tv game called "What melody is this?". At first I was awful at this. But then something changed; I started to notice that I can recall melodic and rhythmic structure of some songs - and this was totally new ability to me (I remember that as a kid I was made fun of by my peers that I could not recognize any songs and my singing voice was wildly out of tune).

One caveat though - It's not like I am any good at music - I estimate that getting to level where others would tell "wow you are good" will take at least another 10 years (and it is not that important because I prefer the journey part, not the destination). But still I know I was a lot worse before forcing myself to learn. And probably if I would get a teacher that would motivate me and give feedback I would get here a lot faster, but as I said - it's the journey, and I really like to learn everything myself.

The message here is that I do not think that most people are unable to learn this kind of skills (those being music, logic or even simple aesthetics). The problem is that most do not have the drive, will or simply the time to stick with practice to overcome their own limitations.

>that everyone can reach a similar intellectual level given the right "system"

False on absolute terms and useless for most "real life" training. Time to learn/master a subject is an enormous competitive advantage to foster, as "talented" people will always have an edge over "clumsy" people. Mediocre people can only beat a genius trough effort of luck IF the genius is lazy and/or unlucky.

As someone who suffers from dysgraphia, which isn't well understood and commonly missed or completely misunderstood, our teaching methods simply do not translate to effective methods.

In English especially where we have problems with vowel shifts multiple source languages and frankly stupid spelling of some words by ignorant prescriptivist Latinophiles, it is really rote memorization.

Math is like playing the guitar or skiing, it takes practice to be good at.

But if you aren't good at memorization of concepts you don't understand, the typical response is to make people spend more time with memorization.

This simply doesn't work and students start to believe they aren't smart enough and give up, because they aren't offered tools to adapt and it is easier to just be thought of as stupid or slow.

Mathematics, logic, and scientific reasoning are learned skills and while everyone will have ultimate limits to their abilities, they are hard for all humans but in different ways.

But you are right, most this is tactic, people just ignore factors that often aren't even learning disabilities, but are advantages some students have due to their history and exposure.

Moravec's paradox is probably a good analogy, where what we think is easy is only easy due to previous experience.

Many authors like Ernest Hemingway and Agatha Christie were horrible at spelling and grammar but had good editors.

Assuming that being bad at spelling and grammar indicates an 'intellectual threshold' is a dangerous path.

Calculus is a filter class because it is taught in a way that favors rote memorization of unexplained concepts, but introduce some abstract algebra concepts to a student or coworker and many can move forward.

Rote memorization does have value, but equating memorization skills wilh ultimate intellectual ability leads to far lower educational attainment for many people.

Great guitarists and other difficult skills are far less about 'natural abilities' than it is about hard work and being exposed to an environment that does discourage that hard work.

Stem is the same as is creative writing or effective communication.

It is hard for everyone to learn, but people forget how much effort it took.

> Moravec's paradox is probably a good analogy, where what we think is easy is only easy due to previous experience.

One explanation of Moravec’s paradox is based on evolution. Human skills are implemented biologically with mechanisms that have been shaped by natural selection. The older the skill, the more time natural selection has had to shape it. Abstract thought is a recent development, so we should expect the current implementation to be relatively inefficient.