« China blog of the day | Main | Ask Marilyn: IQ vs. the economists »
How to learn about everything?
Eric Drexler offers some tips:
- Read and skim journals and textbooks that (at the moment) you only half understand. . Include Science and Nature.
- Seldom stop to study a single subject with a student’s intensity, as if you had to pass a test on it.
- Don’t drop a subject because you know you’d fail a test — instead, read other half-understandable journals and textbooks to accumulate vocabulary, perspective, and context.
- Notice that concepts make more sense when you revisit a topic, and note which topics provide keys to many others.
- Continue until almost everything you encounter in Science and Nature makes sense as a contribution to a field you know something about.
The three-word version of that is "Get context first."
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 30, 2009 at 07:26 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
That could also be advice on how to learn nothing. It really depends on a) how good one is at synthesizing information -- do you want a list of random facts or knowledge? -- and b) how humble one is -- how hastily would you jump to the conclusion that you've achieved step 5?
It's terribly easy to get false understanding of an area, even if it's an internally consistent false understanding that lets you integrate new information into your "knowledge" -- see, e.g., physics and math cranks, post-structuralists, etc.
I'd love to see what Robin Hanson has to say about this.
Posted by: Paul Gowder at May 30, 2009 7:40:17 PM
The Transnational College of Lex takes this approach to language learning. In one of their books they make the method more precise with an analogy to Fourier decomposition.
This is, in my opinion, the only way to learn (as opposed to memorize) a subject.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at May 30, 2009 8:17:37 PM
Realize there's absolutely no point in it.
1) Pick a few fascinating topics (say evolution and economics) and read blogs and popular titles from different perspectives for all the understanding you'll need.
2) Quit trying so hard to be impressive and striving to be the person you think you should be.
3) Be who you are and go fuck and eat as much as possible, sleeping and excercising enough to stay healthy into dotage.
Posted by: Tsing Tao at May 30, 2009 8:25:20 PM
Tsing,
Aha!! Finally a philosophy I can believe in!!!
Posted by: Yancey Ward at May 30, 2009 8:38:32 PM
Another three-word version, "Be a dilettante."
Posted by: Brett at May 30, 2009 8:50:40 PM
6. And, for God's sake, don't pretend you know as much as experts because you have a conceptual grasp of what's going on.
Posted by: Neal at May 30, 2009 9:02:48 PM
Brett,
Everybody starts off a dilettante.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at May 30, 2009 9:40:02 PM
6a. And really really don't pretend you know more than the experts because you "see the big picture".
Neal and I have obviously met/read the same people.
Posted by: tom s. at May 30, 2009 9:41:42 PM
Michael F. - not sure that's true. Starting off as a student seems quite different to starting off as a dilettante.
Posted by: tom s. at May 30, 2009 9:43:08 PM
this blog sometimes gets so idiotic. seriously.
HC
Posted by: Happy Camper at May 30, 2009 9:51:47 PM
first become one with everyone. then you will know everything!
Posted by: babar at May 30, 2009 10:35:47 PM
You can learn the vocabulary of science this way, but that is not the same as learning science.
Posted by: joan at May 30, 2009 11:07:39 PM
7. Never stop forget how little you really know, so don't stop acquiring knowledge about the subject.
Posted by: Tom at May 30, 2009 11:10:32 PM
Classic birds vs. frogs discussion here.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at May 30, 2009 11:34:39 PM
Alternate brief summation: immersion is a powerful way of learning, but it takes time.
Posted by: agm at May 31, 2009 12:23:37 AM
Careful: what Drexler said was:
``Note that the title above isn’t 'how to learn everything', but 'how to learn about everything'.''
Posted by: egl at May 31, 2009 1:30:04 AM
I like to read broadly, similar to the approach described, with a goal to correct the biggest misconception that I (unknowingly) currently have, and which probably is in a field in which I know very little about. One never know which of your ideas is completely wrong unless you read broadly - and fields in which you thought you knew something are often changing, so it's good to keep up.
Posted by: An Onyx Mousse at May 31, 2009 1:58:52 AM
that seems the Leonardo Da Vinci philosophy.
Posted by: Kerub at May 31, 2009 3:22:08 AM
second egl,
it's how to learn "about" everything. :)
Posted by: econ at May 31, 2009 4:33:08 AM
This is not a way for learning everything, not even something. But it is a way for something more important: to see that you don´t know anything about any particular matter. It allows you to see the problems and you are no more in position of talking nonsense (at least, conciously).
If everybody did that, that would be a great change.
Posted by: ortega at May 31, 2009 6:13:20 AM
I've corrected the post title. And to clarify one point, this isn't actually the method I recommend.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at May 31, 2009 6:22:11 AM
repeat the above instructions, adding "in cantonese" at the end of each rule.
Posted by: babar at May 31, 2009 7:29:17 AM
The only subjects I find I've retained an entry-level conceptual grasp of over the long run are the ones that at one point in time, I did study with a student's intensity. All else has become an eclectic potpourri of trivia.
Posted by: Cyrus at May 31, 2009 11:00:59 AM
what should you learn if your goal is to learn about all the ways there are to learn?
Posted by: babar at May 31, 2009 11:28:33 AM
Re: "rule 6" and "rule 6a":
Experts can often stumble, for various reasons. Sometimes they rely on flawed or incomplete mathematical models; or they may be excessively sure of themselves. Experts also often feel obligated to offer a definite answer when it would be more prudent to admit that sometimes we just don't know for sure without further analysis and investigation.
Notorious examples include experts insisting that mad cow disease posed no threat to humans, or experts insisting that chunks of ice or foam detaching from external fuel tanks during launch posed no risk to the space shuttle, or the LTCM fiasco in 1998, or countless other examples over the years. Experts are rarely expert at recognizing their own limitations, or recognizing that the problem domain may have shifted subtly from what they have dealt with in the past. And sometimes, especially in the softer sciences, experts are fallible human beings with partisan agendas.
There are also numerous examples where performance correlates poorly or not at all to formal education, particularly in domains involving complex interaction with human psychology. No formal schooling can make you a top poker player or top salesman, and having an MBA or a Ph.D. or a Nobel Prize in Economics doesn't give you any edge as an investor.
Part of a well-rounded general education is learning when to defer to experts and when to maintain a healthy skepticism. For instance, believe experts when they predict eclipses, but not necessarily when they predict recessions and economic recoveries.
Posted by: anonymous at May 31, 2009 4:11:21 PM
