←back to thread

Learning to Learn

(kevin.the.li)
88 points jklm | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
dartharva ◴[] No.41910678[source]
This is something I have personally struggled with, so I wish the author elaborated more. If you are a novice, how do you quickly identify what the foundational knowledge is? How do you know what makes you an expert and not an "expert beginner" as the author says to the extent that you can build a personal curriculum about it?
replies(7): >>41910746 #>>41910947 #>>41910996 #>>41911143 #>>41911304 #>>41911347 #>>41911939 #
ahmadtbk ◴[] No.41910746[source]
This is something that can be tricky for sure. Depending on the subject you might not need to start diving deep into every topic. Sometimes you'll have to first ask some high level questions like how do I get this data from this table and convert it to this format. Once you identify what problem you're trying to solve go and learn what's needed to solve it.

You won't always have an optimal solution but that's okay. The most important is to try and use the thing you're learning in some real way or with practice.

replies(1): >>41910926 #
1. mmooss ◴[] No.41910926[source]
> The most important is to try and use the thing you're learning in some real way or with practice.

In my experience, that's a necessary first step to learning. I need to get my hands dirty, get a feel for what I'm working with. An experience is worth a thousand pictures, which are worth a thousand words - you can't gain that basic understanding and instinct by reading, only by having all the sensory inputs of doing it.

Then it's time to read. Now you must find an expert to guide you. First, you'll have too many blind spots - you can't possibly find all that's current, you can't find the best sources efficiently, and much won't be in books yet. And without expertise yourself, you can't distinguish the worn-out theories from the evergreen standards from the unproven innovations; the promising from the unlikely from the absurd; you won't know the consensus from the fringe; the guy advocating their personal theory - maybe even a credible one - from the balanced survey of established ideas. You won't recognize when you're reading just a side of a well-known debate.