Most active commenters
  • random9749832(4)

←back to thread

674 points peterkshultz | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
brosco ◴[] No.45636152[source]
I have a tip for following lectures (or any technical talk, really) that I've been meaning to write about for a while.

As you follow along with the speaker, try to predict what they will say next. These can be either local or global predictions. Guess what they will write next, or what will be on the next slide. With some practice (and exposure to the subject area) you can usually get it right. Also try to keep track of how things fit into the big picture. For example in a math class, there may be a big theorem that they're working towards using lots of smaller lemmas. How will it all come together?

When you get it right, it will feel like you are figuring out the material on your own, rather than having it explained to you. This is the most important part.

If you can manage to stay one step ahead of the lecturer, it will keep you way more engaged than trying to write everything down. Writing puts you one step behind what the speaker is saying. Because of this, I usually don't take any notes at all. It obviously works better when lecture notes are made available, but you can always look at the textbook.

People often assume that I have read the material or otherwise prepared for lectures, seminars, etc., because of how closely I follow what the speaker is saying. But really most talks are quite logical, and if you stay engaged it's easy to follow along. The key is to not zone out or break your concentration, and I find this method helps me immensely.

replies(14): >>45636222 #>>45636706 #>>45636714 #>>45637096 #>>45637126 #>>45637135 #>>45637344 #>>45637810 #>>45637939 #>>45638250 #>>45638369 #>>45638918 #>>45638928 #>>45643170 #
1. random9749832 ◴[] No.45636222[source]
Every learning method you can think of has been thought of before and all variations have been implemented in classrooms throughout time. It is mostly pseudo-science. You either put in the effort to learn and struggle until you succeed or you don't. There is no secret sauce.
replies(4): >>45636289 #>>45636321 #>>45636414 #>>45636676 #
2. wafflemaker ◴[] No.45636289[source]
I've met lot of smart guys never getting anywhere, because they were always looking for a shortcut and not to do the real work.

Linux instructor Jason Canon wrote once that there's a lot of people who spend 90% of the time reading articles on how to learn Linux, but only 10% really practicing.

OTOH it's a really cool way to stay focused and engaged with the lecture.

replies(2): >>45636694 #>>45637361 #
3. brosco ◴[] No.45636321[source]
I'm not saying it's a learning method. And I don't see how anyone could mistake this for science, so why would it be pseudoscience? It's not really about effort either.

It's just a trick that helps me pay attention in lectures, which a lot of people struggle with. Certainly you have to put the work outside of the classroom as well.

4. quacked ◴[] No.45636414[source]
This isn't true. I put in a great deal of effort in college and struggled to learn. After college I changed the way I interacted with information, and found that I could learn and remember orders of magnitude better by using studying and practice techniques that mapped more closely with how I thought about information.
replies(1): >>45636783 #
5. xmprt ◴[] No.45636676[source]
There are are a 100 different ways to struggle to learn. Some of them are better than others. I don't see how that's pseudoscience.
replies(1): >>45636820 #
6. billy99k ◴[] No.45636694[source]
I've seen this a lot over the years and I've been guilty of it myself. I do still look at articles and find good stuff from it, but I've replaced it with paid courses that offer hands-on examples.
7. random9749832 ◴[] No.45636783[source]
Learning is a loop of reading/listening > applying/questioning. The rest is gobbledygook.

And when I say learning, I mean understanding the material, not just remembering a bunch of information for an exam.

replies(1): >>45638035 #
8. random9749832 ◴[] No.45636820[source]
There are 100 different sources to learn from. And they certainly aren't as good as one another.

There being 100 different ways to learn though is questionable.

9. criddell ◴[] No.45637361[source]
I think a lot of writing online about productivity is like this. Some people seem to have a near endless appetite for writing on pens and notebooks, note taking systems, text editors, desk accesssories, every day carry, etc…
replies(1): >>45637793 #
10. lazyasciiart ◴[] No.45637793{3}[source]
Yak-shaving.
11. quacked ◴[] No.45638035{3}[source]
Your quote:

> Every learning method you can think of has been thought of before and all variations have been implemented in classrooms throughout time. It is mostly pseudo-science.

This is wrong. Not every "learning method" is pseudo-science, neither is comparison of the efficacy of different learning methods. As a trivial example, flat lecture and individual textbook reading is inferior to one-on-one discussion and tutoring with a native speaker if the aim is to learn a foreign language.

replies(1): >>45638076 #
12. random9749832 ◴[] No.45638076{4}[source]
You missed the keyword "mostly".