←back to thread

674 points peterkshultz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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 #
leobg ◴[] No.45636714[source]
Well said. And it makes sense, if you define intelligence as the ability to successfully predict the future.

And how interesting that that is literally how LLMs are trained during pretraining. Like Ilya said: To predict the name revealed as the murderer at the end of a detective novel, you must have followed the plot, have world knowledge about physics, psychology, etc..

And that’s what you’re pointing at here. Testing yourself on the ability to predict during a lecture is like running a loss function to keep you on your toes.

replies(2): >>45636812 #>>45637071 #
normie3000 ◴[] No.45637071[source]
> To predict the name revealed as the murderer at the end of a detective novel, you must have...

Wait, can people do this??

replies(3): >>45637156 #>>45637784 #>>45639714 #
lazyasciiart ◴[] No.45637784[source]
Oh yea. A good detective novel gives the reader all the necessary information to know the answer. Many lousier novels just keep some essential information hidden until the monologue, because they haven’t got a tricky enough mystery, and really shitty ones just accidentally reveal it, often by over-using tropes or having silly patterns like “it’s always the dark and brooding guy”. Ever read any Dan Brown? In Angels and Demons he gives it away on the first page with an anagram.
replies(2): >>45638764 #>>45639846 #
1. chongli ◴[] No.45638764[source]
That monologue curtain pull is a hallmark of Sherlock Holmes. I wouldn’t call Doyle’s books lousy for that though. Creating brain-teasers for the audience isn’t really the point. It’s all about a character Doyle found insufferable but the audience loved!