The curse of knowledge is that experts become unconscious of their current knowledge and forget how they arrived at that knowledge. missdcoxblog.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/the…
One of the greatest flaws of current education is the assumption that comprehension leads to competence. It's a completely upside-down model of learning!
Explaining complex narratives is also very difficult to get across when you begin with the conclusion and work yourself backward. This is how proofs are presented in mathematics. There's a statement and you find a way to discover why it is true.
It's a very different activity from model making. In model making, you start of with parts and you build a whole with the parts. To understand how to create, you begin with mastery of the parts and how they compose with each other to get to the whole.
The first kind of thinking of decomposing a whole into parts is what you do when you attempt to explain something. But explanations fall on deaf ears if the listener does not understand the vocabulary.
To understand vocabulary is to not only know the meaning of individual words but also know how words interrelate and compose together to make sentences. To be fluent in a language is to know how to create sentences in that language.
We don't learn language by just understanding grammatical structure. We don't learn musing by understanding music theory. We learn by doing. We learn by creating.
Unfortunately, we educate students only to explain. To recite back the information they previously received. We don't teach students to create, rather we only train them to imitate and mimic.
Thus we only have students with conscious incompetence. They know what to mimic, but they lack the competence to create. Never do they reach unconscious competence.
There's an intrinsic asymmetry in how reality is understood and how we manipulate our world. Appreciating art is different from creating art. But to gain a deeper understanding one has to be able to create.
Let's take drawing as an example. There is a common myth that drawing is an innate talent. The reality is, people who can't draw haven't learned a vocabulary for drawing. You cannot speak a language if you haven't learned its vocabulary.
Thus to create something in a medium, one needs to learn how to express thoughts in that medium. The Chinese knew this when they identified playing a musical instrument, painting, calligraphy, and playing Go as art forms.
Our noun-centric language generates a bias in many that the word balance implies a state that is unchanging. That something that is inanimate is in balance. Search unsplash for 'balance':
But from a verb-centric frame of reference, balance is a process. Everything that is alive is in movement. To be in balance is to keep something the same while in movement within an environment.
This movement is driven by a multitude of opposing forces, both originating from the self or from the environment. It is a complex process that evolution has been fine-tuning for billions of years.
Is it possible to create a verb-centric language with only a sequential language?
One can classify noun-centric languages in how they construct their verbs. English and German follow satellite-framing, while Romantic languages follow verb-frame. The former express paths and the latter express manner. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_fram…
I'm an English speaker but I often get stumped in my writing with particles like in, at, on etc. It is ambiguous to me as to what is the appropriate path term to use. My way to validate it is to actually vocalize so I can tell if it sounds right.
The reductionist methods of neuroscience have created psychiatric practices that treats mental disorders exclusively using chemical solutions.
There is of course no doubt that a person cannot think his way out of chemical imbalances. However, the brain's function is also to develop for itself the methods to find equilibrium.
Therefore, if we never give the opportunity for brains to learn how to do this, then we will always have people dependent of artificial crutches.
"Real business value" is a cognitive bias of what is deemed important and not what actually is. The correlation between what a business pays for and what it needs is rarely a strong one.
A lot of public companies buy their own stock. Does that create 'real business value' or are they just gaming perceptions?
This reminds me of Wittgenstein's language game. Wittgenstein argued that to understand the meaning of words, one has to know what language game is being played. This is the same for 'value'.
Indeed, a recent paper question the notion of biological plausibility. It's a fuzzy concept that too many researchers have a bias that it is well defined. royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
"Claims of biological plausibility are shown to be incoherent from a level of mechanism view and more generally are vacuous."