<Erik> I now have experimental evidence for my theory of everyone hating jobs
<Vebyast> How so?
<Erik> well see, my two roommates were like "Jobs suck." "Yeah." and I piped in with "Not all jobs suck" and their immediate response was "Yeah right. Name ONE job that doesn't suck." People think that if you get a job doing something, it will suck. This therefore actually makes it LESS likely people will get a job doing something they like because they are under the impression that it will suck
<Vebyast> Huh. Makes sense.
<Erik> On an unrelated note, for the longest time I've found that most geniuses or brilliant people started doing what they're doing at an exceedingly young age
<Vebyast> I have two counterexamples, but continue.
<Erik> I have my own counterexample, there are exceptions; the exceptions are not the point here, the general trend is
<Vebyast> True. You are correct there.
<Erik> My proposal hinges on the fact that children, when guided to begin learning about a given topic at an early age and accelerated through it tend to become exceedingly proficient at it for rather obvious psychological reasons; the young mind is extremely plastic, and if someone is already even slightly good at something when they hit puberty, the mental pruning process will increase that ability exponentially through the developmental process. This, however, only holds true if the activity "fits" the brain in question. Hence why most accelerated programs utterly fail to account for minds that aren't super math geniuses and have the side effect of making those kids feel stupid.
<Vebyast> Yes. Since we're on this topic, I had an interesting thought yesterday. We do so much better at being "smart", I think, not because our brains are more powerful or more flexible, specifically, but because we're able to handle information on a more abstract level. Now, the interesting realization is that this applies to every type of above-average intelligence, not just computer intelligence or mathematical intelligence. You, for example, are good at music because you can represent your music as emotion, or as a flow of ideas. I suspect that athletes are better at being athletes because they can think about what their bodies are doing on a more abstract plane than I can. And I know that I do better in CS than most of my classmates because I can process the information I'm gathering at a higher level.
<Erik> Can I randomly interject here
<Vebyast> Go ahead. I think I'm done anyway. I ran out of what I was going to say.
<Erik> While I agree that for the most part, this is true, there are some additional facets to the processing of information. Like you, I can process computer programming information at a rate that is already ridiculously fast and is still rising. I can read an article about almost anything and be able to get the gist of it, and given about 3 hours could probably write an implementation for it. When I was building my website in PHP, I was able to learn huge volumes of information about PHP and web-design exceedingly fast, which was rather fun. This extends to music, where I've demonstrated my ability to decode an entire song into its component parts practically instantly... But I can't do that stuff with anything else. Therefore, even though our brains are arguably better at processing information on an abstract level, our true intelligence is still entirely dependent on us being really really good at one specific area
<Vebyast> Yes. I agree with you. However, I'm arguing that our capabilities in our specific area of expertise are due to the abstract nature of our thoughts in that domain. I have a handy example ready to go. Consider the comparison between doing math with literals, doing algebra, and doing calculus. When you're working with actual numbers, there are some things that are basically impossible to do. And for even moderately complicated things, it's tedious, slow, and incredibly difficult to understand. Compare to someone that's average or below-average in a given domain. Algebra is a step in both power, speed, and abstraction. Mostly because it's more abstract. But there are still things you either don't understand or simply can't do. Calculus should be an obvious extension. My realization was that, once you can think about things in sufficiently abstract manners, all of a sudden you can solve much more difficult problems much faster. In the same way that there's no way in hell I could write music like you do, because I can't think about it except as individual notes on lines, you can't find the area under a curve without using at least algebra. Again, not because your brain is more powerful than mine, but simply because you can represent the problem in a more powerful syntax.
<Erik> so the interesting thing being that we can't teach young kids algebra because their brains cannot grasp that level of abstraction. well, usually; but see I've talked to my artist friend and I noticed something interesting: he noted that drawing was more about combining various techniques to achieve an effect, which sounds suspiciously like music, and then it sounds like math, and then it sounds like everything in existence, combining various small techniques to achieve something larger; that is, essentially, the basis of pretty much everything.
<Vebyast> Yes. The key here being that to put, concatenate or combine any given pattern or technique, you have to be thinking on a level above that of the technique.
<Erik> Well see that's the thing; like you said, we get really really good at something when we can represent those thousands of individual techniques in an abstract manner.
<Vebyast> Are we arguing about how we're agreeing with each other?
<Erik> well sort of; we're enhancing our ideas. But I was going to mention that artists do this backwards: they represent things in a completely abstract manner, assign techniques to those representations and then assemble the entire thing in their head all at once. This may explain why they have difficulty with things like math: where math is trying to TEACH them abstract concepts, and they keep trying to assign them to existing ones
<Vebyast> Hm. I can't test this, unfortunately. I don't have any friends that are both artists and struggling with math.
<Erik> I have like 50 <_< unfortunately its likely that that probably happens at a level too low for us to tell, but it would explain a large amount of creativity. I know that I don't function like that because I can't come up with anything original; its all combination of existing techniques and new ways to implement them, which of course works zanily well with computer science.
<Vebyast> Well, are new ways to implement them the results of creativity?
<Erik> well yeah it would be creative, but its not exactly totally new.
<Erik> I do have creativity, but see its never me coming up with something out of nothing, its always "hey if I do something similar like this in a way like this modified by this I get this."
<Vebyast> I don't think that it's even possible to create something out of nothing. You always have to have some stimulus, some base. Even things that look like they came out of nothing have some base. Music, for example, reportedly always has some emotion, or some other piece of music that inspired the composer. Math always has the equations that make it up.
<Erik> True. However, its more about how the artist goes ABOUT creating the thing. I mean Ryanide has obvious anime influences and whatnot, but he isn't usually building a song out of anime styles, he takes his idea of a song and then starts building it as best he can using the various techniques he has. He knows exactly what he wants from the get go and then tries to get as close as he can from what he knows whereas I get an idea and never really know where its going when songs work out for me its because they start working themselves out kind of like solving a math equation I'm always asking myself, ok, what goes next, what needs to be here, etc. Ryanide just like, writes the whole thing out, same way he animates. There's no intermediate step, hence this way of thinking is by definition incompatible with math
<Erik> ....I take that back. it USUALLY is; when it isn't you get the crazy geniuses that look at a math problem and solve it
<Vebyast> Actually, I'm starting to see how real mathematicians do things. And you'd be kind of surprised. In a lot of cases, the really interesting ideas start out as "I wonder what would happen if...". Thirty seconds later, you have a fully-formed idea. Two minutes later, you're frantically trying to scribble it down. Two hours later, you're crunching through implications, trying to find a good way to prove it. A few days to weeks later, you find your proof.
<Vebyast> I've seen this happen three times, I think. I was actually present for the ten-second moment of zen once.
<Vebyast> The guy kind of zoned out for a few seconds. Glassy eyes, mouth hanging open, the thousand-yard gaze, the works.
<Vebyast> About eight seconds later, he kind of jerks upright, declares, "I think I have it.", and walks spouts off a thirty-second stream of gibberish. After writing it down, the entire lab spends thirty minutes staring at it in confusion while he tries to explain it. When we finally all get it, it's obviously correct. It takes us about a week and a half to prove that it's stable, and that it does what we want, but it just kind of worked.
<Erik> My moments of insight are usually just "holy crap" followed by a mad dash to the computer
<Erik> Actually I think I've said either "holy crap" or "holy ****" on every single occasion
<Vebyast> Nice. I know that feeling.
<Erik> so if the human brain is simply a gigantic abstraction machine, why then do people have architectural issues with learning different concepts? Why are both of us good at computer science, while your good at physics and I'm good at music
<Vebyast> Probably because our brains are good at abstracting different things. Also because, although our conscious minds are wired for doing the same things, our unconscious minds are wired differently. You might have formed some chunk of neurons in childhood that I'll never have, which helps your brain deal with musical insight; at the same time, I may have some chunk of neurons specifically dedicated to some kind of abstraction that works better for physics than for music. I'd be willing to bet that there are different types of abstraction, too. Compare set theory, logic, and calculus. Three completely different things you can do that are just one layer of abstraction on algebra. And they can actually prove things that are roughly similar in some cases. But each can do something that the others simply cannot. For example, as far as I know, you can't use set theory to find the area under a curve.
<Erik> So obviously our brains formulate an abstract language designed to solve the specific set of problems we are trying to solve, but that brings up an interesting possibility; if everything is based on abstraction, it would arguably be possible for anyone to learn how to do anything given a sizable amount of time and energy.
<Vebyast> Yes. I think that that's true. Personally. I mean, if I really wanted to I'm certain that I could go become the next Arnold Schwarzenegger. It'd just take a long, long time.
<Erik> lol, yes, well the funny thing is that people often take a really long time to do things, because without the fundamental architecture they are grasping at straws. This could be circumvented if they understood that the ability to, for example, draw really well, involved learning a bunch of techniques and how to combine them instead of just trying to draw a whole lot; which is more of a brute force method. Which is, hilariously enough, closely related to my approach to programming, although that's mostly because I don't have access to any higher level classes, which is beginning to frustrate me greatly
...
<Vebyast> Where were we? Oh, right, brute force learning.
<Erik> well see the thing about classes is that they teach you all the techniques, but when people go off to learn by themselves they do it brute force. If they instead focused on techniques, it would probably be much more effective. I've actually been doing that with music, and surprisingly enough it actually helps a lot when I deliberately utilize a technique, like some kind of reverse cymbal or something, in my song at least once, and then I'll start getting ideas on how to make it more original. This subsequently counter argues the widely held belief of composers that if you mimic other people your not original and are thus stupid.
<Vebyast> Makes sense.
<Erik> I want to try this on someone; specifically someone who isn't good at math
<Vebyast> BRB, teaching an artists calculus?
<Erik> something like that yeah. given concept X, you can disassemble it into an hierarchy of different techniques by starting at the bottom and verifying each basic technique, and ensuring that they actually KNOW it, then you can build up to the technique in question. This is what math usually tries to do; the reason it fails is because one missing link breaks the entire problem
<Vebyast> Yes.
<Erik> the first time this occurs, math gets harder and harder until they are broken into the brute force method of memorizing the individual technique by itself.
<Vebyast> Well... one missing link breaks it all until you can go around a different way.
<Erik> True, but usually you can't, again because of the curriculum. They force you to do it one way.
<Erik> which will either reinforce the technique... or reinforce the fact that you don't know something critical down the chain
<Erik> Concurrently, trying to teach the most basic techniques often fail because there is no context. instead, its more effective to START with a complex problem and build up to it, demonstrating how each technique solves another part. I know whenever I mentally put together the puzzle it was greatly rewarding.
<Erik> but most people who don't try anymore in math can't do this, because they're missing a piece.
<Vebyast> Actually, that's an interesting strategy. Top-down learning, I mean. I want to try that one someone at some point.
<Erik> IMO this entire conversation is fascinating
<Erik> I really want to try this out
This is one of the most fascinating conversations I have ever had. The conversation has been edited for content in order to keep it as on-topic as possible without losing the flow.
SYNOPSISPostulate 1: All learning is abstraction based. You become good at a specific discipline by developing a progressively more advanced abstract "language" for that discipline.
Postulate 2: All skills are technique-based. Likewise, all skills are hierarchical sets of distinct "techniques" that build on one another. This is most obvious in math, but applies to all skills across all disciplines.
Theorem 1: There are two ways of learning: Brute-force, and technique-based. The former can basically be summed up in the artistic creed of "Draw, draw, and draw some more." The latter can be represented by Math, which is essentially 20 years of various techniques being taught to you, each one building upon the one before it.
Theorem 2: A more efficient method of learning may exist as "Top-down" learning. Given a single technique, say, the ability to solve an algebraic problem, one can disassociate this technique into a tree of progressively simpler sub-techniques, all the way down to the basic concept of adding two things together.
