Eric Drexler offers some tips:
- Read and skim journals and textbooks that (at the moment) you only half understand. . Include Science and Nature.
- Seldom stop to study a single subject with a student’s intensity, as if you had to pass a test on it.
- Don’t drop a subject because you know you’d fail a test – instead,
read other half-understandable journals and textbooks to accumulate
vocabulary, perspective, and context. - Notice that concepts make more sense when you revisit a topic, and note which topics provide keys to many others.
- Continue until almost everything you encounter in Science and Nature makes sense as a contribution to a field you know something about.
The three-word version of that is "Get context first."
That could also be advice on how to learn nothing. It really depends on a) how good one is at synthesizing information — do you want a list of random facts or knowledge? — and b) how humble one is — how hastily would you jump to the conclusion that you’ve achieved step 5?
It’s terribly easy to get false understanding of an area, even if it’s an internally consistent false understanding that lets you integrate new information into your “knowledge” — see, e.g., physics and math cranks, post-structuralists, etc.
I’d love to see what Robin Hanson has to say about this.
Realize there’s absolutely no point in it.
1) Pick a few fascinating topics (say evolution and economics) and read blogs and popular titles from different perspectives for all the understanding you’ll need.
2) Quit trying so hard to be impressive and striving to be the person you think you should be.
3) Be who you are and go fuck and eat as much as possible, sleeping and excercising enough to stay healthy into dotage.
Another three-word version, “Be a dilettante.”
Brett,
Everybody starts off a dilettante.
Michael F. – not sure that’s true. Starting off as a student seems quite different to starting off as a dilettante.
first become one with everyone. then you will know everything!
7. Never stop forget how little you really know, so don’t stop acquiring knowledge about the subject.
Alternate brief summation: immersion is a powerful way of learning, but it takes time.
I like to read broadly, similar to the approach described, with a goal to correct the biggest misconception that I (unknowingly) currently have, and which probably is in a field in which I know very little about. One never know which of your ideas is completely wrong unless you read broadly – and fields in which you thought you knew something are often changing, so it’s good to keep up.
second egl,
it’s how to learn “about” everything.
I’ve corrected the post title. And to clarify one point, this isn’t actually the method I recommend.
The only subjects I find I’ve retained an entry-level conceptual grasp of over the long run are the ones that at one point in time, I did study with a student’s intensity. All else has become an eclectic potpourri of trivia.
Re: “rule 6″ and “rule 6a”:
Experts can often stumble, for various reasons. Sometimes they rely on flawed or incomplete mathematical models; or they may be excessively sure of themselves. Experts also often feel obligated to offer a definite answer when it would be more prudent to admit that sometimes we just don’t know for sure without further analysis and investigation.
Notorious examples include experts insisting that mad cow disease posed no threat to humans, or experts insisting that chunks of ice or foam detaching from external fuel tanks during launch posed no risk to the space shuttle, or the LTCM fiasco in 1998, or countless other examples over the years. Experts are rarely expert at recognizing their own limitations, or recognizing that the problem domain may have shifted subtly from what they have dealt with in the past. And sometimes, especially in the softer sciences, experts are fallible human beings with partisan agendas.
There are also numerous examples where performance correlates poorly or not at all to formal education, particularly in domains involving complex interaction with human psychology. No formal schooling can make you a top poker player or top salesman, and having an MBA or a Ph.D. or a Nobel Prize in Economics doesn’t give you any edge as an investor.
Part of a well-rounded general education is learning when to defer to experts and when to maintain a healthy skepticism. For instance, believe experts when they predict eclipses, but not necessarily when they predict recessions and economic recoveries.
People are being a bit pissy just for the sake of being pissy.
I don’t think Drexler or Tyler–who doesn’t even necessarily believe in this method!–would claim that this gives you knowledge of everything. It, indeed, is about dilettantism. No one is claiming that if they did this they would be able to sit down one day and outdo the experts in the field (unless they’re a physicist). It does, however, give you broad intellectual context to understand most things, which is something lots of people have a desire for.
The only relevant question is whether people using this method is a social good, harm, or neutral.
This strategy is precisely what has me reading this very website. I think I’ve learned tons about economics just from reading this blog.
We all have different goals and as such all have different ways of achieving them.
Comments on this entry are closed.