[extropy-chat] Turbulence of obsolesence (was: Anti-virus protection -- problem fixed!)

[Samantha Atkins]

On Apr 22, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> As to your point about being a constant learner - that seems to be a
> requirement for a growing number of new-tech fields.  For example, I've
> been mucking around in a nanofabrication facility on the side, and one
> of the things that strikes me is the vast array of new techniques and
> considerations, such that even the experts seem to have only mastered
> narrow portions of it.  I know I'm a bit of an amateur in the lab, but
> it looks like any would-be nanotech worker who is unwilling to
> frequently learn new tricks and techniques has a rather limited
> career...quite analogous to the IT career of someone who switches off
> their desire (and thus ability) to learn after getting a MSCE.
>

I thought it was the act of getting the MSCE that switched off the 
ability to learn.  :-)

> Learning how to learn - on the fly, identifying what concepts one needs
> to pick up and how best to acquire them, and how to quickly distill
> down to what one immediately needs to accomplish one's immediate tasks
> - seems like the ultimate meta-skill, the absence of which
> fundamentally limits one's potential career options (in extreme cases,
> to the point of unemployment outside of menial jobs).  Our schools and
> colleges try to teach that, but always by example and practice.

Actually I am not aware of any standard college coursework that 
attempts to teach any such thing.  We assume that students will pick up 
this skill largely without specific focus on the meta level.   In 
practice the successful student seems to learn how to do well on tests. 
  This is not the same as learning to learn efficiently and well or to 
learning to think, problem solve and innovate.

> I
> wonder if anyone's developed a useful theory that one can study, and
> then apply this theory to certain examples (e.g., here is how you
> learn, and here's a biology facet - assuming you're not already a bio
> whiz - that you can apply the method to).  I wonder if it's just
> because the effects of this skill (or its absence) are so powerful, and
> because it takes years to properly master, that many people seem to
> assume it's either inborn or not, and not actually something that
> almost anyone can eventually learn?

It is not inborn.  Some of us manage to cobble together slightly more 
efficient learning and thinking strategies.  But it is very hit or 
miss.

- samantha