328 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. ( ~ 9:36)

      Luhmann got his doctoral and habilitation thesis in one year, in 1966; but the books he used for this had been written in 1964, according to Dr. Schmidt.

    2. ( ~9:15 )

      I am quite similar to Luhmann in the sense that we both prefer theoretical research over practical research. However, I think Schmidt here refers to the overall conception of a Grand Theory, seeming to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. This is where I depart with Luhmann as my whole goal rests on the practicality of optimizing education.

      So while I prefer theoretical research, the end is to improve something in a practical sense.

    1. ( ~ 6:25-end )

      Steps for designing a reading plan/list: 1. Pick a topic/goal (or question you want to answer) & how long you want to take to achieve this. 2. Do research into the books necessary to achieve this goal. Meta-learning, scope out the subject. The number of books is relative to the goal and length of the goal. 3. Find the books using different tools such as Google & GoodReads & YouTube Recommendations (ChatGPT & Gemini are also useful). 4. Refine the book list (go through reviews, etc., in Adlerian steps, do an Inspectional Read of everything... Find out if it's truly useful). Also order them into a useful sequence for the syntopical reading project. Highlight the topics covered, how difficult they are, relevancy, etc. 5. Order the books (or download them)


      Reminds me a bit of Scott Young's Metalearning step, and doing a skill decomposition in van Merriënboer et al.'s 10 Steps to Complex Learning

    2. Off-topic, I also like this guy's voice/accent

    3. ( ~0:30 )

      Good point; formal education should build up the skill of lifelong learning and not keep "spoon feeding"

      At the end of formal education (preferably at the end of HS already) you should be able to learn independently the most complex of skills using evidence based/informed learning techniques.

      Scaffold. Build up complexity over time.

    1. ( ~11:00 )

      Another misconception, for sure because of Ahrens, namely that a Zettel should be able to stand on its own, Atomic thought... Explain without context.

      This is not what Luhmann did at all.

      In fact, it is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

      Luhmann quite literally said that the value of a note is ONLY with regards to the other notes in the system. He wrote in thought sequences, and more often than not, a single note was not intelligible without the context of the other notes.

      PLEASE PEOPLE, LEARN FROM MULTIPLE PRIMARY SOURCES, NOT JUST AHRENS :(

    2. ( ~4:40)

      Where the peep did he get the idea of writing dates as part of the alphanumeric ID? Ahrens?

      It's a bad habit, it has nearly no value and when writing a lot of cards in a day this quickly becomes cumbersome.

      Stick to the normal alphanumeric IDs.

    3. ( ~ 2:57)

      False overview of how a ZK would look visually. A ZK is more interlinked, and at the same time more "linear". It's trains of thought.

      This is closer to the Bubblegraphboiz

  2. Jul 2024
    1. (9/8a2) Zettelkasten als Klärgrube – nicht nur abgeklärte Notizen hineintun. Aufschieben des Prüfens und Entscheidens – auch eine Tempofrage. Zettelkasten as a septic tank – don’t put just treated notes in. Suspending of examination and decision making – also a question of speed.

      I have always misinterpreted this idea.

      I thought it referred to the rumination of ideas... Don't put notes you just made in it (from any source, like reading a book), instead let it ruminate.

      I was wrong. I realized this when chatting with Gemini Advanced.

      But either way, the DeepL translation of this paragraph: "Slip box as a clarification pit - don't just put clarified notes in it. Postponing reviewing and deciding - also a question of speed."

      It is moreso related to the idea of fleeting notes and unprocessed ideas. Have to think a bit more about what Luhmann meant. Maybe @chrisaldrich knows something.

    1. Hello Mr. Hoorn, How great to have a fellow Antinetter. Thank you for your kind greeting. I used the sticky notes because I wanted to be able to show you certain pages that caught my interest when I was pre-reading. After recording my podcast I took them all out. I should have mentioned that. Thank you for pointing that out.
    2. I notice you put sticky markers into the book... Two questions. A) Does this not take too much effort/time for an inspectional read a la Adler? B) What is the purpose of the sticky markers? Warm regards, Mr. Hoorn -- Fellow Antinetter
    3. ( ~ 10:20)

      Kathleen recommends as part of an inspectional reading to find out who the author is. This is valuable and I believe not something Adler & van Doren mentioned in their book.

      Knowing who the author is gives more context to the book and potentially some information about credibility.

      Will implement this.

    4. (~5:40)

      It appears she put some sticky notes at important points/structure references while reading inspectionally...

      Does this not take too much effort/time for an inspectional read a la Adler?

    1. ( ~ 10:45)

      This is basically layered learning and making use of the creation of prior knowledge.

    2. (~10:00)

      It's not just about your domain knowledge on a subject, it's also about your reading skill in general and how difficult a book is written.

    3. This video tells me I need to spend more time actually reflecting on the table of contents and title. As well as with the pigeonholing; classify in the mind in what categories this book falls.

    4. ( ~1:55)

      Interesting sentiment. Library Lin supposes that most people who do not like reading don't like it because of bad reading habits and that when they improve on their reading habits, they will start liking it.

    5. Off-topic, I love this woman's accent.

    1. ( ~15:00)

      You cannot know God except for on His terms. This knowing of God is not accessible to those who have not been humble enough to try it out and accept Him.

      It is why I say that I lie when I say God does not exist, even though I cannot prove that He exists; He has proven it to me.

    2. ( ~12:50 )

      The difference being faith and atheism is one of ultimate hope & justice. Hope for life after "the end".

    3. ( ~ 9:00 )

      You cannot say why something was created, its purpose, without knowing its maker. No matter how smart you are. You cannot infer this from the matter.

    4. ( ~ 8:20 )

      Not sure what Lennox is trying to say here...

      He quotes a Russian scientist who said they though they could retain a value for human beings while abolishing God and found that they could not.

      I do not understand, nor get the significance of, this argument. But it sounds interesting. Worth looking into in the future perhaps?

    5. Lennox argues that both rationality and morality cannot be explained without the Bible & God... Humans are naturally rational and moral beings because "Man are created in God's image" or "The Holy Spirit remains in men"

      The Holy Ghost is the reason we can tell right from wrong (spiritual anti-virus)... However, the more we sin, the more we silence this voice in our head until ultimately we cannot hear it anymore.

      No person is born a criminal. A killer.

      When we get baptized, we effectively restore our connection to God, and thus reenact the Holy Ghost within us; restoring our innocence. Our soul's integrity has been restored and we can hear the Spirit speaking to us loud and clear once again.

      As Simone Weil argued, the purpose of a punishment, an adequate one, that is, is to cleanse the taint of our behavior from ourselves... Allowing ourselves to get back into humanity without judgement. Baptism serves the same purpose on a Spiritual level... With the key difference being that it was Christ who endured the ultimate punishment, and by being baptized (willingly), we enjoy that same punishment, can reap its benefits.

    6. ( ~ 6:00)

      Lennox argues that the reason science works is because both the universe out there and the insane complex minds that humans have are both designs of the same divine being/architect; God.

    7. What is easier to believe (~3:00)?

      That God created everything... The existence of an architect?

      Or: Nothing turned itself into everything? Oxymoron

      Why is one more believable over the other?

    8. Initially, people became scientists because they expected to find law in the universe, because they believed in the lawgiver.

      God created the laws that govern existence. Scientists unravel and observe those laws.

      Lennox argues it is his Faith that gives him his job.

    9. God is a different explanation than science (~1:50)

      Choosing between science and God is the same as choosing between Ford and Engineering for an explanation of the motor car.

      They are not mutually exclusive.

    1. Dr. Steve Boyd keeps to the traditional translation of everything coming into existence from God. He mentions the original Hebrew has no word for "universe" and therefore the creation of the heavens and the earth means eveyrthing.

    1. A habit of the top 1% people is to make simple decisions fast, and think more carefully about the important ones.

      It optimizes energy.

    1. Good video. Funnily enough, I related it to Mazlow's hierarchy of competence a minute before you mentioned it. (Mr. Hoorn here, btw.) Another connection I made was to van Merriënboer et al. their "Ten Steps to Complex Learning" or "4 Component Instructional Design". Particularly with regards to doing a skill decomposition (by analyzing experts, the theory, etc.) in order to build a map for how best to learn a complex skill, reducing complexity as much as possible while still remaining true to the authentic learning task; i.e., don't learn certain skills in isolation (drill) unless the easiest version of a task still causes cognitive overload. Because if you learn in isolation too much, your brain misses on the nuances of application in harmony (element interactivity). Related to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". You can master each skill composite individually but still fail epically at combining them into one activity, which is often required.
    2. Lifelong is to keep the habit and refine as needed.

    3. TBR: Skill Decay

    4. ( ~ 13:00 )

      Stage 3, iteration, is about increasing fluency of mastery. Cognitive schema automation. Building up the habit.

      Consistency -> Accuracy -> Speed

      Varied practice is necessary, and fine-tune the technique based on experiment in application.

    5. ( ~10:00 )

      After relevance comes the awareness stage (you become aware of your mistakes)...

      Making mistakes raises your awareness about how you do the skill and ensures you improve on it. By just doing theory you can't learn from mistakes and you can't possibly read up on EVERYTHING.

      Reflective process is necessary. Kolb's. Experiment.

    6. After relevance comes the "plateau period" where a lot of practice is being done with a lot of mistakes; there seems to be little progress. Most people give up here.

      You need a growth mindset and just continue.

    7. ( ~ 5:00 )

      The first stage of learning a complex skill is creating relevance, not in the sense of making knowledge relevant to your life; but rather in seeing what is relevant to learn at this point in the learning career.

      Building a map...

      The actions are exploration and challenge. Exploration = getting diverse opinions from others and learning the theory & variables. Challenge = open-mindedness for other beliefs and assumptions.


      Reminds me of 10 Steps to Complex Learning for curriculum design, where doing a skill decomposition is one of the first steps in designing the curriculum, and either being an expert or having access to experts is paramount.

    8. ( ~ 3:25)

      Learning how to learn has latent learning for most people. There is no immediate feedback and therefore you do not know how good your learning techniques are until you get to the point of exam.

      One way to mitigate this is by having your own test... Past papers, hard recall techniques like Whole-Part-Whole, etc.

      I need to find a way to effectively measure learning efficiency in terms of several components (how well is encoding, how well is recall, etc.)

      Kolb's as well.

    9. ( ~ 2:20)

      Add to the TBR (to be research) list... "Latent Learning"

    10. RAIL stands for:

      • Relevance
      • Awareness
      • Iteration
      • Lifelong
    1. ( ~ 11:00 )

      Armies need to have an efficient supply system in order to survive. Not only for food and stuff, but also medical kits, materials to fix machinery when it breaks down, ammunition, etc.

      These are also fantastic ways to add strategic elements to warfare. Taking over enemy supply lines or points can hurt them tremendously while giving yourself a great edge.

    2. ( ~8:50 )

      Defense in depth over static defense usually. They both have value, but it depends on usecase.

    3. ( ~ 7:30 )

      In any world where technology on the level of atomic weaponry exists (nuclear bombs), there must either be a reason for why they are not used (such as in Dune), or they should just be used.

      A reason could be through universally recognized and obeyed law, or that counters against such weaponry exist, making them useless.

    4. ( ~3:55 )

      In futuristic scenarios, armies marching together closely (i.e. massing) is dumb because this makes them an easy target for area damage focused weaponry such as artillery, tanks, etc.

      Better to have more spread out formations.


      That is, if no technology or magic exists to counter such vehicles, such as mobile shield generators, then it does make sense to walk in a tight formation as centralized command is easier.

    5. ( ~2:50)

      The larger the size of an army, the more autonomy lower-ranking officials need. A centralized command becomes much more difficult when the area over which to fight is enormous.

    6. Futuristic Armies are in need of efficiency, needing clerks, communication networks, etc. To keep themselves supplied and directed.

      ( ~2:10)

    1. Interesting. I suspect it depends on how you use it. Students with a high level of metacognitive capacity could use this to their advantage. Teaching (particularly the Whole-Part-Whole Reteaching technique) is a very useful technique for active recall (don't forget expanding gap spacing and interleaving); it forces you to use all aspects of your cognitive schemas to provide a clear and understandable explanation of what you know to have others understand it. When you struggle to explain it to others or they ask questions and you cannot answer it (or explain it in different ways) you have identified knowledge gaps.These recall techniques serve not only to strengthen the neural connections between concepts in the cognitive schemata (Hebbian plasticity; re-encoding benefits) but, perhaps more importantly, also to identify knowledge gaps making you know what to focus on when improving your knowledge mastery (maybe even what information to drill, depending on the information type).
    2. To flip or not to flip?Answer isn't that simple. This is what the research says:HIGHLIGHTS:->The flipped learning literature suffers from methodological irregularities, confounds, and inconsistencies across studies.->Kapur et al. (2022) conducted a detailed review of the flipped learning literature. They discovered that flipping offers few benefits for teachers who already incorporate a lot of active learning in their instruction.->Equity issues may arise in flipped classrooms if some students can’t do, or don’t do, the assigned pre-class activities.->It’s not clear that “flipping” offers significant benefits for K-12 teachers. Better student outcomes may be obtained by introducing new material in manageable chunks and tightly interweaving the presentation of new content with structured, active learning.
    1. ( ~ 24:30)

      Radiometric dating operates from the wrong assumptions (that all processes remained constant during all of history, which, compared to the Bible is false and therefore foolish).

      Different radiometric dating methods give vastly different aging results in a systematically wrong way; according to Dr. Kurt, this is proof that they use wrong assumptions.

    2. ( ~ 19:00 )

      The primary argument as made by Dr. Kurt with reference to the Bible is that God used processes during the creation that he NEVER used again. So to assume chronological dating methods based on processes that exist now is to be foolish, as you cannot go back to creation itself and use those methods; creation used different processes that do not exist anymore.

      Additionally, God created all of existence... He is above it. He can certainly manipulate it. The laws of physics do not apply to Him. He has created creatures and things in an ADULT state of being... So by using dating methods that are used to calculate the age of something you can arrive at a result much older than it is in fact, for God could've created its values in an old state even though it is in fact young.

    3. ( ~ 18:00)

      Dr. Kurt regurgitates second Peter 3:3-4 where there are "scholars" who knowingly reject creation and the Bible on the merits of the past, absolutism; what happens now is how it has always been.

      This is a logical fallacy also described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in "The Black Swan"... Absence of Proof does not mean Proof of Absence. And also the fact that one cannot predict the future based on the past in all situations, especially Black Swan's... The Flood was actually a Black Swan (it was impossible to predict, and had catastrophic consequences)

    4. Dr. Kurt Wise argues that the Bible's claims should be accepted over human's science. As is said, man's Wisdom is but foolishness for God.

      There is a degree of truth to this; the Bible (God) should be considered absolute truth.(Christian) Science therefore should assume the truth of the Bible and use science to support it. Or at least try to see if what the Bible says is true; use its claims as the hypothesis.


      Perhaps this is some form of confirmation bias, but I think this doesn't matter in this instance.

    5. History is the story of God... It serves as a narrative to describe what God has done.

      Inferring based on the creation is secondary circumstantial evidence, the eyewitness account is that of God himself.

    1. "And the rich get stitched up, when we get cut Man a heal dem broken bones in the bush with the wed mud" Rich are more advantaged than the mass middle class/poor. It's always the middle/lower classes who have to do the dirty work of the elites, it's because we gave our power away in the first place which is why we're treated like toy soldiers. this song is all about equality and self-empowerment in this aspect. Raises the importance of naturopathy science, how old and ancient herbal rememdies and medicinal practices are more advanced and provide better treatment than modern medicine. raises the issue of the supression of ancient medicinnal practices/herbs by corporate structures who just want to generate more income and improperly prescribe harmful substances/drugs to people. The EU is already banning natural herbs that cure all sorts of natural illnesses by natural/healthy means. "Can you read signs? can you read stars? Can you make peace? can you fight war? Can you milk cows, even though you drive cars? huh Can you survive, Against All Odds, Now?" reference to occult/esoteric wisdom - alchemism, astronomy/astrology, tarot reading. those questions are to make us self-reflect on what modern civilization and human beings can do compared to ancient civilizations and cultures. are we moving backwards or moving forwards towards progression mentally, spiritually, emnotionally and physically? are we surviving/beyond the need for survival.. or are we heading towards the path of self-destruction as a species?

      Is there truth in this regarding medicine? Can we get more out of nature than media and common knowledge portrays? I am not certain, nor is this an area of research for me; but the truth is that it is fascinating to think about.

      The larger point does make sense, too much people are focused on money for the sake of money. Money is supposed to be a means to an end; the end being the improvement of society; in the way things are currently set up.

    2. "Scholars teach in Universities and claim that they’re smart and cunning Tell them find a cure when we sneeze and that’s when their nose start running" the academic community and university is designed for very purpose of maintaining the “status quo”/ethics of research and the system/preventing progressive ideas from being explored until you can be trusted to know what the “truth” is apparently is to be known by those who came before you. Whoever says that in university your freedom/capacity of thought/speech/action is not limited is blind. Certain ideas are more preferable “healthy” to the system than others, and if you promote and engage with the more agreeable concepts you’ll get through your degree/get accepted by academic community easily. once again, scholars are still in the "problem, reaction and solution" paradigm, rather than focusing on preventions than cures. We've got a long way to go in the evolution of consciousness. PATIENCE.

      True freedom of expression (a need for the soul as expressed by Simone Weil) must be given in academia as well; to write about that which you want to write about... Regardless of "social acceptance". A degree should be about objective knowledge and quality of knowledge, not the content of said knowledge.

    3. "The Earth was flat if you went too far you would fall off Now the Earth is round if the shape change again everybody woulda start laugh The average man can’t prove of most of the things that he chooses to speak of And still won’t research and find out the root of the truth that you seek of" commenting on how new structures/theories/inventions are always at conflict with old structures/theories/inventions that refuse to accept new ideas/truths because of mental conditioning (e.g. laugh) society is in to accept everything as fact and never question/research/evolve/change. this is very much predominant in science and history, for example, Galileo was condemned and died for the truth, Copernicus's model that the Earth rotated around the sun, a truth that contradicted biblical truth. it's like what camus was complaining about in the myth of sisyphus essay, where man faces an existential crisis of absurdism when there are no absolute truths and values in the world. humanity is suffering because we're working against eachother instead of working together in order to find out the truth of all things.

      See intellectual flexibility.

    4. I should also mention, that the notion of east/west in verse 1 is also reference to alternative history and sacred texts which reveal that human civilization rose from the east and now sets in the west. criticism against academics and scholars who are paid to rehash and propgandaise an official/revised history, which favours the winners. History is always written by the victors. this also ties into notions of the New world order (satan-west) in conflict with the old world order (God-east). My interpretation of Verse II: "Huh, we born not knowing, are we born knowing all? We growing wiser, are we just growing tall?" Notion of reincarnation ties into this i feel. if you do past-life regression therapy you attain knowledge of previous lives and experiences, the line symbolises an awakening - remembering life before life, life before birth, your life's purpose here on earth. God has a plan for everyone, this universe is intelligently designed as we can see in the fractal universe/mandelbrot set and the notion of consciousness. i see esoteric and occult wisdom in these lines, knowing all things/God consciousness in the notion of the "Akashic records/Library" - universal consciousness reflected in the entire design of this universe and all of creation. it's a scientific fact that memory/knowledge is stored in the universal design - cells/energy/wate, just as energy is not created nor destroyed but transferred.

      Honestly, I can't make a lick of sense from what Mr. X is saying here lol.

      At least the latter part. I understand the previous part.

      Again, as Simone Weil says, media (and especially research) must contain impartial factual knowledge, not opinion and especially not propaganda. Truth is a vital need of the soul.

      No amount of money should be able to buy your soul (making you spread misinformation). It's like making a deal with the devil.

    5. "So the ones in the west Will never move east And feel like they could be at home Dem get tricked by the beast But a where dem ago flee when the monster is fully grown?" commenting on the conflict between western and eastern nations. particularly the conflict between the U.S./Britain with Islamic nations of the Middle East. once again, the "beast" referring to satan, devil who exploits our differences to keep us fighting amongst eachother, destroying eachother. we don't come from the east, west, north or safe. we come from God, the source, from EARTH. Earth is our home and we're all earthers. by the time they realise this and understnd that they were pawns of the satanic occult groups such as the freemasons, elites or satanic illuminati, who generate order from choas - "as above so below", they can't hide or run from the problems they've helped to create in the first place. the beast is also synomynous with the "ego" - shadow/false self, you yourself are your own greatest enemy. here's a commentary on the ego, from the film "revolver": "The ego is the worst confidence trickster we could ever figure. "I am you". The problem is that the ego hides in the last place that you'd ever look within itself. It disguises its thoughts as your thoughts, its feelings as your feelings. "You think it's you". Peoples' need to protect their own egos knows no bounds. They will lie, cheat, steal, kill, do whatever it takes to maintain what we call ego boundaries. People have no clue that they're imprisoned. They don't know that there is an ego, they don't know the distinction. At first, it's difficult for the mind to accept that there's something beyond itself, that there's something of greater value and greater capacity for discerning truth than itself. In religion, the ego manifests as the devil. And of course no one realizes how smart the ego is, because it created the devil so you could blame someone else. In creating this imaginary external enemy, it usually made a real enemy for ourselves, and that becomes a real danger to the ego, but that's also the ego's creation. There is no such thing as an external enemy no matter what the voice in your head is telling you. All perception of an enemy is a projection of the ego as the enemy. In that sense, you could say that 100 percent of our external enemies are of our creation. "Your greatest enemy is your own inner perception, is your own ignorance, is your own ego"."

      We are all united in being human and should act that way. Find common ground rather than focusing on differences. Don't be biased. A house divided will surely fall. A house united is strong.

      When humanity is united as one, true societal advancement can happen.

    6. "Some of the worst paparazzis I've ever seen and I ever known Put the worst on display so the world can see And that's all they will ever show" similar to the role of the media. always feeding on the negativity/problems of the human race, human development, human actions, human consciousness but never providing a productive solution to these problems projecting people's fears, creating war propaganda. if you've been following the middle east revolution, you'd notice that news stations like fox lied about their coverage on the libyan war and revolution, generating false reports. fabricating lies as truth for the public to blindly consume as truth without questioning. it's like the media/journalists are energy vampires who amplify amplify and feed on negativity and fear. no news is good news. they never truly demonstrate a 60 minute news show on the positive developments, actions and solutions to the people because then it would lead to positive developments in human consciousness, our enlightement as a species because being shown positive things that human beings are doing and have done and will continue to do creates a sense of purpose for us all and unites us, inspires people rather than fear/negativity which keeps us feeling trapped, apathetic, angry, depressed... esp. in a state of victimisation as though we're not empowered to change or that nothing will change, that violence, poverty, world hunger, rape, war pillaging, theft... as if all these things are normal and natural when they're NOT. they're not okay and we shouldn't accept them as being part of reality, part of the norm because we know that it isn't. it's not natural and innate, since it's started by the actions made by conscious individuals and mentally capable human beings. it's man-made.

      The media is opinionized and feeds on fads; what is in the mind of the people. They survive based on attention.

    7. "You buy a khaki pants And all of a sudden you say a Indiana Jones An' a thief out gold and thief out the scrolls and even the buried bones" criticism on how people change their appearances so easily, acclaim status/right just because they can conform to social appearances - doesn't mean that they actually are who they say they or they really mean what they do/represent. like those televangelists with their fake/unproductive compassion and care. what change are they really doing to help humanity as a whole, when they are truly only looking out for themselves and their own comfort/security, while projecting their own existence/ideologies on others. criticism on the right/ownership of ancient artifacts, knowledge and discoveries. people who claim to own knowledge or ancient artifacts are actually theives who are stealing and exploting humanity, what belongs to everyone.

      Epictetus: "He who is properly grounded in life should not have to look for outside approval."

      Also: "If you are ever tempted to look outside for approval, realize you have lost your integrity. If you need a witness, be your own."

      Do not change as often as the winds... But do not be impervious to change either.

      Nietzche: "The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind."

      There is a balance to be held. Change opinion and outside projection only if applicably by rational thought based on thorough research and nuanced deep understanding. Be principled, yet flexible.

    8. "This is how the media pillages On the TV the picture is Savages in villages" criticism of the media, how it produces ratings/money from sensationalising/propagandasing/taking advantage of the absurdity of the human condition, the problems of humanity - creating trauma based mind control, programming our thoughts and controlling mass consciousness of society. projecting false/bias stereotypes, prejudice and perspectives on particular socio-cultural groups. Esp. creating prejudice against individuals and cultures who show the truth towards enlightenment and growth in human consciousness - keep the masses asleep/blinded to the truth of their existence as a whole, also their self-empowerment and enlightenment.

      The control of knowledge (or how it is portrayed) means to control the thoughts of people. This goes against freedom. See Simone Weil: the media should give factual knowledge and leave interpretation to the people. Opinion should fall to a person themselves.

    9. "And the scientist still can't explain the pyramids, huh Evangelists making a living on the videos of ribs of the little kids Stereotyping the image of the images And this is what the image is" similar criticism of religious fundamentalists and secular groups who exploit our emotions - FEAR - esp. playing cards on our "differences", negativity, problems to project their own fears, ideologies and keep everyone in the game of the matrix - the game of polarities and paradigm wars on human consciousness/energy. refers to televangelists who exploit the problem of poverty and children who are dying of malnourishment of hunger to generate their own income. not really creating our productive change to create a long-term solution or fix to these problems. feigned/false compassion and care.

      Worth noting for Christians: before responding on impulse (from a good heart) and paying to save children, take a moment to stop, reflect and analyse, is this a trustworthy organization and person? Will my money truly solve something, will it really help someone?

    10. "But save the animals in the zoo Cause the chimpanzee dem a make big money" another comment similar to the irony/absurdity of focusing on problems of the universe/space exploration rather than problems which affect humanity. we focus on saving other animals, yet we can't even save our own species? why? because of money.

      Money should not be the deciding factor when it comes to determining which problems to solve and which to forego. In fact, anything that advances society as a whole, I'd argue should be free of charge. Is this possible? Not sure, but we as intellectuals should think about this.

    11. "Pay no mind to the youths Cause it's not like the future depends on it" sarcasm. esp. if you look at the music video, you'll notice Damian's sarcastic hand gesture, tone and facial experience. mocking the irony of how schools don't provide children with real knowledge of the world which is ironic because their generation will be the future keepers of humanity with old/new responsibilities and purposes to fulfil. once again, we're stuck in this repeitive cycle of stagnation - problem, reaction, solution. it's kind of what aristotle once said about knowledge and teaching: "This discovery of yours, this writing, you give your students not truth, but only the appearance of truth. They will read many things and will have learned nothing. They will therefore seem to know many things, when they are, for the most part, ignorant and hard to get along with, having the show of wisdom without the reality."

      Interesting food for thought for the optimization of education: should we give students not just domain knowledge (in an efficient manner) but also intercultural and experiental knowledge of the world?

      Not just related to personal development such as wealth creation and personal finance, but also how other civilizations work... Tolerance. Teach them philosophy as well.

      Obviously in such a way that it is attracting and they are intrinsically motivated to go to school and learn.


      Raises a broader question: Is domain knowledge worth anything if you have no knowledge (or experience) about the world in itself? Can you be of any value if you do not know the world in such a manner?

    12. "An' a fly go a moon And can't find food for the starving tummies" criticism on how the wealth and resources used on space exploration - is something that humanity can't understand when those billions used for the scientific pursuit/understanding of the universe, can instead be used to feed and clothe the hungry, the impoverish - basically poverty and world hunger would cease. it's sort of like criticisng the fact that we have problems here on this planet that we all need to work together to solve as a species/planet, yet we're not prioritising those problems as our main repsonisbility, something we need to fix, instead the most intelligent bunch/resourceful are spending their energy/time/reousrces on solving the mysteries of the universe instead. it's commenting on the notion of the microcosm within the macrocosm. if we as a species, esp. the intelligent and resurceful of our lot focused on solving problems like poverty, world hunger, war, crime... solve problems that continue to stagnate our human evolution/progress/conciousness, we could put an end to hegelian dialectics of problem, reaction, solution... this repititive state of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. why do we keep looking outside/external when we have problems in the inside/internal, in our very hearts, minds and homes.. on our own planet Earth? if we solved the problems at home, problems that create the suffering and keep just a few individuals privelaged/intelligent/resourceful over the rest of humanity who is stagnated and moving backwards and keeping humanity in a continous cycle of karma, the wheel of samsara of the human condition... then doesn't that mean that everyone as a whole is enlightened intelligent, resourceful? no one gets left behind and everyone becomes empowered self-sufficient, self-independent, self-enlightened, self-responsible...imagine each and every person self empowered now imagine the entire race of humanity self-empowered... that's billions of buddhas/christs - intellectuals, academics and enlightened individuals working together as a strong force of unity for a common cause. if we can fix those small problems that continue to keep humanity going backwards towards self-destructi, those small problems which greatly impact upon the bigger picture and schemes of things, then we can truly progress towards real change and together explore the universe as a human species. no one gets left behind.

      This is a valid criticism (sorry Elon Musk)... By helping the other individual you in the end help society and therefore yourself.

      We should be focusing on present problems that are closer to us before moving on to more abstract problems that have less value at present.

      The same goes for ourselves. Try not to fix your family or neighborhood before you have fixed yourself (keep in mind diminishing returns). As Dan Koe said: "Your purpose is solving the most pressing problem you have right now." (not verbatim).

      Try not to learn how to learn before your sleep schedule is excellent, before you know how to be productive and have habits.

      Learning enablers first, THEN learning.

      Fix first yourself, then your household, then the city, then the country, then the continent, etc. This does not have to be taken literally, but use it as a wise guidance. It's a principle rather than a law.

    13. "Some of the smartest dummies Can't read the language of Egyptian mummies" points to the notion of paradoxes, dualism, where even the most knowledgeable, creative, innovative, intelligent and academic can't interpret or make sense of ancient wisdom, the pun "language of the Egyptian mummies" refers to the language of the spiritual - life after death wisdom. the divine, infinite and eternal.

      I will call the guy who gives a full theoretical analysis of this song, Mr. X.

      Well, I wonder where Mr. X got all his analysis from first of all. Is it his interpretation? Or what is his source for the meaning of the song?

      Is it therefore objectively true to the artist's intent or is it merely a (good) explanation that seeks to provoke thought?


      I don't know how accurate this claim is as I have not yet dived deeply into ancient knowledge and compare it to modern interpretations of it, but I do feel like this hits a nail... Either Mr. X does or the artists.

      It is quite logical that it is difficult to interpret ancient wisdom as wisdom often assumes the student or reader is familiar with common knowledge... However, what was common in ancient times might be rare currently, or even forgotten or used in different ways, making it very difficult to interpret and parse such texts without a high degree of mastery of background knowledge.

      It's even harder for certain ancient times where everything was rooted in oral tradition without writing. People back then could've been generally wise, but without texts to refer to as primary sources it is virtually impossible to make sense of it.

    14. This song has a lot of meaning in it. It mainly is about patience. We can't expect solutions to happen over night or right away. It takes time to figure things out and we can't rush through life. Since it takes so much time to improve life, we need to ignore the stupid distractions of the media, celebrity and other nonsensical distractions so we can find solutions to our problems. I would like to know what other people think about this song because it really struck a chord with me.

      Interesting interpretation of the song. There is truth to this, although I do not think this is what the artists intended to say.

      I interpret it more like that they criticize the way the media operates in an opinionized manner, and that they encourage you reflect and think critically, to be skeptical and do your own research.

    1. The world today is often characterized by a fast-paced, reactive culture. The song encourages a more thoughtful, deliberate approach to life. Patience allows us to step back, reflect, and make informed decisions instead of impulsively reacting to situations.

      System 1 vs. System 2

      Counteract the dopamine-dependent short-attention-spanned culture of today. Stop. Take time to think. Reflect. Go away from the devices. Perform analog note-making. Slow down.

    2. The song also touches upon personal growth and overcoming challenges. Patience plays a crucial role in learning from mistakes, developing resilience, and ultimately becoming a better person.

      Patience as a Virtue is highly important to a journey of lifelong learning. Without patience you cannot be resilient. Without resilience, you cannot 10X yourself continuously, you cannot keep growing.

    3. The lyrics allude to the slow pace of change and the frustrations that can arise from it. The repetition of "Sabali" emphasizes the need for patience in working towards social progress. Real, lasting change takes time, persistence, and a willingness to work through setbacks.
    4. The song criticizes the tendency to rush to conclusions without fully grasping the complexities of social problems like poverty, inequality, and political corruption. Patience is essential here to delve deeper, research, and understand the root causes rather than relying on superficial opinions.

      First, a man should not have any power over that which he does not understand (deeply).

      Second, patience as a virtue is very important here, because developing expertise in an area takes time and effort. One must be devoted.

      Following from this manner comes, once again, Charlie Munger's principle... Do not form an opinion if you do not understand multiple perspectives.

      "Yes, but I don't have the time to do my own research." is criticism on this principle, I respond with: "But if you aren't even willing to make time to form your opinion based on logic and deep understanding, is it worth having an opinion at all?"

      Like Marcus Aurelius said: "The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject."

      You don't ask a lawyer to perform surgery on you, or even to explain it to you theoretically, he does not know anything about this. In the same way, a civilian should not be asked to teach politics.

      From the same manner, do not judge before understanding. This is also what Mortimer J. Adler & Charles van Doren advocate: "You must say with reasonable certainty 'I understand' before you can say any of the following: 'I agree,' 'I disagree,' or 'I suspend judgement.'"

    5. The song criticizes the tendency to rush into judgment without fully understanding the underlying problems. It also emphasizes the value of research and seeking out the truth from various perspectives.

      This is basically critical thinking. Which is also my goal for (optimal) education: To build a society of people who think for themselves, critical thinkers; those who do not take everything for granted. The skeptics.

      See also Nassim Nicolas Taleb's advice to focus on what you DON'T know rather than what you DO know.

      Related to syntopical reading/learning as well. (and Charlie Munger's advice). You want to build a complete picture with a broad understanding and nuanced before formulating an opinion.

      Remove bias from your judgement (especially when it comes to people or civilizations) and instead base it on logic and deep understanding.

      This also relates to (national, but even local) media... How do you know that what the media portrays about something or someone is correct? Don't take it for granted, especially if it is important, and do your own research. Validity of source is important; media is often opinionized and can contain a lot of misinformation.

      See also Simone Weil's thoughts on media, especially where she says misinformation spread must be stopped. It is a vital need for the soul to be presented with (factual) truth.

    6. The illusion of knowledge: The song questions the notion that speaking confidently on a subject equates to understanding it deeply.

      There is a need for intellectual humility within the community of researchers, and society in general. Do not speak confident about that which you do not know.

      Relation to Charlie Munger's principle.

    1. (2:03) "The average man can't prove of most of the things that he chooses to speak of. And still won't research and find the root of the truth that you seek of."

      So true this quote. Dunning-Krueger. Ignorance. Stupidity.

      Men should listen to Charlie Munger's advice: "I never allow myself to have [express] an opinion about anything that I don't know the opponent side's argument better than they do."

    2. One of the greatest songs ever.

      Much meaning. Depth.

      Patience.

    1. Nishant says: 2x Output for 1x input...

      His formula for mastery: 1. Learn (input -- focus, singletasking) 2. Reflect (output, pause... what is the main takeaway, how to use?) 3. Implement (output, apply) 4. Share (output, teach the material)


      These principles are great... Obviously they are not comprehensive as they do not necessarily reflect higher order learning. See Bloom's and Solo's, nor take foundation of Cognitive Load Theory for example... It's understandable though since you can't mention everything in a 20 minute talk XD.

      The argument I'd make is that the 3 subsequent steps are a part of learning. So the first step should not be called learn but rather encode, since that is literally the process of forming the initial cognitive schemas and putting them into long-term memory...

    2. To be fair, for the picture argument... When you have seen a person only once it's more likely you remember their name, not their face. Additionally, if you have not seen someone for a very very long time the same is true.

      I get the sentiment though and I agree.

    3. According to Nishant, what I agree with, the truly successful people are MASTERS in their craft. They have committed to lifelong learning.

      "Your learning capability decides your earning capacity."


      See also: Ultralearning, Scott H. Young, and Deep Work, Cal Newport... The argument is the same: your ability to adapt in a complex rapidly changing information economy, and to master material determines how much you can earn.

    4. Nishant Kasibhatla memorizes a 30 digit "random" number at the beginning of the video and recalls it correctly, in reverse, at the end of the video.

      He uses number visualization of combinations to do this. (every 2 digit number has an image in his mind that he has practiced substantially in relation)... Similar to Mind Palace.

      He did make a few mistakes in the normal recall at the beginning... But it is safe to assume that he did it on purpose (for what reason I do not know), because he has a lot of expertise in it.

    5. Introducing humor is very good for giving a speech or presenting.

    1. "“Exorcizamus te, omnis immundus spiritus, omnis satanica potestas, omnis incursio infernalis adversarii, omnis legio, omnis congregatio et secta diabolica. Ergo, omnis legio diabolica, adiuramus te…cessa decipere humanas creaturas, eisque æternæ perditionìs venenum propinare…Vade, satana, inventor et magister omnis fallaciæ, hostis humanæ salutis…Humiliare sub potenti manu Dei; contremisce et effuge, invocato a nobis sancto et terribili nomine…quem inferi tremunt…Ab insidiis diaboli, libera nos, Domine. Ut Ecclesiam tuam secura tibi facias libertate servire, te rogamus, audi nos."

      The Latin incantation to exorcise demons in Supernatural is real. And it sounds cool like Chris Aldrich.

    1. Dr. Sönke AhrensOn page 117 of "How to Take Smart Notes" you write the following: "The slip-box not only confronts us with dis-confirming information, butalso helps with what is known as the feature-positive effect (Allison andMessick 1988; Newman, Wolff, and Hearst 1980; Sainsbury 1971). This isthe phenomenon in which we tend to overstate the importance of informationthat is (mentally) easily available to us and tilts our thinking towards the mostrecently acquired facts, not necessarily the most relevant ones. Withoutexternal help, we would not only take exclusively into account what weknow, but what is on top of our heads.[35] The slip-box constantly remindsus of information we have long forgotten and wouldn’t remember otherwise –so much so, we wouldn’t even look for it."My question for you: Why have you chosen to use the Feature-Positive Effect as the phenomenon to make your point and not the recency bias?The recency bias seems more aligned with your point of our minds favoring recently learned information/knowledge over already existing, perhaps more relevant, cognitive schemata.To my mind, the FPE states that it is easier to detect patterns when the unique stimuli indicating the pattern is present rather than absent... In the following example:Pattern in this sequence: 1235 8593 0591 2531 8532 (all numbers have a 5; the unique feature is present) Pattern in this sequence: 1236 8193 0291 2931 8472 (no numbers contain a 5; the unique feature is absent)The pattern in the first sequence is more easily spotted than the pattern in the second sequence, this is the feature-positive effect. This has not much to do with your point.I do get what you are coming from, namely that we are biased towards what is more readily in mind; however, the extension of this argument with the comparison of relevance vs. time makes the recency bias or availability heuristic more applicable; and also easier to explain in my opinion.Once again, I am simply curious what made you choose the FPE as the phenomenon to explain.I hope you take the time to read this and respond to it. Thanks in advance.Sources in the comments
    2. Hey Matthew, it's a fair point. Without having the whole passage or a previous draft in front of me, it could be simply the outcome of the editing process. It does read like you said: as if I had recency bias in mind (next to other fitting ones), which then got lost after having shortened it for readability. That's my best guess. Even though it is tempting in these cases to come up with some post-hoc, smart sounding reason...

      Response by Ahrens to my question/criticism

  3. Jun 2024
    1. There are 3 types of Reading Projects: 1. Doing a research project. Having a well-defined research question and answering it through means of reading. 2. Reading a set of books or a genre in itself or even author; finding out the types or history of it... Mostly applicable to fiction. 3. Becoming more engaged with a specific author or thinker; Reading as much as possible about a specific author (primary, secondary)

    2. There is a value in reading a lot.. But it's not in the number, it is more in the concept of Exploration vs. Specialization. Some form of exploration is highly useful.

    3. Number of Books Read has nothing to do with substance learned; enlightenment gained. It is a vanity metric.

    1. I like the Penguins just fine, and have to confess to enjoying the look of their matte-blank ranks on a shelf when stood all together. I wish they were still priced at the same as a pack of cigarettes, but I guess Allen Lane couldn't have predicted the sorry state of our world. As far as alternatives go, the Oxford World's Classics imprint offers comparable breadth and (often) superior critical material. They're also willing to print interesting variants; one example of this may be found in their offering of both the widely-known 1831 single-volume edition and the original 1818 edition, which contains significant differences. Two other imprints for which to watch out: The Norton Critical Editions are distinctive in all their colourful, oversized splendour, but they offer some of the best value for money if you're seeking an edition of a classic work that also includes a host of useful supplemental documents, critical writings, timelines, and other things that may be of use to those seeking a wider context. This can admittedly get a bit ridiculous in its scope (though I wouldn't have it any other way; the Norton edition of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darknessis around 500 pages long, for instance, with maybe a fifth of that being accounted for by the novella itself. Similarly to the above, the Broadview editions (put out by a Canadian company of the same name) tend to have extremely in-depth supplementary materials. They're also known for offering just as serious and useful editions of comparatively obscure works as they are for well-known classics.

      Publishers that are good in general, for older material: * Penguin Classics * Oxford World Classics * Norton Critical Editions * Broadview Editions

    2. Awesome! I will look into Oxford and the New York Review of Books lines. I have a couple Norton Critical books from school, (one of which is Heart of Darkness, as a matter of fact) and they are crazy good if you are looking for a wide slice of criticism and analysis (thus the critical edition moniker, I guess). For me though, it's really too much for a book you just want to read. I like informative introductions and frequent notes on the personal or literary context (these were great for Monte Cristo), but any more than that begins to weigh things down.

      Some publishers can be too much for certain works (depending on the goal for reading)

    1. Someone whose true identity is a gamer doesn’t have difficulty trolling people online, having a doomer mindset, and ruining their health in front of a screen for 8-10 hours a day.

      XD this sounds fun

    2. Their mind is still programmed with beliefs that serve their outdated goals. It’s difficult for them to believe that your new endeavor will work out because all they know to be possible is what they’ve done.

      Such is the risk of limiting beliefs.

      "He who looks for external validation is not properly grounded in life." -- Marcus Aurelius (20 June 2024 future edit, this must be Epictetus)

      In other words, do not care about what others think... Heed their advice, take it into account, but ultimately you must make the decision yourself.

    1. (16:30) I finally get the holistic view of time...

      The future dictates (or should) our present beliefs, mindsets, thoughts, etc. which therefore changes how we view the past, its meaning. So when we change our vision of the future, our present mutates, and therefore the meaning of the past too.

      When we in the present change, we alter the meaning of the past and gain new possibilities for the future.

      When the meaning of our past changes, it is because of a change in the present and potentially the future.

      In this way, all of time (past, present, future) exists at the same time.

    1. Great song in Supernatural...

      Fun trivia: The actor's reactions are genuine as Sam and Dean (well, the actors) had not heard the song beforehand.

      Although not in this scene; earlier in the episode.

    1. (~8:40)

      Overlearning basically has the purpose of schema automation; creating an intuition for the built cognitive schemata.

    2. (~0:45)

      Justin mentions that a better way to think about learning is in systems rather than techniques. This is true for virtually anything. Tips & Tricks don't get you anywhere, it is the systems which bring you massive improvements because they have components all working together to achieve one goal or a set of goals.

      Any good system has these components working together seamlessly, creating something emergent; worth more than the sum of its parts.

    3. The main idea, able to be generalized, I get from this video is that in order to develop any skill, whether it is learning or something else, you need to break it down into its constituents, much like the 4 Component Instruction Design model argues, and figure out where your weak links are.

      The more accurately you know the system of your skill, the better you know what to potentially improve on. This requires research, and sometimes asking experts.

      Another benefit of networking.

    1. The worry most people have with this suggestion is that children are going to get discouraged if they fail. But that is not necessarily the case, and I think teachers, parents, and other adults have a great opportunity to help prevent this. If we demonstrate that needing to put down a book for awhile is not a failure, then we can help children become more willing to experiment and to try things which are currently just out of reach.

      This is the concept of growth mindset; and we need to teach that to our children in any way possible. It has been shown in studies that growth mindset has a positive causal influence on academic and financial success (I cannot state sources, but I know I've come across this)

      Note to self: Research this later.

    2. Children need to learn to read difficult books, or else once they are in college they won’t be able to do so. That probably means that they need to attempt to read some of these books, even when we know they will likely fail.

      Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm (or motivation)

    3. But consider a new narrative. Imagine instead that books offer us a way to enter into a prolonged conversation across generations. We might even call this the Great Conversation. Imagine instead that authors have generally meant well, and so when they produced difficult works it is because the subject matter is a difficult one. Imagine instead that the past is a kind of mirror for the present, and that history is a guide to the future. New associations are encouraged by this narrative. New works are continuous with old works; both new and old works have something to teach us; difficult works might be more insightful because they engage with the complexity of the world.

      Interesting. Using Mortimer J. Adler's concept of Syntopical Reading to produce motivation, in a good way, for diving into books.

    4. Narratives are how we conceptualize the world. Certain narrative links – links between events that we add in to help explain the world – are picked up through mimesis. We see others think of the world in a particular way, and we start to conceptualize the world in similar terms. And the best solution to a harmful narrative is a more enriching narrative. You have to have a replacement for the narrative you are trying to rid yourself of.

      This is equal to the imitation principle of biologically primary knowledge as stated in Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2011). Perhaps also the borrow-and-reorganize principle though that has to do with biologically secondary knowledge and explicit instruction.

    5. My son is roughly a year old, which means he is starting to walk. He still can’t make it across the room, but he can take a few steps. He has a peculiar habit of eating bananas while standing. This usually means he holds a large chunk of banana in one hand while using the other to hold on to the table. Sometimes, overcome by banana-eating euphoria, he will let go of the table he’s using for stability, and he’ll just stand. Then he notices what he has done, and he promptly falls down. It is reckless to attribute complex thoughts to a developing child, but it seems like he is able to stand until he remembers that he can’t. It’s like his conscious thoughts are preventing him from walking around the room.

      Reminds me of Dragon Ball's concept of Ultra-Instinct, where the best way to fight is to rely on complete intuition and let go of all thought.

    6. And this is what I believe is happening with students and reading, at least in part. They have convinced themselves that they aren’t readers. They have convinced themselves that reading old books, especially difficult old books, is just too arduous, too boring, too pointless. They have convinced themselves that even if the books are good and soul-enriching, there are better things to be doing with their time.

      Fixed mindset. Self fulfilling prophecies. Ignorance.

    7. The ubiquity of smartphones and social media have also affected literacy across the board. Children and adults alike are reading in fundamentally different ways. For one, phones have been shown — to no one’s surprise — to interfere with our ability to focus. And apps such as TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram have shifted our reading habits toward short and often fragmentary text.

      The first thing I ask people who cannot focus for more than an hour straight (which I would argue is a necessity for proper deep learning; see also Flow) is how their dopamine regulation is.

      Dopamine regulation is the biggest factor that I know of (I am not an expert, so there might be even more influential factors) that hampers with the ability to focus for prolonged times in a cyclic way.

      One can enjoy learning, and thus focus, if the average dopamine the brain produces is close to the dopamine they get when performing the act of learning. This is hard if someone uses "dopamine factories" such as TikTok and other shortform content.

    8. Testing culture also discourages deep reading, critics say, because it emphasizes close reading of excerpts, for example, to study a particular literary technique, rather than reading entire works.

      Indeed. But testing in general, as it is done currently, in modern formal education, discourages deep learning as opposed to shallow learning.

      Why? Because tests with marks implore students to start learning at max 3 days before the test, thus getting knowledge into short-term memory and not long term memory. Rendering the process of learning virtually useless even though they "pass" the curriculum.

      I know this because I was such a student, and saw it all around me with virtually every other student I met, and I was in HAVO, a level not considered "low".

      It does not help that teachers, or the system, expect students to know how to learn (efficiently) without it ever being taught to them.

      My message to the system: start teaching students how to learn the moment they enter high school

    9. Gatekeeping Ourselves
    10. I sometimes see this in YouTube comments. When I recommend Plato to beginners in philosophy, I am told that I am being irresponsible, because Plato is too difficult for a beginner. It would be better to recommend a comprehensive survey of philosophy explicitly written for beginners, the critics say, so that people don’t get overwhelmed. But then I see other comments, sometimes on YouTube but often elsewhere, from people who had never read any philosophy, stumbled on one of my videos, and read Plato. Sometimes these are high school students, sometimes college graduates who did not study philosophy, sometimes mid-career adults who didn’t bother with college. The message is remarkably similar. They were previously convinced that philosophy would be too difficult to them, and reading Plato helped them see that they were wrong.

      Self-fulfilling prophecy?

    1. The more inventive and fecund a great mind is, the more it will shape thelanguage it uses to fit its thought. To express a new idea or insight, a new word isinvented or an old word given a novel meaning. Sometimes in the development ofhis own characteristic vocabulary, a great writer uses a new word for an old ideawhich he has appropriated and assimilated to his own thought. Sometimes theopposite occurs; the traditional word is appropriated or borrowed, but the ideawhich it long expressed is replaced either by a totally new, or at least by a variant,conception.

      Language is essential for the expression of thought, be it novel or ancient.

    2. The foregoing examples illustrate various forms topics take according to thedifferent kinds of subjects they propose for discussion. Some deal with the natureof a thing or its definition, some with its qualities or attributes, some with itscauses, and some with its kinds; some deal with distinctions or differences, andsome with comparisons or contrasts; some propose a general theory for considera-tion, some present a problem, and some state an Issue. Some— such as the lastthree above —are difficult to characterize by any formula.

      The complexity of the topic is determined by the content of the discussion the topic is about.

    3. It is easier to say what a topic is not, than what it is or should be. If it mustalways be a less determinate expression than a sentence, and if it must usually be amore complex expression than a single word or pair of words (which are theverbal expression of terms, such as the great ideas), it would seem to follow thatthe proper expression of a topic is a phrase— often, perhaps, a fairly elaboratephrase involving a number of terms and signifying a number of possible relationsbetween them. This general description of the grammatical form of a topic docsnot, however, convey an adequate notion of the extraordinary variety of possi-ble phrasings.

      To me, it seems that Adler et al., are arguing that a topic should be stated as a phrase with varying degrees of complexity, determined by ?

    4. For example, “The ideal of the educated man’"(Education la) is a simple topic; “The right to property: the ownership of themeans of production” (Labor 7b) is a complex topic; and “The use and criticismof the intellectual tradition: the sifting of truth from erroi; the reaction againstthe authority of the past” (Progress 6c) is a more complex topic.

      Some examples of topics that are formulated and used in the original syntopicon.

    5. A topic, in short, must have greater amplitude than any other logical form ofstatement. The familiar grammatical forms of the declarative or interrogativesentence, or even the complex sentence w'hich expresses a dilemma, arc there-fore inappropriate for the statement of topics. Since it must be able to includeall these and more, the statement of a topic must be less determinate in verbalstructure.

      A topic should never be suggestive, for it would not be a topic in that way.

    6. A topic is essentially a*sub)ect for discussion. The Greek word topos from which**topic^’ is derived literally means a place. Its literal meaning is retained in suchEnglish words as “topography” and “topology,” which signify the study ofphysical or geometrical places. The conception of a topic as a subject for discus’-sion is a metaphorical extension of this root meaning. A topic is a logical place; itis a place where minds meet to consider some common problem or theme.The minds may agree or disagree; they may argue the matter from differentpoints of view; they may contribute to the discussion in a variety of ways — byoffering examples, by proposing definitions or hypotheses, by stating analyses orarguments, by debating what has already been said, or by advancing a new view.But whatever form each contribution takes, it must be relevant, though it neednot be relevant in the same way or to the same degree. The various contributionsare relevant to each other through their relevance to the common theme orproblem, and this gives unity to the variety of things being said.A topic, then, is a place where minds meet through being relevant to a commonsubject of discussion. It is a place at which an intelligible exchange of thought,insight, or opinion can occur.

      A topic is a place where minds meet for discussion.

    7. The topics are the basic units of the Syntopicon. They perform a doublefunction. The Outline of Topics in each chapter is the analysis of a great idea,setting forth its various meanings, its themes and problems; and the individualtopics serve as the immediate headings under w^hich are assembled the referencesto the discussion of each particular subject in the great books. The topics are themajor subdivisions of the discussion in the sphere of each of the great ideas, as theideas are the main divisions of the whole discussion in the great books. As eachidea represents a general field of discourse— a domain of learning and inquiry—covering a variety of related themes and problems, so, under each idea, the varioustopics represent the themes and problems which are the particular subjects ofdiscussion in that field.

      It seems as though an idea is very broad and a "sub-topic" is more granular, though also determined based on the overall content and related to the primary idea.

    8. The two mfasi^rfs of intrinsic greatness — scope and significance

      It seems that most of the ideas were chosen based on scope and significance.

    9. The reason which operated against such multiplication of chapters was(as already stated) the desire to avoid excessive duplication among topics andreferences.

      Adler et al. operated from a state of efficiency in the sense that they did not want the book to become too long (even though, or maybe because of, the fact that the end result became already two volumes each more than a thousand pages)

    10. Both the great books and the great ideas were chosen to represent the unity andcontinuity of the tradition of western thought. The great l^ks are those whichdeal imaginatively or intellectually with the ideas which arc fundamental through-out this whole tradition. Any important work -ancient, mediaeval, or modern-will necessarily be concerned with these ideas in some uay. What distinguishes thegreat books is the originality, the profundity, and the scope of their treatment ofthese ideas. Other books, important in some special field of learning, may havethese qualities with respect to one idea or even to several related ideas, but thegreat books possess them for a considerable range of ideas, covering a variety ofsubject matters or disciplines; and among the great books the greatest arc thosewith the greatest range of imaginative or intellectual content.

      Adler explains the distinctive factor determining which authors and works were included in the list of the Great Books of the Western World.

      Basically, they were works that were influential, written excellently, and had applicability to a considerable amount of ideas processed by the whole.

    11. The great majority of terms eliminated were those which did not appear to ,receive extensive or elaborate treatment in the great books. They were terms thatdid not seem to have a lively career —a continuous and complex developmentthroughout the three-thousand-year tradition of the great books.The editors usedthe actual content of the great books as the test whereby to separate a small set oftruly great ideas from a much larger number of important concepts or notions.The reader can apply this test himself by comparing the 1800 concepts listed inthe Inventory of Terms, with the 102 ideas that are treated as the principalterms in the Syntopicon.

      The ideas were chosen on the basis of coverage within the Great Works.

    12. THE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OFSYNTOPICAL CONSTRUCTION
    1. One point for having many unread books is to show the extent of ignorance and develop intellectual humility.

      As Confucius already said: "True knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."

    2. Umberto Eco recommends to have as much unread books in your personal library as your financial means allow.

    3. For an intellectual, the library is not there to simply collect books, but rather to serve as a tool for research.

    4. Tsundoku = Japanese for the art of buying more books than you can read.

    1. (~11:00) I am getting inspired to create my own "Syntopicon" of Education and Learning. Obviously this will be a lifelong endeavor and great undertaking, bound to change with every single reading... As I am not a team of 501 people.

      I think I will do this. But how? I am not sure yet. Let's think about it.

      I will probably build it out in the open. Perhaps I will even build this syntopicon of education using Obsidian's networked thought system... Instead of a formal linear book. A network of notes is much easier to navigate and will get me where I want to be. Also much easier to edit throughout the process of doing research.

    2. Is Syntopical Reading not the same as meta-analytic research? In what ways does it differ? In what ways is it the same?

    3. (~3:00) Syntopical Reading requires building a map of the topic across sources (coming up with one's own terms) in order to find out what each author is saying.

      How does one do this if the process of syntopical reading is the process by which one comes up with the knowledge? I believe the answer lies in a high skill level of Inspectional Reading

      Obviously, one cannot make a perfect map from the get go, and this should not be the intention (defeat perfectionism)... However, a rough sketch or map is far more valuable than none at all.

      I believe this is also the point of Dr. Justin Sung's prestudy... Building the barebone structure of the mindmap, finding the logic behind it all; the first layer.

    4. ( ~1:40) Syntopical Reading is about making one's own mind up.

  4. May 2024
    1. Matthew van der Hoorn Yes totally agree but could be used for creating a draft to work with, that's always the angle I try to take buy hear what you are saying Matthew!

      Reply to Nidhi Sachdeva: Nidhi Sachdeva, PhD Just went through the micro-lesson itself. In the context of teachers using to generate instruction examples, I do not argue against that. The teacher does not have to learn the content, or so I hope.

      However, I would argue that the learners themselves should try to come up with examples or analogies, etc. But this depends on the learner's learning skills, which should be taught in schools in the first place.

    2. ***Deep Processing***-> It's important in learning. It's when our brain constructs meaning and says, "Ah, I get it, this makes sense." -> It's when new knowledge establishes connections to your pre-existing knowledge.-> When done well, It's what makes the knowledge easily retrievable when you need it. How do we achieve deep processing in learning? 👉🏽 STORIES, EXPLANATIONS, EXAMPLES, ANALOGIES and more - they all promote deep meaningful processing. 🤔BUT, it's not always easy to come up with stories and examples. It's also time-consuming. You can ask you AI buddies to help with that. We have it now, let's leverage it. Here's a microlesson developed on 7taps Microlearning about this topic.

      Reply to Nidhi Sachdeva: I agree mostly, but I would advice against using AI for this. If your brain is not doing the work (the AI is coming up with the story/analogy) it is much less effective. Dr. Sönke Ahrens already said: "He who does the effort, does the learning."

      I would bet that Cognitive Load Theory also would show that there is much less optimized intrinsic cognitive load (load stemming from the building or automation of cognitive schemas) when another person, or the AI, is thinking of the analogies.


      https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7199396764536221698/

    1. Matthew van der Hoorn I agree. However, one of the first things I learned as a student teacher many moons ago was just because I am teaching does not mean anyone is learning. Whole - part - whole, cooperative, Kolb's cycle, etc are simply teaching tools to be used with varying levels of skill.My application of this to the L&D world was making the point that many don't have any understanding of andragogy before embarking on a (often second) career.

      Alan Clark True. As Dr. Sönke Ahrens says, "The one who does the effort does the learning."

      What goes on in the mind is how learning happens, it is the learner that must do the learning.

      I think what you mean is that when YOU are teaching, it does not mean OTHERS are learning.

      What I meant was that when the LEARNER is doing the teaching, HE consolidates his own learning.


      Comment link: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7197621782743252992%2C7198233333577699328%29&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287198233333577699328%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7197621782743252992%29

      Link for Hypothes.is context: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992/?commentUrn=urn:li:comment:(activity:7197621782743252992,7198233333577699328)&dashCommentUrn=urn:li:fsd_comment:(7198233333577699328,urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992)

    2. Alan Clark Agreed...also; learning = change in behaviour, is another widely held belief.

      Reply to John Whitfield: I think that one is mostly a semantic issue. In some definitions of learning, learning does equate to a change in behavior. In parenting for example, how is learning measured? If the behavior is changed. Therefore, for parenting, learning is a change in behavior.

      I'd argue for many books the same is true, what is the use of a book if the knowledge is only in your head. Application, thus changing one's behavior, is essential for the proper use. Obviously this is not for everything the case, but I am highlighting a few scenarios where it would be accurate to say that learning is a change in behavior.

      Nothing is ever black and white, it is quite simplistic to say such things, often there is a lot of nuance going on.


      Comment link: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7197621782743252992%2C7198233333577699328%29&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287198233333577699328%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7197621782743252992%29

      Link for Hypothes.is context: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992/?commentUrn=urn:li:comment:(activity:7197621782743252992,7198233333577699328)&dashCommentUrn=urn:li:fsd_comment:(7198233333577699328,urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992)

    3. That teaching = learning. A widely held belief in L&D.

      Reply to Alan Clark: Alan Clark Perhaps teaching is not learning, but teaching is an excellent way of consolidating and verifying knowledge. Depending on how one does it, the teaching improves both comprehension and retention. See, for example, the whole-part-whole reteaching method that Dr Justin Sung teaches in the advanced parts of the iCanStudy course.


      Comment link: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7197621782743252992%2C7198233333577699328%29&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287198233333577699328%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7197621782743252992%29

      Link for Hypothes.is context: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992/?commentUrn=urn:li:comment:(activity:7197621782743252992,7198233333577699328)&dashCommentUrn=urn:li:fsd_comment:(7198233333577699328,urn:li:activity:7197621782743252992)

    1. His interest in the human psyche, past and present, led him to study mythology, alchemy, oriental religions and philosophies, and traditional peoples. Later he became interested in parapsychology and the occult.

      Fascinating, Carl Jung was into the occult.

    1. (~6:30)

      I think the major point here is that Adler points out our minds, and thus our thinking, changes over time. Therefore, when a book is read at a later point in time, our notes are different.

      Perhaps his argument to "think again as to make the thought more current" is antithetical to Luhmann's Zettelkasten, which principles upon continuing previous lines of thought, even decades later.

      (future note, about half an hour later)... I think in the Zettelkasten the problem is dealt with adequately, since you actually can make new notes expressing why your thought changes... So in this sense it is even more expanded upon the point that Adler makes even though at first sight it seems the complete opposite.

    2. (~8.55)

      It is argued by Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren that to fully grasp a book (part of analytical reading), one should make their own analytical table of contents, outlining not just the chapters but also the content. I need to look into how to make those.

    1. Andragogy refers to methods and principles used in adult education.[1][2] The word comes from the Greek ἀνδρ- (andr-), meaning "adult male", and ἀγωγός (agogos), meaning "leader of". Therefore, andragogy literally means "leading men (adult males)", whereas "pedagogy" literally means "leading children".[3]
    1. "When kids write letters, they're just messy," she says. As kids practice writing "A," each iteration is different, and that variability helps solidify their conceptual understanding of the letter.

      Interleaving

    2. A slew of recent brain imaging research suggests handwriting's power stems from the relative complexity of the process and how it forces different brain systems to work together to reproduce the shapes of letters in our heads onto the page.

      Interesting. Needs more research on my part.

    3. In adults, taking notes by hand during a lecture, instead of typing, can lead to better conceptual understanding of material.

      This is because of the fact that one needs to think (process) before writing. One can't possibly write everything verbatim. Deep processing. Relational thinking.

    4. Why writing by hand beats typing for thinking and learning
    1. "The great books are the inexhaustible books. The books that can sustain a lifetime of reading."

    2. "The great books are the books that never have to be written again. They are so good no-one can try to write them again."

    3. "The great books are the books that everyone wants to have read but no-one wants to read."

    4. What did not stand out to me before while reading the book, but does now when watching this, is the fact that the greatest books are subjective to each individual... Meaning my list might not be the same for others.

    5. Very fascinating thought experiment. Out of the 140+ books I have read so far only a few, less than a handful, would fit the list of "growth" books; the greatest, that I would take to the deserted island for 10 years...

      1. The Bible
      2. Antonin Sertillanges' The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Method, Conditions
      3. Marcus Aurelius' Meditations

      No other book, to my mind, that I have read so far would cut it to my list.

    1. Perhaps the best method would be to take notes—not excerpts, but condensed reformulations of what has been read. The re-description of what has already been described leads almost automatically to a training of paying attention to “frames,” or schemata of observation, or even to noticing conditions which lead the text to offer some descriptions but not others.

      Summarization. Building of cognitive schemas.

    2. Learning How to Read
    3. Theoretically interested readers should therefore follow the advice of learning as many languages as possible in such a way that they have at least passive mastery of them and thus can read and understand them.

      Interesting, Luhmann recommends to know many languages so as to prevent the pitfalls of translational errors in conveying meaning when it is to read translated books. So read books in their original language.

    1. Or, you may say that this business of marking books is going to slow up your reading. It probably will. That's one of the reasons for doing it. Most of us have been taken in by the notion that speed of reading is a measure of our intelligence. There is no such thing as the right speed for intelligent read-ing. Some things should be read quick-ly and effortlessly, and some should be read slowly and even laboriously. The sign of intelligence in reading is the ability to read different things dif-ferently according to their worth.

      As Luhmann would say, it is foolish to think that things are black and white; in most scenarios there is nuance... So too is it with reading speed, it must be relative or else it is not accurate. Even speed within books can differ.

    2. I use the end-pa-pers at the back of the book to make a personal index of the author's points in the order of their appearance.

      I will start doing this too, but on the associated bib-card.

    3. 1. Underlining: of major points, of important or forceful statements. 2. Vertical lines at the margin: to emphasize a statement already under-lined. 3. Star, asterisk, or other doo-dad at the margin: to be used sparingly, to emphasize the ten or twenty most important statements in the book. (You may want to fold the bottom cor-ner of each page on which you use such marks. It won't hurt the sturdy paper on which most modern books are printed, and you will be able to take the book off the shelf at any time and, by opening it at the folded-corner page, refresh your recollection of the book.) 4. Numbers in the margin: to indi-cate the sequence of points the author makes in developing a single argu-ment. 5. Numbers of other pages in the margin: to indicate where else in the book the author made points relevant to the point marked; to tie up the ideas in a book, which, though they may be separated by many pages, be-long together. 6. Circling of hey words or phrases. 7. Writing in the margin, or at the top or bottom of the page, for the sake of: recording questions (and perhaps answers) which a passage raised in your mind; reducing a complicated dis-cussion to a simple statement; record-

      I might actually use a system similar to this myself to aid with the dissection of a book in its fullest; to keep track of arguments and points, I am in need of this. Combine the bib-card with the Marginalia to enhance my reading process.

    4. ment, doubt, and inquiry. It's like re-suming an interrupted conversation with the advantage of being able to pick up where you left off. And that is exactly what reading a book should be: a conversation be-tween you and the author. Presumably he knows more about the subject than you do; naturally, you'll have the prop-er humility as you approach him.

      This is the entire point of an Antinet or Zettelkasten, and it is far more advanced/useful for this purpose than just Marginalia. Sorry Adler, but you should have spoken to Luhmann in this regard. Both of you are heroes of mine, but in this round, Luhmann takes the crown.

    5. To set down your reaction to important words and sen-tences you have read, and the ques-tions they have raised in your mind, is to preserve those reactions and sharp-en those questions.

      I need to do this more often myself. Too often, at least when reading physical books, I am doing the thinking in my head instead of writing on my bib-card what I actually think.

    6. conscious; I mean wide awake.) In the second place, reading, if it is active, is tliinking, and thinking tends to ex-press itself in words, spoken or writ-ten. The marked book is usually the thought-through book. Finally, writ-ing helps you remember the thoughts you had, or the thoughts the author expressed. Let me develop these three points.

      I agree on these three points, which I usually do through the bib-card method or annotating on hypothes.is if I read digitally. I keep the physical book mostly clean.

      However, I am looking for a way to keep track of points and arguments in works, and I hypothesize that marginalia are the way to do this the best.

    7. There are two ways in which one can own a book. The first is the prop-erty right you establish by paying for it, just as you pay for clothes and fur-niture. But this act of purchase is only the prelude to possession. Full owner-ship comes only when you have made it a part of yourself, and the best way to make yourself a part of it is by writing in it.

      Apparently, the real ownership of a book, to make it a part of oneself, you need to mark it up. To make use of marginalia, according to Adler that is.

      I personally don't like Marginalia, as I want to keep my books clean, which is why I use Luhmann's bibliography card method, but perhaps Adler can convince me of the opposite. We shall see.

    8. Confusion about what it means to own a book leads people to a false reverence for paper, binding, and type —a respect for the physical thing—the craft of the printer rather than the genius of the author. They forget that it is possible for a man to acquire the idea, to possess the beauty, which a great book contains, without staking his claim by pasting his bookplate in-side the cover. Having a fine library doesn't prove that its owner has a mind enriched by books; it proves nothing more than that he, his father, or his wife, was rich enough to buy them.

      Adler makes a valid point here, books in its own have no worth. Owning a book, or even having "read" it don't serve any purpose. One must read properly in order to this, analytically or syntopically as Adler would call it.

      What he is wrong at, in my opinion, that Marginalia are the key to doing this... Yes, they might be helpful, but other techniques, such as Luhmann's bib-card method and learning methodologies like GRINDEmapping could perhaps be even more useful for this purpose.

    1. For many high-performers, that is the most difficult thing in the world. They can’t imagine doing that. The pain of not making progress toward the goals that make them who they are would eat them alive.

      I have experienced this firsthand for many months, until my laptop got away and I failed to stay productive due to my own limiting beliefs and stupidity... Now it's hard to get back into the lifestyle of the great again.

    2. They are the sacrifices you are not willing to make to achieve a goal.

      About anti-goals

    3. We pay too much attention to the goals of others to the point of having zero attention left for our own.

      "The worst day working on your own goals is still better than the best day working on someone else's." -- Dan Koe

    4. It is the byproduct of knowing what you want and accepting nothing less from yourself. It is the byproduct of an ordered mind. That is, maintaining a clear vision for your future and filling clarity gaps with education and action. The reason people struggle with self-discipline is because they get distracted from what matters. They forget who they want to become. They forget what they are capable of. They forget the impact they want to have.

      100X goals force one to filter action... Impossible goals = Mental Clarity of the HIGHEST degree.

      100X come from vision which in turn comes from future identity (future-self)

    5. They check many boxes for flow – the main characteristic that makes us addicted to video games. Challenge – A goal that is within reach and tests your skill. Skill – If your skill is too low for the challenge, you get anxious. If it is too high, you get bored, indicating that you need to choose a greater or lesser challenge rather than give up. Clarity – A hierarchy of greater to lesser goals makes it easier to start moving toward your vision for the future. Feedback – You know exactly when you are making progress and that feels good. You don’t feel trapped in a cycle of repetitive tasks that lead to nowhere. Rules – Rules or boundaries frame how you perceive the world. Your mind has more space to notice information that aids in the achievement of your goals. When you turn your life into a game, you become obsessed with progress.

      Gamify one's life to get progress if necessary. Integrate into systems.

  5. Apr 2024
    1. Research messages are frequently too vague to be effective because the skills and expertise of teaching are difficult to transfer.

      I have not yet encountered this myself. Honestly, vagueness to me would mean that I do not understand the subject enough and so I need to take a step back and reassess my knowledge.

      All vagueness can be overcome by expertise.

      How can one expect to teach when one does not understand how learning works on a deep level? This is a fatal flaw within the current education system. In High School you are expected to know how to learn without it ever being taught, and teachers cannot help for they too do not know how to learn...

      They come with severely outdated methods (i.e., summarization, rereading, or flashcards), or even disproved principles like Learning Styles.

    2. And the evidence is coming back with unexpected results. A series of randomised controlled trials, including one looking at how to improve literacy through evidence, have suggested that schools that use methods based on research are not performing better than schools that do not.

      This, too, is very logical. It is due to the nature of systems.

      When one component, or even a lot, get "upgraded" this does not result in the overall results being improved. A system works best when all components work together to one or multiple goals in seemless harmony, creating emergence.

      Therefore, if a component is out of place, even if it is better than its predecessor, it won't yield the correct results.

      So for the methods to have a large, positive, impact, the entire system needs to be transformed.

      This is why I don't want to upgrade a component of education at a time, but completely transform it once my theory of optimal education is complete. Like a phoenix, from the ashes we will rise. Burn it all down, and build it up again with an OODA loop at the core... The system needs to be in constant change, for without change, evolution cannot happen.

      Observation Orientation Decision Action

      This loop needs to be at the center of every system for "systems without the inherent capacity to change are doomed to die" -- Colonel John Boyd.

      Of course, the system will need to be designed with utmost care and based on countless amounts of research, reviewed by a multitude of world-class experts in numeral areas.

    3. But my research and that of others shows that incorporating strategies that have evidence backing them into teaching doesn’t always yield the results we want.

      True, learning is complicated, so is the learner. In what ways does it not yield the results? Did the theory get applied correctly? Please give more detail.

    4. Most schools have implemented reading programmes with significant amounts of evidence behind them. But, despite this, reading abilities have not changed much in the UK for decades.

      How many is "most"? Did they apply the evidence correctly?

  6. Mar 2024
    1. LOL. Why does this stupid myth still get promoted??? This is so dumb. It's not about the medium you use (to a certain degree) but about the processes going on in your mind. Dumb fuck.

    1. This video actually has some pretty valid learning advice despite its lighthearted style.

      Don't agree with everything, as usual.