The relation between mass & energy seems very intuitive, I’ve known it for most of my life!
Wdym humanity just recently learned that??
(It’s a cognitive bias when you internalise some information you just learned, & suddenly get the feeling that all who don’t know it are kinda dumb, like that into info wasn’t gifted to you by chance/random experience.)
like that into wasn’t gifted to you by chance/random experience.
This sounds like you think purposefully learning things isn’t a thing.
Do you mean that things you don’t remember purposefully learning, are more easily consciously forgotten, even when internalised?
Because we are often somewhat bad at saying where we specifically picked up a bit of information, unless we have very good context like having studied for a test on a specific subject or smth.
Sorry, I don’t think I understood your reply.
(What’s is the difference between learning something on purpose or not?)
It’s not about forgetting where you got the info from, it’s forgetting that others (other brainholes besides your own) don’t/might not know it.
It’s just a characteristic of human(?) psychology, we all have it (it’s not applicable/the bias doesn’t kick in constantly, but it’s there, you can’t really function without it).
Information asymmetry isn’t that intuitive to us, the languages/communication itself (memetics) heavily implies that - you just can’t always explain everything from scratch, from inventing a form of communication to everything in the universe, etc just to tell someone to eg boil some water.
A basic example of this might be a child opening a tin box with cookies pictured on it only to find a sewing kit, then another child walking into the room, not seeing the opened box they don’t know it doesn’t contain cookies so they check. The first child usually thinks that the other one is stupid af bcs “it is known that there are no cookies in that box, duh, everyone knows that” (even forgetting that it’s a reasonable assumption that there should be cookies in it). Children up to 4 (or 7?) can really struggle with that but can comprehend if explained to them (sooner or later we usually do learn it & try our best to compensate for it).
More nuanced cases are ofc when it gets tricky to correct the bias (you just don’t have the data or the time to account for all of it, perhaps even a cultural hurdle as ppl might take offence to you over-explaining something they think they already know), eg at work giving tasks to someone less/differently experienced than you.
I’m still not sure I follow the reasoning, but maybe: I meant that bcs of the unimaginable randomness of cases and impossible vastness of data. You absolutely don’t have free access to all the data (you don’t know what I keep in my tin box at home). You can purposely (or not) only access the data that is by chance accessible to you.
So within this context I find it weird differentiating between purposely vs accidentally (if that is the opposite?) acquiring knowledge bcs even if you pick up a book you chose it’s still very much random & nothing in comparison to all the data in existence (and the comparison was between overlapping experiences of different people, so another dimension of random selection).
That’s why I was presenting it as random (but active or passive learning - it makes no difference to that point, so that’s why I didn’t initially get what you were saying).
Ofc you have experts in their fields, they gathered knowledge “on purpose” to that end - and yet when I hire such an expert, first day on the job that idiot doesn’t even know where their desk is.
You can’t follow the sentence “the way you worded that implied that all the information you have was ‘gifted’ by ‘random chance’”?
Lots of people enjoy general knowledge. There’s even quite a few games and TV-shows based on it. You’d argue that everyone who did well in those, or say, Trivial Pursuit, are better by chance because they were “gifted” something instead of having had worked for it?
There are people addicted to generalised trivia and facts and then there are people who don’t understand the difference between amperes and volts, despite that being taught in pretty much all basic education in at least the developed world.
But no, the kids getting A’s didn’t work for anything, they were just gifted?
Just like
This girl was also probably gifted her massive arms. I mean, there’s so many other things she could possibly be doing with her arms, so it’s just random that she’d get larger ones on purpose. It was a random “gift” from… God?
And this isn’t even about the context. Again, the way you worded it excluded experts as well. But you just have to move the goalposts instead of saying “yeah, you’re right, it does imply that, I could’ve worded that better”. No, instead you’re like “I didn’t mean experts, obviously!” Why not? (Do you notice btw how I’m asking you things instead of telling them? Wish there was like a name for this style of rhetoric. Can someone perhaps think of one?)
I wasn’t talking about learning at all.
I never said anything against the human activity of learning. I feel like I triggered you on something personal, for which I’m sorry.
Being in the vicinity of information --> gifted the chance to absorb/learn/remember it.
The girl was gifted (by which I mean randomised circumstances) the chance to put in the effort for those gains, yet she still can’t lift a mountain, much less the galaxy. She wouldn’t have the same gains if she was in a famine, or without arms, or a snail.
Again, that is not diminishing her efforts, attitude, results in any way, bcs we understand the context of human lives individually (ie she’s amazing).
Trivia nerds won’t know what random number I’m thinking of. Or what is dark matter. Or which human pooped the largest poop in 1000BC.
Learning is fun, it has a lot of positive synergies with basically everything, and we tend to rightfully cherish knowledgeable ppl more. And we don’t think knowledgeable ppl are dumb bcs they don’t know things they were never privy to learn. I’m still not sure why would you assume my standing to the opposite, but I think we already cleared that isn’t the case.
I didn’t move any goalposts (that’s just you trying to win something I think - I did include experts) & I think most understood me correctly. But you just wanted to argue (my use of the word gift) like a master debater & extended my simple point into wannabe “this guy doesn’t appreciate ppl’s efforts & thinks learning is fake”.
That’s just mean.
Here, have some inspirational quotes (with maybe the general use of the word gift that is lacking in this convo):
Your great longevity wasn’t just gifted to you - you earned it through sweat, hard push, and blood!
Gg!
Alas time is a cruel mistress, your once renowned, great name fell to obscurity, monuments erected in your honour faded, cults following your teachings disappointing, the poop buried deep beneath the sand dunes.
May you find solace in that your deed was so great your renown passed on to myth & legends - and you lived to see it!
I never said anything against the human activity of learning
Honestly seeing this level of “rhetoric” is just… well I’m just bored arguing kids/idiots like you. You can’t actually stand behind your words, so you try to make it personal.
No, you haven’t “triggered” anything by wording your comment poorly, but like I said, instead of just saying “oh right you are, that wording does indeed have that implication, I’ll word it better” you’re going all out on these pathetic ad hominems. Which is a term I’m 85% sure you’re gonna misuse due to fundamentally misunderstanding it.
Being in the vicinity of information --> gifted the chance to absorb/learn/remember it.
Hahaha dude you do crack me up. You’ve never heard of willfull ignorance, or can’t imagine it’s opposite? I pity you.
Trivia nerds won’t know what random number I’m thinking of.
Yeah uhm does that mean that they don’t exist and/or have a much larger grasp of a million different little things than someone who’s wasted their life thinking information just randomly spawns into you, so they didn’t bother actively learning anything.
But you just wanted to argue (my use of the word gift) like a master debater & extended my simple point into wannabe *"this guy doesn’t appreciate ppl’s efforts & thinks learning is fake
That’s known as a strawman my little silly-billy. And it’s just like I said. You literally can not say “my mistake, I could’ve worded that better” you’ve made this be some sort of contest.
It’s really not. If it were, you wouldn’t stand a chance with, again, that childish level of rhetoric.
I think I’ve deeply triggered your traumas of getting beat hard in all the quizzes you’ve ever taken (I don’t think you’re really the type to play Trivial Pursuit, lolololol.) And that’s okay. Learning is good. Like learning to handle your personal emotions and feelings of inferiority.
Which is what you’re having a complex about here, because I’m just pointing out your original wording did in fact imply that you think all information we have was “gifted by random chance”.
Being mean doesn’t equate to an ad hominem, by the way. Neither do insults. They’re not synonyms, which you’d know if you had ever spent any time actually learning about them. But you didn’t. Perhaps you thought “random chance” would just plop it in your head one day? RUAHAHAHA :D
The relation between mass & energy seems very intuitive, I’ve known it for most of my life!
Wdym humanity just recently learned that??
(It’s a cognitive bias when you internalise some information you just learned, & suddenly get the feeling that all who don’t know it are kinda dumb, like that
intoinfo wasn’t gifted to you by chance/random experience.)This sounds like you think purposefully learning things isn’t a thing.
Do you mean that things you don’t remember purposefully learning, are more easily consciously forgotten, even when internalised?
Because we are often somewhat bad at saying where we specifically picked up a bit of information, unless we have very good context like having studied for a test on a specific subject or smth.
Sorry, I don’t think I understood your reply.
(What’s is the difference between learning something on purpose or not?)
It’s not about forgetting where you got the info from, it’s forgetting that others (other brainholes besides your own) don’t/might not know it.
It’s just a characteristic of human(?) psychology, we all have it (it’s not applicable/the bias doesn’t kick in constantly, but it’s there, you can’t really function without it).
Information asymmetry isn’t that intuitive to us, the languages/communication itself (memetics) heavily implies that - you just can’t always explain everything from scratch, from inventing a form of communication to everything in the universe, etc just to tell someone to eg boil some water.
A basic example of this might be a child opening a tin box with cookies pictured on it only to find a sewing kit, then another child walking into the room, not seeing the opened box they don’t know it doesn’t contain cookies so they check. The first child usually thinks that the other one is stupid af bcs “it is known that there are no cookies in that box, duh, everyone knows that” (even forgetting that it’s a reasonable assumption that there should be cookies in it). Children up to 4 (or 7?) can really struggle with that but can comprehend if explained to them (sooner or later we usually do learn it & try our best to compensate for it).
More nuanced cases are ofc when it gets tricky to correct the bias (you just don’t have the data or the time to account for all of it, perhaps even a cultural hurdle as ppl might take offence to you over-explaining something they think they already know), eg at work giving tasks to someone less/differently experienced than you.
I think it’s a subset of wiki/Curse_of_knowledge, but I’m no psychology expert so I’m not sure (might be classified differently, wiki/Cognitive_bias).
Yes, I understand the bias.
You just worded it as if all the information in your head is in there by accident, and you can’t actually influence the amount.
You very much can, obviously.
But that doesn’t remove the bias… again, obviously.
I’m still not sure I follow the reasoning, but maybe: I meant that bcs of the unimaginable randomness of cases and impossible vastness of data. You absolutely don’t have free access to all the data (you don’t know what I keep in my tin box at home). You can purposely (or not) only access the data that is by chance accessible to you.
So within this context I find it weird differentiating between purposely vs accidentally (if that is the opposite?) acquiring knowledge bcs even if you pick up a book you chose it’s still very much random & nothing in comparison to all the data in existence (and the comparison was between overlapping experiences of different people, so another dimension of random selection).
That’s why I was presenting it as random (but active or passive learning - it makes no difference to that point, so that’s why I didn’t initially get what you were saying).
Ofc you have experts in their fields, they gathered knowledge “on purpose” to that end - and yet when I hire such an expert, first day on the job that idiot doesn’t even know where their desk is.
You can’t follow the sentence “the way you worded that implied that all the information you have was ‘gifted’ by ‘random chance’”?
Lots of people enjoy general knowledge. There’s even quite a few games and TV-shows based on it. You’d argue that everyone who did well in those, or say, Trivial Pursuit, are better by chance because they were “gifted” something instead of having had worked for it?
There are people addicted to generalised trivia and facts and then there are people who don’t understand the difference between amperes and volts, despite that being taught in pretty much all basic education in at least the developed world.
But no, the kids getting A’s didn’t work for anything, they were just gifted?
Just like
This girl was also probably gifted her massive arms. I mean, there’s so many other things she could possibly be doing with her arms, so it’s just random that she’d get larger ones on purpose. It was a random “gift” from… God?
And this isn’t even about the context. Again, the way you worded it excluded experts as well. But you just have to move the goalposts instead of saying “yeah, you’re right, it does imply that, I could’ve worded that better”. No, instead you’re like “I didn’t mean experts, obviously!” Why not? (Do you notice btw how I’m asking you things instead of telling them? Wish there was like a name for this style of rhetoric. Can someone perhaps think of one?)
You misunderstood me.
I wasn’t talking about learning at all.
I never said anything against the human activity of learning. I feel like I triggered you on something personal, for which I’m sorry.
Being in the vicinity of information --> gifted the chance to absorb/learn/remember it.
The girl was gifted (by which I mean randomised circumstances) the chance to put in the effort for those gains, yet she still can’t lift a mountain, much less the galaxy. She wouldn’t have the same gains if she was in a famine, or without arms, or a snail.
Again, that is not diminishing her efforts, attitude, results in any way, bcs we understand the context of human lives individually (ie she’s amazing).
Trivia nerds won’t know what random number I’m thinking of. Or what is dark matter. Or which human pooped the largest poop in 1000BC.
Learning is fun, it has a lot of positive synergies with basically everything, and we tend to rightfully cherish knowledgeable ppl more. And we don’t think knowledgeable ppl are dumb bcs they don’t know things they were never privy to learn. I’m still not sure why would you assume my standing to the opposite, but I think we already cleared that isn’t the case.
I didn’t move any goalposts (that’s just you trying to win something I think - I did include experts) & I think most understood me correctly. But you just wanted to argue (my use of the word gift) like a master debater & extended my simple point into wannabe “this guy doesn’t appreciate ppl’s efforts & thinks learning is fake”.
That’s just mean.
Here, have some inspirational quotes (with maybe the general use of the word gift that is lacking in this convo):
thank you for seeing me
Your great longevity wasn’t just gifted to you - you earned it through sweat, hard push, and blood!
Gg!
Alas time is a cruel mistress, your once renowned, great name fell to obscurity, monuments erected in your honour faded, cults following your teachings disappointing, the poop buried deep beneath the sand dunes.
May you find solace in that your deed was so great your renown passed on to myth & legends - and you lived to see it!
O7
Honestly seeing this level of “rhetoric” is just… well I’m just bored arguing kids/idiots like you. You can’t actually stand behind your words, so you try to make it personal.
No, you haven’t “triggered” anything by wording your comment poorly, but like I said, instead of just saying “oh right you are, that wording does indeed have that implication, I’ll word it better” you’re going all out on these pathetic ad hominems. Which is a term I’m 85% sure you’re gonna misuse due to fundamentally misunderstanding it.
Hahaha dude you do crack me up. You’ve never heard of willfull ignorance, or can’t imagine it’s opposite? I pity you.
Yeah uhm does that mean that they don’t exist and/or have a much larger grasp of a million different little things than someone who’s wasted their life thinking information just randomly spawns into you, so they didn’t bother actively learning anything.
That’s known as a strawman my little silly-billy. And it’s just like I said. You literally can not say “my mistake, I could’ve worded that better” you’ve made this be some sort of contest.
It’s really not. If it were, you wouldn’t stand a chance with, again, that childish level of rhetoric.
I think I’ve deeply triggered your traumas of getting beat hard in all the quizzes you’ve ever taken (I don’t think you’re really the type to play Trivial Pursuit, lolololol.) And that’s okay. Learning is good. Like learning to handle your personal emotions and feelings of inferiority.
Which is what you’re having a complex about here, because I’m just pointing out your original wording did in fact imply that you think all information we have was “gifted by random chance”.
Being mean doesn’t equate to an ad hominem, by the way. Neither do insults. They’re not synonyms, which you’d know if you had ever spent any time actually learning about them. But you didn’t. Perhaps you thought “random chance” would just plop it in your head one day? RUAHAHAHA :D
You argue like a chat bot designed to be obtuse and arrogant.
Come back to Earth, ppl might miss you.
(Also, we have books!)