I’m not sure why “teaching to the test” is so disparaged for its effects on the learning process. Obviously that is a different use for tests than evaluation of ability, as is the main goal here.
Studying for the LSAT taught me to feel genuine physical unease when I read a bad argument, then be calm it by the next problem. It’s very hard to turn that off when reading the newspaper.
The third stage of my growth as a rationalist was discovering this site. I no longer go through the day thinking of things I read and hear: “Wrong (fallacy), wrong (incorrect premise), wrong (fallacy), true (but irrelevant).” Now it’s more like: “Wrong (fallacy), not even wrong (internally inconsistent), wrong (map/territory confusion), wrong (fallacy), not even wrong (argument from definition).”
I propose thinking of ways to hijack the human mental machinery as an alternative to overcoming it, akin to what evolution does.
I’m not sure why “teaching to the test” is so disparaged for its effects on the learning process. Obviously that is a different use for tests than evaluation of ability, as is the main goal here.
Studying for the LSAT taught me to feel genuine physical unease when I read a bad argument, then be calm it by the next problem. It’s very hard to turn that off when reading the newspaper.
The third stage of my growth as a rationalist was discovering this site. I no longer go through the day thinking of things I read and hear: “Wrong (fallacy), wrong (incorrect premise), wrong (fallacy), true (but irrelevant).” Now it’s more like: “Wrong (fallacy), not even wrong (internally inconsistent), wrong (map/territory confusion), wrong (fallacy), not even wrong (argument from definition).”
I propose thinking of ways to hijack the human mental machinery as an alternative to overcoming it, akin to what evolution does.