Tangentially relevant: I think that adopting Bayesian examination widely in society would decrease the number of people with aversion to maths/science/lawful thinking:
In my personal experience, thinking in probabilities feels much more natural* than ‘hard’ true-false thinking. I think that this aspect of lawful thinking plays an important role in many people deciding that “maths/science/… is not for me” and creating an Ugh field around them, and I think that Bayesian examinations as a default for examinations would be likely to shift the general opinion towards feeling comfortable with lawful thinking.
____
*: in the sense of “I can apply this kind of thinking also without using ‘my logic-module’”; “Universal law” of the sequences has as a main point that most human thinking is based on leaky abstractions, which are very compatible with probabilistic reasoning
Multiple approaches might help—if a subject is predominantly taught one way, then people who don’t learn well that way seem worse off.
Being comfortable with a subject might require being good at it. Being good at it might require practice. Practice might require not fearing failure*. (A sense of play is ideal. That which is self driven can last—it will be practiced and retained, or relearned if not, when it proves to be missing. Absent practice things aren’t learned once, but multiple times.)
*Ugh fields (aversion to X) are built from smaller ugh fields (aversion to failure), in this model. Given the impact of spaced repetition on learning “information”, repetition might have something to do with “aversions”—they are learned.
Tangentially relevant: I think that adopting Bayesian examination widely in society would decrease the number of people with aversion to maths/science/lawful thinking:
In my personal experience, thinking in probabilities feels much more natural* than ‘hard’ true-false thinking. I think that this aspect of lawful thinking plays an important role in many people deciding that “maths/science/… is not for me” and creating an Ugh field around them, and I think that Bayesian examinations as a default for examinations would be likely to shift the general opinion towards feeling comfortable with lawful thinking.
____
*: in the sense of “I can apply this kind of thinking also without using ‘my logic-module’”; “Universal law” of the sequences has as a main point that most human thinking is based on leaky abstractions, which are very compatible with probabilistic reasoning
Multiple approaches might help—if a subject is predominantly taught one way, then people who don’t learn well that way seem worse off.
Being comfortable with a subject might require being good at it. Being good at it might require practice. Practice might require not fearing failure*. (A sense of play is ideal. That which is self driven can last—it will be practiced and retained, or relearned if not, when it proves to be missing. Absent practice things aren’t learned once, but multiple times.)
*Ugh fields (aversion to X) are built from smaller ugh fields (aversion to failure), in this model. Given the impact of spaced repetition on learning “information”, repetition might have something to do with “aversions”—they are learned.