I strongly disagree. Most classes are pathetically slow and boring, not to mention expensive and time consuming. For one example, I’ve learned more history just reading books on my own than I ever did in History class, and it’s not like I got bad grades back when I was in school. Showing up and being “carried along” was basically worthless.
It’s likely that there are some kinds of classes that are functionally better than learning on your own, but given that the vast majority of classes on most topics are de facto going to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, you’re gonna have to put in a lot of work to find good ones.
If you want to do history seriously, I think it makes sense to do it in academia. It’s too easy to go off the rails otherwise.
More generally, there are two kinds of things we want to learn:
1) Purely intellectual areas, like math or programming. LWers have a comparative advantage here. But the uncomfortable truth is that most people who succeed in those areas had lots of schooling. (For example, Linus has a master’s in CS, Google came out of a PhD project, and the idea of AI risk originated from academics like I.J. Good and Nick Bostrom.)
2) Areas with a physical or emotional component, like drawing, swimming, welding or public speaking. LWers have no comparative advantage here, and I strongly recommend everyone to take a “lowest common denominator” class. You’ll be surprised how well it matches your ability.
For example, in many areas of math it is of tremendous benefit to be able to internally visualize (with your “mind’s eye”) complicated structures and how they ‘move’ in relation to each other. Whether it’s a skill or a ability, I’ve noticed some striking similarities to the internal visualizing skill needed in drawing:
To believably characterize a human figure in movement on a still paper that does not have ability to represent movement, it’s helpful to see underneath the skin, to visualize all the muscles and bones and what they do when the figure moves. To draw a face, how the different muscles and bones and tissues are structured and form a face; to draw it with a certain emotion, how those certain muscles contract when you smile, and so on.
Or that was the gist of the my high school art class (I wasn’t that good at it, but I have noticed the relationship.) And you do have a point it’s useful to take a class (or find a book that adequately describes the contents of class). But the point of this example is that there’s surprising amount of granularity [1] in the domain of mental skills, which is finer than “purely intellectual” vs “physical / emotional”.
I think LWers are above average at learning intellectual topics, but average (or below) at tasks that have a physical or emotional component. If you want to learn drawing, driving, swimming, public speaking or any other skill that isn’t purely intellectual, taking a lowest common denominator class is good advice.
I strongly disagree. Most classes are pathetically slow and boring, not to mention expensive and time consuming. For one example, I’ve learned more history just reading books on my own than I ever did in History class, and it’s not like I got bad grades back when I was in school. Showing up and being “carried along” was basically worthless.
It’s likely that there are some kinds of classes that are functionally better than learning on your own, but given that the vast majority of classes on most topics are de facto going to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, you’re gonna have to put in a lot of work to find good ones.
If you want to do history seriously, I think it makes sense to do it in academia. It’s too easy to go off the rails otherwise.
More generally, there are two kinds of things we want to learn:
1) Purely intellectual areas, like math or programming. LWers have a comparative advantage here. But the uncomfortable truth is that most people who succeed in those areas had lots of schooling. (For example, Linus has a master’s in CS, Google came out of a PhD project, and the idea of AI risk originated from academics like I.J. Good and Nick Bostrom.)
2) Areas with a physical or emotional component, like drawing, swimming, welding or public speaking. LWers have no comparative advantage here, and I strongly recommend everyone to take a “lowest common denominator” class. You’ll be surprised how well it matches your ability.
The dichotomy is not that simple.
For example, in many areas of math it is of tremendous benefit to be able to internally visualize (with your “mind’s eye”) complicated structures and how they ‘move’ in relation to each other. Whether it’s a skill or a ability, I’ve noticed some striking similarities to the internal visualizing skill needed in drawing:
To believably characterize a human figure in movement on a still paper that does not have ability to represent movement, it’s helpful to see underneath the skin, to visualize all the muscles and bones and what they do when the figure moves. To draw a face, how the different muscles and bones and tissues are structured and form a face; to draw it with a certain emotion, how those certain muscles contract when you smile, and so on.
Or that was the gist of the my high school art class (I wasn’t that good at it, but I have noticed the relationship.) And you do have a point it’s useful to take a class (or find a book that adequately describes the contents of class). But the point of this example is that there’s surprising amount of granularity [1] in the domain of mental skills, which is finer than “purely intellectual” vs “physical / emotional”.
[1] in lieu of a better word
I think LWers are above average at learning intellectual topics, but average (or below) at tasks that have a physical or emotional component. If you want to learn drawing, driving, swimming, public speaking or any other skill that isn’t purely intellectual, taking a lowest common denominator class is good advice.