Formulations are basically just lifted from the post verbatim, so the response might be some evidence that it would be good to rework the post a bit before people vote on it.
But I think I already addressed the fundamental reply at the beginning of the section 2. The theses themselves are lifted from the post verbatim, however, I state that they are incomplete.
Maybe you’d class that under “background knowledge”? Or maybe the claim is that, modulo broken parts, motivation, and background knowledge, different people can meta-learn the same effective learning strategies?
I would really rather avoid making strict claims about learning rates being “roughly equal” and would prefer to talk about how, given the same learning environment (say, a lecture) and backgrounds, human learning rates are closer to equal than human performance in learned tasks.
But I think I already addressed the fundamental reply at the beginning of the section 2. The theses themselves are lifted from the post verbatim, however, I state that they are incomplete.
I would really rather avoid making strict claims about learning rates being “roughly equal” and would prefer to talk about how, given the same learning environment (say, a lecture) and backgrounds, human learning rates are closer to equal than human performance in learned tasks.