Your thinking might fail, but you will be better off for trying.
I simply disagree. There is no meaningful benefit to me to, for example:
figure out how to assemble an Ikea desk while ignoring the manual
deciding what bodily exercises are more or less effective, without consulting both folk knowledge and academia
learning any skill with a clear progression tree, whether be it the piano, martial arts, mathematics olympiads, in the absence of any tutor
You do not need literature, just a steady stream of problems to forge your critical thinking skills against.
That is predicated on an external progression tree. Consider how you would have developed your critical thinking skills if the questions had to all be developed by yourself too.
There is no guarantee from the world, for a wide variety of domains, that any obvious ladder of expertise acquisition exists. Especially with regards to the nebulous “life problems” the OP discusses, wherein there are often more societal traps to induct people into ladders of self flagellation.
Imagine a world where 90% of math textbooks simply came filled with metaphysical questions that were wholly and entirely unrelated to the art of problem solving. And you know someone who has probably figured out which books are really correct, because you see at a meta level that that someone appears to be Very Good At Problem Solving, but the only thing that chucklefuck does is to withhold knowledge and await your independent rediscovery of mental frameworks that are studied specifically for how rare they are to be developed in the total absence of external inputs.
Note: don’t take things literally. In a modern sense “books” are whatever social sphere and algo feeds and sekrit klubs and whatever else their info is subsisted on. I claim OP’s behavior boils down to a desire to hang that knowledge over people, to inflate the perceived difficulty of what they know.
I think it is quite the opposite: only the privileged grow up in cultures that show them the best resources to learn from.
OK, sure. That’s not a disagreement, that just means you should beat up the OP, because I believe they are perpetuating it.
I have absolutely zero problems with some blood of the earth redefinition of accessibility as innate sin and personal intellect as virtue. Insofar as the negative response to my first comment was predicated on readers’ pattern matching to various contemporary apparatchiks of equity, I regret not putting my political allegiances more front and center.
I simply disagree. There is no meaningful benefit to me to, for example:
figure out how to assemble an Ikea desk while ignoring the manual
deciding what bodily exercises are more or less effective, without consulting both folk knowledge and academia
learning any skill with a clear progression tree, whether be it the piano, martial arts, mathematics olympiads, in the absence of any tutor
That is predicated on an external progression tree. Consider how you would have developed your critical thinking skills if the questions had to all be developed by yourself too.
There is no guarantee from the world, for a wide variety of domains, that any obvious ladder of expertise acquisition exists. Especially with regards to the nebulous “life problems” the OP discusses, wherein there are often more societal traps to induct people into ladders of self flagellation.
Imagine a world where 90% of math textbooks simply came filled with metaphysical questions that were wholly and entirely unrelated to the art of problem solving. And you know someone who has probably figured out which books are really correct, because you see at a meta level that that someone appears to be Very Good At Problem Solving, but the only thing that chucklefuck does is to withhold knowledge and await your independent rediscovery of mental frameworks that are studied specifically for how rare they are to be developed in the total absence of external inputs.
Note: don’t take things literally. In a modern sense “books” are whatever social sphere and algo feeds and sekrit klubs and whatever else their info is subsisted on. I claim OP’s behavior boils down to a desire to hang that knowledge over people, to inflate the perceived difficulty of what they know.
OK, sure. That’s not a disagreement, that just means you should beat up the OP, because I believe they are perpetuating it.
I have absolutely zero problems with some blood of the earth redefinition of accessibility as innate sin and personal intellect as virtue. Insofar as the negative response to my first comment was predicated on readers’ pattern matching to various contemporary apparatchiks of equity, I regret not putting my political allegiances more front and center.