Continuing the discussion from Cycle Between Learning Critical Fallibilism and Its Prerequisites:
I’ll be discussing this article here
First sentence first paragraph besides the summary:
Dividing the learning seems important. It makes me think about having just one big goal and not being specific enough with your criticism. You could just have one big goal of learning Critical Fallibilism, but if you separate it into sub-goals you have specific areas you can work on. If one area has an error, your criticism can be specific enough and make a fix in tht area. You can build up knowledge in that area.
Second sentence first paragraph:
Ok after replying to this article now, I see the three areas you can work on. When I read most of the article earlier, I didn’t like consciously think about the third area being CF philosophy itself.
Here are the three big areas:
- CF philosophy
- Life skills
- Intellectual Knowledge
After CF philosphy it says this in parentheses:
I think that description makes CF philosophy distinct from intellectual knowledge. I think it’s cuz it’s a whole separarate tool on its own. Like, it’s CF philosophy is its own thing.
Does intellectual knowledge or life skills deal with issues like how to think and learn effectively? Maybe a little but CF does it a whole lot. If I was like a customer who was looking for a product that helps me learn about how to think then CF would be the product I was looking for.
Also, I was thinking what is the issue about how to think and learn effectively? Like what does that mean? I think if I say it out loud to someone, it would be hard to explain the issue or what it’s about. What is the “how” in how to think? I kind of know the “what”
What is a type of prerequisite? Why not just call them prerequisites? Im thinking it’s cuz there’s different types of prerequisites. The intellectual knowledge type has math and language in it… Honestly, I think math and language is the intellectual knowledge type of prerequisite. “Type” is like a label.
Managing your time and resolving internal conflicting ideas fall under life skills. And grammar and algebra fall under intellectual knowledge. I think that’s how you talk about types correctly. It’s like a tree structure.
Im writing about the following paragraph:
The first sentence:
I see that life skills “include” stuff. I think that makes anything in the list of stuff a type or subset. Life skills is a set and anything it included is a subset.
I think “time management” has to do with knowing how much time something usually takes and stuff like giving time buffers.
I dont know everything about “dealing with your emotions”, but for sure a part of it has to do with identifying your emotions.
I see that this looks different than my description of the life skill:
There’s goals in my description where I can’t judge as success or failure like one could with identifying common animals.
Here’s a list:
- Place the adjective “internal” correctly around the word it modifies.(Also, identify the correct figure of speech for “internal”)
- Use the correct form of “internal”, like "internally’
- Use a correct CF term
- Use a synonymous phrase to “resolving conflicts with your subconscious”
- Use a similar phrase to “resolving conflicts with your subconscious”
Also, I didnt think too much about “handling failure”. It makes me think if I do it well now. Prob not. Maybe better but not sure. I dont know why i didnt think that was a life skill. I thought it was a CF skill. Like, it has to do with us being fallible
Im responding to the rest of the life skills listed in the article:
Waoh, I thought setting goals was a CF skill cuz how are you going to get them done?..I notice tho that the skill is “setting goals”. You set the goals. What does setting mean? That sounds like deciding what goal you want. I think that’s a life skill cuz what are you going to accomplish in your life? What goal are you going after?
“prioritization” sounds important. I heard the word but didnt really think of it as a life skill. Intuitively, I think prioritization means what you do first? Cuz theres a million things you could do in life which one are you prioritizing?
I dont know what “managing habits” is but it makes me think of self-help books. Like, the ones about managing a bad habit or getting good habits down.
So all those skills fall under life skills, and life skills is a type of prerequisite. The prerequisite is for learning CF. If you run into a problem while learning CF, u may end up having one related to any of the life skills. I like that cuz if you figure your life out then you’ll have an easier time learning CF. Problems dont have to just do with intellectual knowledge.
Paragraph im writing about:
Second sentence:
I wonder how many u gotta do poorly for the sentence’s condition to apply. Like, what if youre doing poorly in one area? Will that be enough to make it hard to learn other stuff?
Id like to know how well im doing in the life skills prerequisite cuz that may be holding me back from learning more CF.
When it says:
that includes intellectual knowledge.
I see it says “especially”. I forget what that means. I don’t think it’s used to emphasize something like a word. Maybe it does?
I think if you do something pretty complicated and advanced like CF, having poor life skills make it difficult. Like, youre thinking a lot and you have your life to manage too. It’s not like something in your life isnt gonna come up while doing CF.
I wonder what makes CF “pretty complicated, advanced and non-mainstream”? Also, does “pretty” modify advanced and non-mainstream? I think what makes CF pretty complicated is that there’s lots of layers to it. There’s lots to understand.
I think what makes CF advanced is that it’s like getting good at chess or at video game. You gotta know your stuff to be good at CF.
What makes CF non-mainstream is that not many people choose it as their main career or learning path. Because of that there’s not that many different perspectives and guides you can use to learn it. If you don’t help yourself with life skills, then you’re gonna struggle with learning something that takes time.
Goal setting is a typical life skill found in self help books and other non-philosophy. CF has some additional ideas about goals that aren’t conventional, but the basics of goal setting are widespread knowledge in our society.
I saw some stuff online after googling. I remember now that SMART goals are a thing.
I think I know some of the unconventional stuff like failure criteria or binary goals. I havent seen failure criteria used like the use of those words
If there are basics of goal setting then thats good to know. I think tho it’s difficult sometimes to find stuff online outside of CF that doesnt sound wrong in a way. Like, things are very disagreeable that it’s hard to tell whats right or not. I think i may have a bias against things that arent CF
Imma write about this paragraph:
First sentence:
I see that CF builds on intellectual knowledge. Does it build on life skills too? I know if you don’t work on life skills, it’s going to be harder to learn CF.
“Intellectual knowledge” tells me that it’s something that’s already present and you can study now.
I think if you were to separate the sentence into two it would look like this: Intellectual knowledge includes math and language. CF builds on intellectual knowledge.
“Those topics” are math and language. What makes a sub-topic relevant? I thought sutff like arithmitic and logic operators was a part of math. Is that what makes it relevant? I think I want to know what topic and sub-topic mean.
Grammar and reading comprehension would be related to language.
Third sentence of the paragraph im replying to:
Ok, I see that this sentence does something for the reader. “They” is the topics of math and language, and we’re talking about sub-topics like caculus and poetry. CF doesnt build on those sub-topics. The reader gets the idea that there’s sub-topics for math and language, but CF doesnt build on all of them. CF builds on the sub-topics that were mentioned in the last sentence.
My question is what does “build on” mean? I think it’s related to layers of knowledge, like your knowledge in logic operators is going to be used to learn CF. I think.
I should be able to see in the long run how CF builds on reading comprehension vs. poetry and logical operators vs. calculus. I think when i build on intellectual knowledge, i’ll for sure be using some intellectual knowledge to learn CF. I’ll be able to see how intellectual knowledge is related to CF.
The first sentence mentions Karl Popper, Ayn Rand and Eli Goldratt. It lets the reader know how their ideas can be categorized. Since those ideas are part of CF philosophy you can tell it’s stuff that can be hard to learn. Is it as hard as learning CF?
This sentence of the paragraph:
talks about “things” so that has to do with maybe categorizing any CF prerequisite you run into.
Categorizing sounds like you can categorize in more than one way. Also, that flexibility makes me think that some things are more flexible than others to categorize.
I wonder what are some unreasonable categorizations. Like, maybe instead you categorize Karl Popper’s ideas as just intellectual knowledge like arithmetic. Like, it’s just as easy.
Categorizations can be useful? Maybe it’ll help when learning prerequisites. Like, maybe it’ll help you know which prerequisite to learn so you don’t run into a major bottleneck.
Imma write about the following paragraph for the next few replies:
First sentence:
The sentence is italcized so that’s like the important idea or main idea of the article.
It seems like if I “should” do something then there’s reasons for it.
It’s interesting cuz I automatically thought the sentence said ‘you should cycle between working on prerequisites and CF.’ I just had a closer look and then I started seeing the correct words on the sentence.
What is going “back and forth”? It’s going from one point to another but you also go back to the first point. It’s a cycle. You go back and forth between two places. The two places are prerequisites and CF philosophy.
You could be working on CF, but then you might need to go back to life skills. You might be learning something from intellectual knowledge to go forth to learning something in CF.
What this cycling makes me think of is working on lower layers of knowledge to find the root cause of an error. Now, it doesn’t have to be so mysterious what you need to work on. It might actually just be an area in math that needs some work. It makes me think learning CF gives you experience on working on knowledge skyscrapers.
Second sentence:
“enable” makes me think it’s one of these two definitions from Merriam Webster:
Def 1
to provide with the means or opportunity
Def 2:
to make possible, practical, or easy
I can’t tell which defintion it is, but don’t sound too wrong to me.
I think if you learn a prerequisite you literally get the means to learn CF. Since CF builds on intellectual knowledge, you learning that lets you understand a part of CF that uses that.
The second defintion makes me think if it makes CF learning more possible, practical, or easier. Maybe im thinking about it wrong, cuz I think learning a prerequisite would make it easy to learn some CF that uses that prerequisite.
There’s a relationship between improving on prerequisites and improving on CF. I know the relationship isn’t like this: the more you improve on prerequisites the more you improve on CF. Thats cuz i dont think improving on prerequsities equals improving on CF. You gotta make the effort to learn CF. It’s good tho cuz if you improve on prerequisites now you’re enabled to improve on CF.
I wonder if there’s a difference between improving on x vs. improving x.
Third sentence of paragraph:
I think
can mean cycling back to a prerequisite and going forth to learning CF with that new knowledge.
Is “new prerequisite knowledge” knowledge from a new prerequisite or new knowledge from a prerequisite? I think the prerequisite can be new or old and you can still get new knowledge from that. Because you have new knowledge from a prerequisite and CF builds on that, you’ll get better at CF.
Getting better at CF with new prerequisite knowledge lets you do the following:
There’s three things you’ll see.
Idk what it means to see your progress. I think that means like you can compare how good you are now to before.
Staying motivated sounds good. I think that means wanting to do prerequisites more cuz you see the connection between improving on prerequisites and CF. I think you’ll stay motivated cuz you’ll get more curious about CF and prerequisites. I think you’ll also see that learning CF is more realistic, it’s an achievable goal.
For the third thing you’ll see:
Your way of doing prerequisites being effective means that you got something that works.
I wanna talk about the paragraph’s sentences. The first sentence is a call to action it seems. The second sentence says what happens when you cycle. That seems like the main benefit to cycling. The third sentence seems like benefits to doing the offered approach.
This sentence makes me curious as a reader. It makes me think how does that work? Im interested
I think if you weren’t cycling, the quote above will be true. Like, you could focus on one prerequisite until you finish it and then go back to CF. You’ll improve there… ok after writing this I see that maybe this counts as cycling too. I think you could study one prerequisite to completion or study an important section when you’re cycling.
I think if you don’t cycle, it’ll look like you’re just building up on one prerequisite at a time. You do that until you get to CF. That sounds like reinventing CF cuz you’re following the same route people took to first build the knowledge. I don’t think you gotta do that. The new knowledge is now there for you to use.
I think the quote above talks about a relationship between improving CF and improving prerequisites. If you cycle between CF and prerequisites, you could benefit the most from that relationship.
This sentence is connected to the last paragraph to say the benefit there is to studying CF for prerequisites. I think you still want to learn a prerequisite to learn CF, but learning CF helps with learning prerequisites too.
When it says this:
Does it help with learning a new prerequisite? Does it apply to prerequisites you already learned? I think both. I think that’s why it’s good to cycle between prerequisites and CF cuz it provides benefits to learning both.
You could just stick to learning CF to understand prerequisites better, but you might get stuck. You could also just learn prerequisites before learning CF but that might take a long time.
Imma write about the following paragraph:
First sentence:
I had that mindset for the longest time. I thought I had to learn each prerequisite thoroughly until I reached CF. It wasnt until I read this article that I thought otherwise. I thought it was a good way to get to CF cuz thats what I did in college. Like, you take classes that you need until you get to learning about your career. Now I see that maybe you can cycle there too
Sentences about the slow approach to CF:
I wonder why it’s bad. I think you could end up giving up without any CF. Unless you already practice and learn a lot of CF, it’s gonna be hard to like CF more. It’ll feel like youre just doing prerequisites for what?
I also think that learning every prerequisite might be focusong on local optima cuz when you learn CF, you may forget what you learned. It woulda been nice to practice the prerequisites doing CF.
The last sentence of the quoted paragraph:
How do you flexibly switch like that? I think it may be depending on your learning goals.
When you
does that mean switching from math to CF? Yeah those are topics. Does it also mean switching from algebra to arithmetic? Those are subtopics but algebra uses arithmitic so why not?
When it says this:
does that mean like basic prerequisites or advanced prerequisites? I dont know about “different levels” but I think that could mean that CF philosophy is at a level and that Algebra is at another level.
I don’t think you just just switch between CF and prerequisites but between prerequisite topics too.
The following is about how to switch between multiple topics:
That means you keep switching but you do it flexibly. You dont just switch once and be done I think.
Imma write about the following paragraph:
The first sentence:
Sometimes you don’t know if you make a mistake no? Idk about that.
It would be nice to be in the habit of investigating the cause of the mistake. It would be nice to get that practice. That would make it easier to understand what it looks like to find causes of mistakes. That way it helps when you find causes of others mistakes.
Making a mistake is the same thing as making an error? I think yeah
What are some examples of making a mistake? I think if you’re trying to get a 100% accuracy on a typing test and you mistype a word then that’s a mistake.
In the second part of the sentence:
What are some causes of mistakes that happen? Idk but lets think of some simple mistakes that happen. Maybe with baking. You make a mistake in forgetting to let the cake out of the oven. You could probably have a lot of causes there…you get distracted from watching online reels that you lose track of time. Did becoming distracted cause the mistake?
My question is what is a cause? How do you investigate? You ask why questions? That’s related to postmortems
yes