Im going to write about the following paragraph:
The first sentence:
That sounds like a good benefit. If you can identify stuff like that first then you gotta place to start learning. If you didn’t identify what you needed to learn then you would be improving stuff you don’t even know you need or not.
Im wondering about what the sentence means. Going back and forth obviously means cycling. When you cycle between topics that helps you identify what the prerequisites are. It’s the prerequisites for the higher level topic. Maybe from there you can find if you need work on one of those prerequisites you identified.
Second sentence:
What are some CF tasks? I can think of some:
- Reading a CF article and understanding it
- Doing a postmortem
- Using Binary Goals
- Thinking about many clear goals
- Using Multi-Factor Decision making Math
- Having a discussion or debate
- Making a paragraph tree
- Making a discussion tree or i think an idea tree idk
Not having some underlying knowledge to do a CF task reminds me of something that BOI or FI said. They talked about problems being a knowledge problem. It’s something along the lines that if you’re too upset about something or procrastinate too much then it’s something you haven’t learned about.
I think the goal is to make learning CF easier. You could learn CF but if it’s slow and you barely learn much then that’s a problem. That fits with learning the life skills prerequisite. You could get knowledge there that would make it easier to learn CF. You could work on your time management skills and start scheduling your job and learning CF better. That could make learning CF easier cuz now you got enough time to learn it. You don’t have to be so rushed or forget about things.
My original thinking before reading the article was if I was had a CF difficulty, then it was by default an intellectual prerequisite issue. That or just not being smart enough in the moment. Now im questioning that too. I’m thinking learning CF is a problem and you’re gonna need knowledge to solve that problem.
The parentheses part of the quote above:
I think this has to do with the difficulty of learning CF. CF could be hard but it’s like a relative thing. It’s not like the ideas are super convoluted and you have to seriously read between the lines to find a claim worth learning about. I think that’s what makes CF not inherently hard. Also, it has to do with ideas, if you engage with the ideas then you can be rational about it to see what’s right or not.
What does it mean that the CF ideas don’t have to be inherently hard? They could be inherently very hard, but there’s something you could do about that. That’s a problem you could solve to make things better. It’s like changing your life situation cuz you became smarter and proactive.
There’s also and i.e. in the quote. I think if everyone were to learn CF then there wouldn’t be any of its ideas that would be hard for them. What does regardless of background knowledge mean? I forget what background knowledge you, but I think that’s what you already learned that’s in use. You’re background knowledge actually helps with learning CF. And even if you have very little that doesn’t make it impossible to learn CF.
If I think more about what’s said in the I.E. part of the quote, it’s saying that if everybody got to learn a CF then there wouldn’t be an idea that every single person would find hard to do. It’s not impossible or so hard that not a single would be able to learn
I think to understand the quote, I would like to learn what a CF idea being hard means. That and what is background knowledge and how that relates to the sentence.