I don’t think so. I think anything that would raise your CF skill limit is, by definition, a CF prerequisite.
I haven’t thought about this a lot though.
If your prerequisites are all at 40 skill, then maybe you can get your CF skill to 10 or 20 pretty easily, and to 35 with a lot of work, and to 40 with a ton more work, but getting any higher is extremely hard. (Reminder: this is a simplified, approximate model.)
Also you might never get a prerequisite to 100. You might get stuck for your whole life. If you’re smart, maybe you can get all your prerequisites to 50 and most to 75 without getting really stuck on anything. But getting up really high, like reaching 90 at anything, can be really hard and you might get stuck or fail.
Also getting your CF skill to 40 will help you get prerequisites higher, e.g. it’ll help you raise them from 50 to 60. And then at that point you could get CF skill to 45 more easily, which would help make it easier to raise some prerequisites to 65.
CF is hard enough even if you do it the easiest ways you can. It being too easy isn’t a realistic problem. It’s not going to get so easy that it’s boring or unchallenging.
Yes.
Overall it looks like you’re figuring some things out and writing a lot of posts is working for making some progress.
I also noticed that, for some stuff I commented on, you figured it out more later which I hadn’t read yet.
1 Like
Itd be nice to track the progress so I know where im at.
Ohhh i figured some of that stuff out
People vary a lot? I think that means their prerequisites vary a lot. The clause after “so” says people dont usually have one amount like 40. That doesnt mean the value of 40 isnt realistic. People know about prerequisites already and have used them to wanna learn more CF. The amount wouldnt be too far off from 40.
“by definition” is saying that if you learn a skill that raises the CF skill cap then that’s a CF prerequisite.
I know speed-running is not required but it helps. It for sure is related to automatization. It seems also related to error correction. I think doing skills related to CF concepts may give you a better idea about whats being discussed.
Yeah, I remember there’s more than one prerequisite. Your intellectual prerequisite could be at 40 and your life skills prerequisite could be 40 too.
Getting to 40 is a ton more of work. If that doesnt already sound really hard getting past 40 is going to be extremely hard. I think if you’re not already successful with a lot of things then it’ll be hard to do something extreme like that. At that point tho you’re working on local optima. There’s another way to get way more of your goal.
I see that there’s this reminder too at the end of the reply. I think the exact results of learning CF and increasing and getting to skill caps is going to vary.
I think mentioning that the model is simplified means that there may have been some concepts left out that would change how things work a little. Like, it’s a little more complicated than the model has shown.
Getting stuck for a whole life not getting to 100 sounds realistic. Like you could run into a problem or problems hard to solve and it makes it hard to progress. That’s kind of like one problem or goal tho; reaching 100 in prerequisites. You don’t just have to focus on doing that.
Even if you’re smart you could just get enough to be at 50 prerequisites. That seems different than getting most of them of them to 75. Some prerequisites might be lower there. The other prerequisites could be a few points lower.
Getting to 100 prerequisites sounds harder than I thought cuz that’s everything that we currently know or inventing a few points more. I wonder how people get that smart. It seems like a lot of work. Maybe cuz it’s a lot of work, that’s part of the problem.
That does seem hard. I think you gotta have good goals for that cuz why do you want to get that smart? What is it for? You might forget or not have your priorities straight that it would be really difficult to get over 90.
I’m thinking cycling like that is related to using philosophy to improve your life. You can understand your problems better than better and make improvements. When you make improvements in your life, it might make working on CF easier and more enjoyable. You use philosophy to help you out and you’re even more curious about it.
New Oxford dictionary:
prerequisite | prēˈrekwəzət |
noun a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist: sponsorship is not a prerequisite for any of our courses.
adjective required as a prior condition: the student must have the prerequisite skills.
By this definition, only required things are prerequisites. But in general very little is strictly required. Almost everything that people normally call a prerequisite has a workaround where you skip it and succeed anyway. So I view prerequisites more as useful things that make sense to come first because they help build up the later thing, but I don’t generally view them as hard requirements.
I think “By this definition,” you’re referring to the noun definition. The adjective definition doesn’t seem far off too. You just use that to describe skills and other things.
So, if a thing is required then that counts as a prerequisite. If you can skip the required thing and get the same result then it’s not a prequisite. That’s according to the definition.
I think you say “only required things” are prerequisites cuz if the thing wasn’t required then it’s not a prerequisite. If you skip math and still learn CF to 80-90 skill then it wouldn’t be a prerequisite according to the dictionary. Maybe the rest of the points in CF need you to learn math for them.
That doesn’t sound like a lot that’s really required. I see that there’s “strictly” modifying “required”. Maybe it’s modifying “is”. I don’t know what’s something that’s strictly required. It seems to mean that there’s only a few things that are necessary.
So if you’re learning something that’s not CF there’s prerequisites that have workarounds too. Idk what comes to mind, but I bet you can find examples with stuff people know really well. Maybe with cooking or businesses.
It seems that not knowing some prerequisites can cause errors to happen, but people figure out ways to still be successful. They can correct that error or find another goal that doesn’t fail cuz of an error.
That’s why speedrunning is an optional prerequisite cuz you can build CF skills on that. You have experience with learning and making skills automatic. You can learn about automatization more easily and how CF uses it. You can learn that making skills subconscious is how you become smart.
Imma write about the following paragraph:
First sentence:
Idk what this sentence is saying. There’s two steps involved. You do a catch up phase and then start cycling and improving stuff. What do you catch up on? The stuff in-between the hyphens says what that’s about: It’s about learning a bunch of CF. You do that based on your preexisting prerequisites. Are those the prerequisities you already learned? Also, the catch up phase works on some topics. I think those are CF topics.
The second step is about cycling and improving like in the quote above. “relevant prerequisites” seem to be what’s relevant to learn more CF. You just cycled from there and you want to learn more CF. It’ll look like maybe learning what exponential growth is so you can get a clue about what’s being discussed in an article.
If catching up is where you learn a bunch of CF based on prerequisites then when you’re doing the catch up phase, you’re saving some CF to learn later. That way it’ll catch up to your prerequisites I think. I think there’s probably a lot of CF topics to catch up on. You can get some to be at 5 points or others at 15 points.
This sentence I think supports my last paragraph. The catch up phase doesn’t have to be done to catch up on everything about CF. It makes sense cuz I think that would be a lot of CF to catch up on. I kind of had that theory in the back of my mind while reading the whole article. I just treated learning CF as one whole thing.
The next quoted sentence:
I think that single phase is the catch up phase. Seeing it as one whole phase is an approximation. That seems like you add up all the catching up you would do to learn CF and treat it as one whole. It’s a total to talk about to help explain cycling between prerequisites. That way you don’t gotta mention every single catch up phase involved in catching your CF up to your prerequisites.
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.
In the sentence above, you use a problem solving approach. If you run into a problem you can get knowledge to solve that problem. The big idea is I think taking advantage of underlying knowledge. That’s going to help you solve the problem. It’s not going to solve it for you. Also, what kind of problems are you going to run into?
I think you could think about the problem in a goal-like way. If you run into a problem then an error is causing failure at a goal. How is that phrased in a problem and solution kind of way? A solution may be failing at solving a problem.
I think some problems you can run into while learning CF is not knowing almost anything being talked about in an article: Are you working on something too advanced? What’s hard about the CF article to understand? What are your goals for learning the CF article? How long have you been trying to learn the CF article? How’s your approach to it?.. What do questions do for problems? Do they help you identify them? Figure out what’s wrong or something that could be better?
Next quoted sentence:
Working on your underlying knowledge when running into a problem is what “This” is. That keeps your prerequisite work relevant cuz you can use what’s useful and you don’t have to go off-topic with them. If you do a prerequisite once and don’t use it or don’t see how it’s used in advanced knowledge then that’s going to be bad. If your prerequisites are relevant then they become knowledge vs. just information. You use that to solve problems you have.
It’s useful to learn what math is or isn’t relevant. You’ll want to figure that out so you can learn CF. You can probably still learn a lot of a math subject like algebra and you’ll be good. That’s cuz i don’t think it would be that hard to learn. I think tho how would you know what’s relevant and what’s not
You can learn CF while you learn what Math is or isn’t relevant. That’s like doing two things at once. You could do that instead of just trying to figure out what Math is relevant to all of CF. That sounds like a lot of work. Learning what Math is relevant or not is similar to cycling between prerequisites and CF, cuz you can catch up the knowledge about what Math you need to learn. You don’t have to do figure it all out in one go.
What does it look like to find out what Math is relevant? Let’s say you learn a bit of CF and you find a section of an article that labels ideas as x or y. That sounds like algebra. Now you kind of got an idea about what’s relevant or not.
How does it look like to learn what Math isn’t relevant? I think if you read a whole article you’d kind of get an idea of what Math wasn’t brought up. For the parts you understood more clearly that had Math, you would be like, “I don’t gotta know calculus or something advanced to know this.” Maybe you could also be like, “Oh, this part of the article only using factoring at a certain extent; you don’t need to know it at niche-like extent.” Idk
If you learn the Math that’s relevant you’ll get enough information to solve your problem. You don’t gotta go learn something so much that’s already at excess capacity.
Yeah, you can assume the very basics will be relevant. For grammar, like everything use sentences. If everything uses sentence, it’ll use nouns and verbs. You’re learning a part of what you’re going to be learning everyday.
I wonder what other things are very basic cuz that would be good to learn. It could be relevant and itd be nice to start learning there.
Also, I see kind of how learning CF will let you learn about basic things in deeper way. Sometimes I have questions about nouns and verbs and other basic stuff that’s hard to figure out. If I learned more CF I could be smarter about it and get more knowledge about basic things.
Next quoted sentence:
Text analysis seems like a bigger goal than learning grammar. There are other components I bet to doing text analysis other than grammar. Your grammar could be at excess capacity to do text analysis. If you learn more grammar then I think you’ll be focusing on local optima there.
I think what’s comparable to the quote above is if you’re trying to do another CF skill. You could just only be working on any of the one components to do the skill. What will actually help do that CF skill better tho?
I like the quote above cuz then you don’t just get stuck learning something small. You could make progress learning CF. You can work your way up to a CF skill. I think it also makes you think about your goals. You could think about not just your goals to learn CF but also how it’s going to help you in life.
Im going to write about the beginning of the following section:
The title “Approximations” tells me that it’s going to talk about how some of the ideas discussed are approximations. I kind of already read the article so I knew. What I didn’t know is what about the points system model is going to be discussed. I know in earlier in the article, part of the points system model was labeled as an approximation. We’ll find out what is.
First sentence of the section:
There’s more than one way that the point system is approximate. How? Also, I see that the point system is “only” approximate. I think that has to do with it being a model. Its goal is supposed to help guide you on the main points of cycling prerequisites. It’s not supposed to be exact in how and what you’re going to learn. I think it’s approximate in how you’re going to learn and what exactly is CF skill and prerequisite skill.
I think you could say the quote above to be more precise. That’s more precise about the idea of prerequisites. “actually” shows what prerequisites are really made of. Now you know that there’s layers to prerequisites. You don’t just learn one prerequisite and then you’re done. My question is what are these layers? It seems reminiscent tho of skyscrapers of knowledge. You make floors of ideas that are based on previous floors of ideas.
All the letters in the quote above are the layers. I think you can say there’s layer A and layer B. When you learn layer A that enables learning layer B. That reminds me of how learning prerequisites will enable you to learn CF. I forget what enabled means but I think you get the means to learn the next layer. It’s more possible I think.
If you learn A then now you have the knowledge to solve the problem of learning layer B. I wonder if you can learn top layers if you haven’t been enabled to learn earlier layers. I don’t think it’s impossible but it might be hard. I don’t know what examples there are of the layers of a prerequisite.
It seems that the maximum is approximate. I think that means close to the actual value. I think my question would be can you get closer to what the actual maximum is? Why? Is the maximum a number? I think it is. It could be a number of things learned from the prerequisite.
The maximum being put there is similar to how CF prerequisites at 40 makes CF’s max at 40 as well. I think they mean the same thing now that I think about it. Instead of just one maximum placed by prerequisites, there’s more. All prerequisites place a maximum for the next layer of prerequisites.
Some questions I have: What’s an example of layers of prerequisites? Is algebra a layer above arithmetic? Is it hard to learn past the maximum of the next layer? Is it similar to learning past the maximum placed by a CF prerequisite? What’s approximate about the point system model?
Earlier we were treating prerequisites as a single layer and CF was another layer. Now, we’re talking in more precise terms saying that prerequisites come in layers. There’s more than two layers in total.