My Attitude About The Math /Science/ Logic Illiterate

[bunny]

Would you have a problem with his claim if he didnt ascribe probabilities? Dont the classes he's referring to make sense to you? They do to me. Although I doubt all the % he assigns them are correct, that doesnt seem important.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
David is simply not a good writer. He's admitted so. If he really wants to make an impact on the world, or even on just his readers, he could spend a little time and become a better writer. Or not; it's his choice.

But when he says, for example, he could write the world's best algebra book because he can explain things in a way that more people would understand, it would certainly behoove someone who makes such a claim to be an effective writer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree with you. Confusion is one of the most effective methods of teaching esoteric concepts. His writing forces you think in ways that you wouldn't otherwise, just to grasp and evaluate his points. Whether this is deliberate or not I have no idea.

I imagine the 30% comes from simple IQ bells curves. 110+ are mostly capable of insightful and recursive MSL thinking. 110- don't really get over the bar, and can only learn what's taught and apply it narrowly to novel situations.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, I find that many (if not most) of the "two to four percent" that DS describes are actually very good writers as well. I'm not talking about Hemingway-type fiction here, but rather the type of writing that is required to make a logical, coherent argument.

I think that thinking clearly and logically almost forces one to write clearly, because a clear and logical mind should almost reflexively reject anything that isn't clear and logical. To someone who thinks clearly, writing something that isn't should feel like hearing nails scratching a chalkboard. It's so unpleasant to a clear-thinking mind, that the mind almost never allows it to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I think David's excuse of poor writing is just a copout for unclear fuzzy ideas that have not been thought through. He expects us to think them out for him. When we do and conclude they are flawed he just waits a couple of months and recycles the same pulp. Or if he can't wait he just starts a new thread claiming he was misunderstood.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you have a problem with his claim if he didnt ascribe probabilities? Dont the classes he's referring to make sense to you? They do to me. Although I doubt all the % he assigns them are correct, that doesnt seem important.

[/ QUOTE ]

The percents he provides are useful for clarifying his idea. If that clarification shows his idea is flawed then so be it. They are the ones he himself thinks best illustrate the situation he is trying to describe.

His idea is not the one everybody would agree with. That is, that smart people with SML expertise have an adavantage in areas involving even a little SML. That's pretty obvious. His idea is that those with what he calls SML literacy have a quantum advantage over those without it in areas that involve some SML. How great is this Quantum advantage? It's enough to call the others Morons. Who has this SML literacy? Not just anybody who has taken the general requirements to graduate from college. Only an elite group who really understand SML. The 3% group.

That's his idea. We don't misunderstand it. He's been promoting it here repeatedly for years. We just don't all agree with it.

PairTheBoard

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you have a problem with his claim if he didnt ascribe probabilities? Dont the classes he's referring to make sense to you? They do to me. Although I doubt all the % he assigns them are correct, that doesnt seem important.

[/ QUOTE ]

The percents he provides are useful for clarifying his idea. If that clarification shows his idea is flawed then so be it. They are the ones he himself thinks best illustrate the situation he is trying to describe.

His idea is not the one everybody would agree with. That is, that smart people with SML expertise have an adavantage in areas involving even a little SML. That's pretty obvious. His idea is that those with what he calls SML literacy have a quantum advantage over those without it in areas that involve some SML. How great is this Quantum advantage? It's enough to call the others Morons. Who has this SML literacy? Not just anybody who has taken the general requirements to graduate from college. Only an elite group who really understand SML. The 3% group.

That's his idea. We don't misunderstand it. He's been promoting it here repeatedly for years. We just don't all agree with it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case let me bow out of this thread. I was confused as I thought your objection was that he doesnt make his ideas understandable - which I dispute (although I rarely agree with him, I think I usually understand what he means).

[TomCowley]

Moron: n.

1. One who cannot understand an argument without everything spelled out in excruciating detail and often not even then.

2. One who cannot use, construct, or analyze a mathematical model that doesn't specify perfectly precise knowledge of all potential variables.

3. One who reads thousands of sentences a day without picking up on proper capitalization patterns.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
David is simply not a good writer. He's admitted so. If he really wants to make an impact on the world, or even on just his readers, he could spend a little time and become a better writer. Or not; it's his choice.

But when he says, for example, he could write the world's best algebra book because he can explain things in a way that more people would understand, it would certainly behoove someone who makes such a claim to be an effective writer.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I wrote that book I would be effective enough. Or I would enlist professional help. But I hope you realize that I make that claim because I believe I can offer a sequence of problems that force the student to think about the right things and to learn what needs to be learned in just the right order. Not the fact that my writing is extremely clear. I base my claim on my math aptitude and my ability to put myself into the heads of people without that aptitude. In fact I could come close to writing the best book without ever using words outside of the prtoblems themselves.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact I could come close to writing the best book without ever using words outside of the prtoblems themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do a bit of tutoring and you're onto something there. Many students can't get the main points from a verbal description, yet pick it up amazingly quickly from a well-sequenced set of problems. Not just in algebra or math.

I hope you take the time to write it. g'luck.

luckyme

[LuckOfTheDraw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact I could come close to writing the best book without ever using words outside of the prtoblems themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do a bit of tutoring and you're onto something there. Many students can't get the main points from a verbal description, yet pick it up amazingly quickly from a well-sequenced set of problems. Not just in algebra or math.

I hope you take the time to write it. g'luck.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, if you want to make an impact on the world of msl, do it for the future generations by writing math books. I've helped my little brother out with math in the past, and his books have been HORRIBLE. I think people learn best by sample problems. Per sub-chapter, the books I've seen provide like 2 or 3 problems, and the steps to solving the problems are barely discussed. The books instead waste paper by using stupid analogies to try to show the meaning behind the concept. While I believe this has its place, it should be done after the problem and solution have been fully practiced and grasped by the students. It should not be the first thing presented on any certain subject to the student. Teaching by giving good examples and thorough analysis of the solution is clearly the best way.

[Divad Yksnal]

"Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying."


This is your mistake. Period. No one else is to blame.

Given how common your inablitity to communicate is it is arguable that your error is thinking ability rather than communication.

In the future you will have clarify that.

DY.