by Forsher » Sat May 15, 2021 2:32 pm
by Ethel mermania » Sat May 15, 2021 2:46 pm
by Kubra » Sat May 15, 2021 2:53 pm
by Punished UMN » Sat May 15, 2021 3:06 pm
by Saiwania » Sat May 15, 2021 4:01 pm
by Katganistan » Sat May 15, 2021 5:22 pm
by Radiatia » Sat May 15, 2021 5:33 pm
by GuessTheAltAccount » Sat May 15, 2021 5:39 pm
Forsher wrote:I'm sure most of you are familiar with the idea of being self-taught or self-learning or whatever people call it. Usually what happens is someone (probably a teenager) used books/the internet/other resources and cultivating knowledge in some specific area (typically, (military) history) and is now extrapolating from that to claim one or both of (1) "this is a viable model for educating everyone at all ages" and (2) "institutional/traditional education doesn't care about learning".
Forsher wrote:When I think about the way education works for anyone older than about 12, what I think about is a process of "teaching" and then "assessment about that teaching".
Forsher wrote:And then there's a lot of room between these two extremes and outside of a university context, there are probably quite a lot lessons on each module before assessment (e.g. in history at school we'd usually have about eight or more weeks per unit plus maybe two to three weeks of doing the assessment if it was internally assessed).
Forsher wrote:Without the contact part, self-learning is just a recipe in entrenching whatever ideas an individual already has within their mind.
Forsher wrote:The people who advocate for it or hold that it exists, usually don't think about the case of someone finding, I don't know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or, perhaps, some kind of Intelligent Design textbook and "learning" from that sort of material.
Forsher wrote:Except, of course, they will and do... this is a big part of how conspiracy theories propagate: people try to teach themselves things that they have no idea about how to start learning.
Forsher wrote:And the value of "assessment" isn't in the credentials that come out the end (or work towards a credential), but instead being able to see where your thinking is. Or, in a crude sense, if you have actually understood something.
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by GuessTheAltAccount » Sat May 15, 2021 5:47 pm
Katganistan wrote:Traditional education introduces you to foundational concepts and ideas you need to learn HOW to study and learn....
Katganistan wrote:it also gives you a taste of subjects you might not have chosen on your own
Katganistan wrote:In terms of having the credentials, it tells an employer pretty quickly if you are going to be able to learn whatever they need to teach you for the job.
Katganistan wrote:In terms of self-learning, it gives you a base of knowledge and an understanding of how to do further research into what interests you. It should teach you to be a critical reader, and to assess the sources you have chosen.
Katganistan wrote:(I would not blindly accept the word of a cookbook author on the best way to build a deck for your home, for instance -- unless they are known as being both a reputable builder AND a cookbook author.)
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Katganistan » Sat May 15, 2021 5:53 pm
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Katganistan wrote:Traditional education introduces you to foundational concepts and ideas you need to learn HOW to study and learn....
The question is whether or not they can learn these things another way.Katganistan wrote:it also gives you a taste of subjects you might not have chosen on your own
I'm not sure coercion is much of a point in its favour. Maybe for math or wood shop or home ec since they're practical, but do we really need to shove Shakespeare down students' throats?Katganistan wrote:In terms of having the credentials, it tells an employer pretty quickly if you are going to be able to learn whatever they need to teach you for the job.
Plenty of dropouts also succeeded in the workforce. Maybe more of them would have if we didn't so heavily tax the workforce to so heavily subsidize 13 years' worth of schooling.Katganistan wrote:In terms of self-learning, it gives you a base of knowledge and an understanding of how to do further research into what interests you. It should teach you to be a critical reader, and to assess the sources you have chosen.
If that were the goal, critical thinking would have far greater emphasis, and the storyline of To Kill A Mockingbird far less.Katganistan wrote:(I would not blindly accept the word of a cookbook author on the best way to build a deck for your home, for instance -- unless they are known as being both a reputable builder AND a cookbook author.)
Part of the value is demonstrating "expertise," but part of it is intelligence. When someone has a reputation for being "wrong all the time," the attack isn't just on their expertise; if that were the case they'd limit it to mistakes relevant to their job; the attack is also on their intelligence.
The question is, how do you assess intelligence in a way less biased against those who disagree with you? I wouldn't want to do that. If anything, I'd RATHER have evidence of their intelligence should a cop ask if a student's smart enough to pull off a particular crime. But given how often others use intelligence cheap shots in a biased manner, I can't count on being special here. :/
by GuessTheAltAccount » Sat May 15, 2021 6:08 pm
Katganistan wrote:GuessTheAltAccount wrote:The question is whether or not they can learn these things another way.
I'm not sure coercion is much of a point in its favour. Maybe for math or wood shop or home ec since they're practical, but do we really need to shove Shakespeare down students' throats?
Plenty of dropouts also succeeded in the workforce. Maybe more of them would have if we didn't so heavily tax the workforce to so heavily subsidize 13 years' worth of schooling.
If that were the goal, critical thinking would have far greater emphasis, and the storyline of To Kill A Mockingbird far less.
Part of the value is demonstrating "expertise," but part of it is intelligence. When someone has a reputation for being "wrong all the time," the attack isn't just on their expertise; if that were the case they'd limit it to mistakes relevant to their job; the attack is also on their intelligence.
The question is, how do you assess intelligence in a way less biased against those who disagree with you? I wouldn't want to do that. If anything, I'd RATHER have evidence of their intelligence should a cop ask if a student's smart enough to pull off a particular crime. But given how often others use intelligence cheap shots in a biased manner, I can't count on being special here. :/
What a lot of strawmen you set up.... almost like it had nothing to do with anything I actually said.
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Nilokeras » Sat May 15, 2021 6:09 pm
Forsher wrote:For example, in R you shouldn't use loops.
by Nakena » Sat May 15, 2021 6:53 pm
Nilokeras wrote:I think the problem is less that it's impossible to successfully teach yourself things and moreso that a lot of bodies of knowledge - especially in specialist or academic areas - are designed to be accessible only to people who are already experts, whether that be in the impenetrability of the writing
Radiatia wrote:I'm someone who doesn't have a single formal qualification to my name, not because of ability (in fact my grades tended to be very high) but because of economics - I left home at 17, couldn't finish high school because I had to work to support myself and while I tried to go to university I ended up having to drop out for similar reasons, namely that I could not make ends meet as a student with no family support living in one of the world's most expensive cities.
As such my view toward the subject will be biased, but I do perceive that traditional education has less to do with actually educating you (I've done fine without a formal education, thanks) than it does with entrenching a type of class system, ensuring that qualifications go not to those who are most academically gifted but simply to those who have the money to pay for them.
by Nilokeras » Sat May 15, 2021 8:08 pm
Nakena wrote:That is extraordinary pessimistic there. Because it assumes that a person has no filter to differentiate valueable info from stuff.
Nakena wrote:The writing of medical research documents is far from impenetrable for example. You can research how an mRNA vaccine works and understand the basic gist of it if on a superifical level. X does Y to Z. You dont need to be an super expert or so.
by Neanderthaland » Sat May 15, 2021 8:58 pm
by Forsher » Sat May 15, 2021 9:27 pm
Nilokeras wrote:I think the problem is less that it's impossible to successfully teach yourself things
Nilokeras wrote:and moreso that a lot of bodies of knowledge - especially in specialist or academic areas - are designed to be accessible only to people who are already experts, whether that be in the impenetrability of the writing
Forsher wrote:For example, in R you shouldn't use loops.
by Nilokeras » Sat May 15, 2021 10:01 pm
Forsher wrote:I must've been unclear. My point is that if you're just by yourself, you can only ever learn trivia and/or memes.
Forsher wrote:Look, there are certainly a lot of historians that are way too fond of inserting French into what they're talking about for absolutely no purpose whatsoever (I mean, the longue duree, really?) but at a certain point "little" and "common" words cease to be useful. Jargon exists because it's necessary. And it usually doesn't end up being formed out of common language because when that happens people lose their minds.
Forsher wrote:No, you really shouldn't use loops. Trust me... the people who taught me R know the guys that "invented" it (technically R's a derivative of S plus... or S, I don't know the exact relationship; I don't think I've met Ross though). Of course, "shouldn't use" is probably more an example of "if you don't need a loop, you shouldn't use a loop... even if it works
."
by Forsher » Sun May 16, 2021 12:18 am
Nilokeras wrote:Forsher wrote:No, you really shouldn't use loops. Trust me... the people who taught me R know the guys that "invented" it (technically R's a derivative of S plus... or S, I don't know the exact relationship; I don't think I've met Ross though). Of course, "shouldn't use" is probably more an example of "if you don't need a loop, you shouldn't use a loop... even if it works
."
If you don't have a good reason for why you shouldn't use for loops beyond 'my bud Hadley told me so' then perhaps you don't really know as much as you think you do
Forsher wrote:(And, yes, this applies with coding, too. For example, in R you shouldn't use loops. However, loops are easy, they do what you want them to do and the alternatives, even if you've been taught them, are harder to remember even if, in the end, they're shorter, usually, and more efficient. But, yes, in general, I think the fact you can see whether you've coded something right from whether the code works means there's an inherent "contact". (I would also argue that loops are easier to follow than apply etc for the uninitiated reader.))
for(i in 1:iter){
set.seed(seeds[i])
#for reproducibility
store = sample(fbi.hate.19$v.asian, length(fbi.hate.19$anti), replace = TRUE)
#a bootstrap sample samples with replacement
mill = aggregate(store, list(fbi.hate.19$offender), mean)
#the mean captures the proportion of racialised hate crimes committed by the offender typology against Asians within the bootstrap sample; aggregate ensures these means are conditioned properly
randos[i, ] = mill$x
#storing the means within the data frame
}
> forsher.bootstrap(10000, 8, s.prop$Group.1, fbi.hate.19$v.asian, fbi.hate.19$offender, mean, 53687129, .05, s.prop$x)
l_2.5. u_97.5. sample
asian 0.000 0.128 0.179
black 0.030 0.058 0.040
group 0.012 0.077 0.107
natam 0.000 0.092 0.031
pasifika 0.000 0.133 0.067
unknown 0.021 0.070 0.012
unsub 0.032 0.055 0.041
white 0.035 0.051 0.041
> system.time(forsher.bootstrap(10000, 8, s.prop$Group.1, fbi.hate.19$v.asian, fbi.hate.19$offender, mean, 53687129, .05, s.prop$x))
user system elapsed
21.14 0.12 21.27
> system.time(results <- VectorizedBootstrap(N = length(fbi.hate.19$v.asian), B = 100000, theta = SampleBootMean, fbi.hate.19$v.asian))
user system elapsed
38.20 1.19 39.39
> set.seed(123)
> system.time(results2 <- forsher.bootstrap2(100000, fbi.hate.19$v.asian, mean))
user system elapsed
39.97 10.17 50.14
> set.seed(123)
> system.time(results3 <- bootstrap(seq(N), 100000, ThetaMean, fbi.hate.19$v.asian)$thetastar)
user system elapsed
37.86 1.35 39.27
> system.time( b1 <- LoopMeanBootstrap(B, x1) )
user system elapsed
0.83 0.05 0.88
> system.time( b2 <- VectorizedBootstrap(N, B, SampleBootMean, x1) )
user system elapsed
0.06 0.00 0.06
> system.time( b3 <- boot(x1, ThetaMean2, B, stype = "i")$t[, 1] )
user system elapsed
0.73 0.02 0.75
> system.time( b4 <- bootstrap(seq(N), B, ThetaMean, x1)$thetastar )
user system elapsed
0.57 0.08 0.65
> system.time( b5 <- forsher.bootstrap2(B, x1, mean))
user system elapsed
9.36 0.22 9.58
LoopMeanBootstrap <- function(B, x) {
N <- length(x)
out <- rep(NA, B)
for (i in seq(B)) {
idx <- sample(N, replace = TRUE)
out[i] <- mean(x[idx])
}
out
}
forsher.bootstrap2 = function(iterations, data, statistic.function){
iter = iterations
#number of iterations for the bootstrap
randos = as.data.frame(matrix(nrow = iter, ncol = 1))
#creating a data frame to store the results of the bootstrap
for(i in 1:iter){
store = sample(data, length(data), replace = TRUE)
#a bootstrap sample samples with replacement
randos[i, ] = statistic.function(store)
#the mean captures the proportion of racialised hate crimes committed by the offender typology against Asians within the bootstrap sample; aggregate ensures these means are conditioned properly
#storing the means within the data frame
}
randos
}
by Nilokeras » Sun May 16, 2021 12:27 am
by Cetacea » Sun May 16, 2021 12:32 am
by Page » Sun May 16, 2021 12:55 am
by Forsher » Sun May 16, 2021 1:25 am
Nilokeras wrote:I would encourage you to consider the possibility that my snark was aimed at your choice of trying to browbeat me into submission by invoking one of your tutors as your source of capital a Authority at uni rather than taking the 10 seconds it might have taken to write out 'R is not very well optimized for executing loops, it's probably fine but maybe consider other ways if you can'
And to yank your leash back on to the topic you created, dragging out potted R scripts in a forum where you and I are probably the only people that actually understand them is a pretty good example of the sort of elitism and sloth that is actually at the root of our crisis of knowledge
Nilokeras wrote:the sort of elitism and sloth that is actually at the root of our crisis of knowledge
Page wrote:I've legit self-taught many things. I completely bombed in typing class back in elementary school and gave up on it, and resigned myself to spending the rest of my life as a hunt and pecker, but in my tweens I started posting on internet communities and a few years later there was a day I realized that I was typing 100 words per minute with all my fingers and without looking at the keyboard. And no, I still don't "elevate my wrists" and I don't know anyone who does.
by North Washington Republic » Sun May 16, 2021 1:31 am
by Saiwania » Sun May 16, 2021 1:44 am
North Washington Republic wrote:I have learned the hard way that informal education only gets one so far. Like it or not, people and institutions like piece of paper proving your education level.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, AJTON, Diarcesia, Eahland, Europa Undivided, Ifreann, ImSaLiA, Kaumudeen, Kerwa, Kostane, Majestic-12 [Bot], Maximum Imperium Rex, New Temecula, Shrillland, Soul Reapers, The H Corporation, The Jamesian Republic, Washington Resistance Army, Welskerland
Advertisement