Combinatorial explosion of questions and errors - Revision history

Issa Rice at 22:59, 24 April 2020

2020-04-24T22:59:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:59, 24 April 2020
Line 40:		Line 40:

	<references/>		<references/>

			[[Category:Coinage]]

Issa Rice: /* Ways to mitigate */

2019-02-16T00:02:55Z

Ways to mitigate

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 16 February 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:

	* make use of peers/tutors/TAs/teachers/question-and-answer-sites (e.g. if you get stuck reading a textbook, ask a peer)		* make use of peers/tutors/TAs/teachers/question-and-answer-sites (e.g. if you get stuck reading a textbook, ask a peer)
	* make use of multiple explanations		* [[Learning from multiple sources\|make use of multiple explanations]]

	==Related phenomena==		==Related phenomena==

Issa Rice at 00:02, 16 February 2019

2019-02-16T00:02:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 16 February 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:

	<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>		<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>

			==Ways to mitigate==

			For the [[explainer]]:

			* test the explanation on many readers to catch potential errors/questions, so that these can be cached
			* leave the explanation for a while to make it fresher in your mind
			* move to a more interactive format
			* allow comments (if it's a blog post)
			* explain more of the background material to "uniformize" the audience, to make the audience more predictable
			* stipulate conditions on the audience (e.g. say that X and Y are required background reading, or that this is intended for intermediate students)

			For the [[learner]]:

			* make use of peers/tutors/TAs/teachers/question-and-answer-sites (e.g. if you get stuck reading a textbook, ask a peer)
			* make use of multiple explanations

	==Related phenomena==		==Related phenomena==

Issa Rice at 23:55, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T23:55:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 15 February 2019
Line 9:		Line 9:
	<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>		<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>

	~~Some related~~ phenomena:		==Related phenomena==

	* the thing where course instructors reuse old exam/homework problems it's hard to come up with new problems (this problem also arises from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)		* the thing where course instructors reuse old exam/homework problems it's hard to come up with new problems (this problem also arises from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)

Issa Rice at 23:51, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T23:51:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:51, 15 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:
	* inferential distance/lack of uniform background of learners (this problem also arises from the difficulty of anticipating the identity of the learner or how they will react); see e.g. "“There are 10 pre-requisites for understanding concept X. Most people have 6 or seven, and then I write a blog post for each of the 10. Most people, most of the time, feel like they’re reading a thing they already know, yet I did have to write all 10 to be able to get everyone to take the step forward together.”"<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Q924oPJzK92FifuFg/write-a-thousand-roads-to-rome/comment/zCSb8aGbfuLeKKwBP</ref>		* inferential distance/lack of uniform background of learners (this problem also arises from the difficulty of anticipating the identity of the learner or how they will react); see e.g. "“There are 10 pre-requisites for understanding concept X. Most people have 6 or seven, and then I write a blog post for each of the 10. Most people, most of the time, feel like they’re reading a thing they already know, yet I did have to write all 10 to be able to get everyone to take the step forward together.”"<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Q924oPJzK92FifuFg/write-a-thousand-roads-to-rome/comment/zCSb8aGbfuLeKKwBP</ref>
	* there is a kind of "reverse" or "ironic" problem that happens where the explainer ''did'' correctly anticipate a question, but the reader fails to anticipate that the explainer anticipates this, so the reader stops reading as soon as they become confused, when in fact in the next paragraph (or next section or whatever) the question is answered. Some authors try to prevent this by saying things like "more on this soon" or "see section 4.5.3 for details".		* there is a kind of "reverse" or "ironic" problem that happens where the explainer ''did'' correctly anticipate a question, but the reader fails to anticipate that the explainer anticipates this, so the reader stops reading as soon as they become confused, when in fact in the next paragraph (or next section or whatever) the question is answered. Some authors try to prevent this by saying things like "more on this soon" or "see section 4.5.3 for details".
			* in arguments/debates (which are a special kind of explanation), there is a combinatorial explosion of ''potential'' arguments each side could make, even if the ''actual'' path of arguments is just a single path through this tree. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.00899 for more on this.

	==See also==		==See also==

Issa Rice at 23:47, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T23:47:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, 15 February 2019
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* the problem with storing static example problems in [[spaced repetition software]], because the user will just memorize the answer instead of treating it like a new problem (this problem also arises from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)		* the problem with storing static example problems in [[spaced repetition software]], because the user will just memorize the answer instead of treating it like a new problem (this problem also arises from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)
	* inferential distance/lack of uniform background of learners (this problem also arises from the difficulty of anticipating the identity of the learner or how they will react); see e.g. "“There are 10 pre-requisites for understanding concept X. Most people have 6 or seven, and then I write a blog post for each of the 10. Most people, most of the time, feel like they’re reading a thing they already know, yet I did have to write all 10 to be able to get everyone to take the step forward together.”"<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Q924oPJzK92FifuFg/write-a-thousand-roads-to-rome/comment/zCSb8aGbfuLeKKwBP</ref>		* inferential distance/lack of uniform background of learners (this problem also arises from the difficulty of anticipating the identity of the learner or how they will react); see e.g. "“There are 10 pre-requisites for understanding concept X. Most people have 6 or seven, and then I write a blog post for each of the 10. Most people, most of the time, feel like they’re reading a thing they already know, yet I did have to write all 10 to be able to get everyone to take the step forward together.”"<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Q924oPJzK92FifuFg/write-a-thousand-roads-to-rome/comment/zCSb8aGbfuLeKKwBP</ref>
	* there is a kind of "reverse" or "ironic" problem that happens where the explainer ''did'' correctly anticipate a question, but the reader fails to anticipate that the explainer anticipates this, so the reader stops reading as soon as they become confused, when in fact in the next paragraph (or next section or whatever) the question is answered.		* there is a kind of "reverse" or "ironic" problem that happens where the explainer ''did'' correctly anticipate a question, but the reader fails to anticipate that the explainer anticipates this, so the reader stops reading as soon as they become confused, when in fact in the next paragraph (or next section or whatever) the question is answered. Some authors try to prevent this by saying things like "more on this soon" or "see section 4.5.3 for details".

	==See also==		==See also==

Issa Rice at 23:45, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T23:45:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 15 February 2019
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* the problem with storing static example problems in [[spaced repetition software]], because the user will just memorize the answer instead of treating it like a new problem (this problem also arises from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)		* the problem with storing static example problems in [[spaced repetition software]], because the user will just memorize the answer instead of treating it like a new problem (this problem also arises from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)
	* inferential distance/lack of uniform background of learners (this problem also arises from the difficulty of anticipating the identity of the learner or how they will react); see e.g. "“There are 10 pre-requisites for understanding concept X. Most people have 6 or seven, and then I write a blog post for each of the 10. Most people, most of the time, feel like they’re reading a thing they already know, yet I did have to write all 10 to be able to get everyone to take the step forward together.”"<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Q924oPJzK92FifuFg/write-a-thousand-roads-to-rome/comment/zCSb8aGbfuLeKKwBP</ref>		* inferential distance/lack of uniform background of learners (this problem also arises from the difficulty of anticipating the identity of the learner or how they will react); see e.g. "“There are 10 pre-requisites for understanding concept X. Most people have 6 or seven, and then I write a blog post for each of the 10. Most people, most of the time, feel like they’re reading a thing they already know, yet I did have to write all 10 to be able to get everyone to take the step forward together.”"<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Q924oPJzK92FifuFg/write-a-thousand-roads-to-rome/comment/zCSb8aGbfuLeKKwBP</ref>
			* there is a kind of "reverse" or "ironic" problem that happens where the explainer ''did'' correctly anticipate a question, but the reader fails to anticipate that the explainer anticipates this, so the reader stops reading as soon as they become confused, when in fact in the next paragraph (or next section or whatever) the question is answered.

	==See also==		==See also==

Issa Rice at 23:39, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T23:39:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:39, 15 February 2019
Line 9:		Line 9:
	<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>		<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>

	Some related phenomena ~~(these problems also arise from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)~~:		Some related phenomena:

	* the thing where course instructors reuse old exam/homework problems it's hard to come up with new problems		* the thing where course instructors reuse old exam/homework problems it's hard to come up with new problems (this problem also arises from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)
	* the problem with storing static example problems in [[spaced repetition software]], because the user will just memorize the answer instead of treating it like a new problem		* the problem with storing static example problems in [[spaced repetition software]], because the user will just memorize the answer instead of treating it like a new problem (this problem also arises from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material)
			* inferential distance/lack of uniform background of learners (this problem also arises from the difficulty of anticipating the identity of the learner or how they will react); see e.g. "“There are 10 pre-requisites for understanding concept X. Most people have 6 or seven, and then I write a blog post for each of the 10. Most people, most of the time, feel like they’re reading a thing they already know, yet I did have to write all 10 to be able to get everyone to take the step forward together.”"<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Q924oPJzK92FifuFg/write-a-thousand-roads-to-rome/comment/zCSb8aGbfuLeKKwBP</ref>

	==See also==		==See also==

Issa Rice at 23:34, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T23:34:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 15 February 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:

	<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>		<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>

			Some related phenomena (these problems also arise from the static/non-interactive nature of learning material):

			* the thing where course instructors reuse old exam/homework problems it's hard to come up with new problems
			* the problem with storing static example problems in [[spaced repetition software]], because the user will just memorize the answer instead of treating it like a new problem

	==See also==		==See also==

Issa Rice at 23:29, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T23:29:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:29, 15 February 2019
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Here is an example of this sort of thing, as related by Nate Soares:<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/w5F4w8tNZc6LcBKRP/on-learning-difficult-things</ref>		Here is an example of this sort of thing, as related by Nate Soares:<ref>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/w5F4w8tNZc6LcBKRP/on-learning-difficult-things</ref>

	<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>		<blockquote>The problem is, most of the time that I get stuck, I get stuck on something incredibly stupid. I’ve either misread something somewhere or misremembered a concept from earlier in the book. Usually, someone looking over my shoulder could correct me in ten seconds with three words.<br><br>“Dude. Disjunction. ''Dis''junction.”<br><br>These are the things that eat my days.</blockquote>

	==See also==		==See also==