That's not extended cognition, then.

Extended cognition is NOT memorizing or internalizing information because, hey, you can just look it up, right?

So high schools are starting to STOP teaching facts because kids can just go to teh google and wikipedia. But I fear that this will have bad results in the near future. People are getting dumber, not smarter, by hoping that extended cognition is a good thing.

Look, I'm not suggesting that having access to VAST amounts of information at one's fingertips is a bad thing...I think it's AWESOME...but this is not a good argument for not learning stuff and memorizing things.

Degree >>> Internet AINEC.

oh forgot to mention only problem with the poll is that degree will always crush

selection bias + many people will refuse to admit they burned a bunch of money/debt on some education that didn't quite meet their expectations

Physics taught me how to think critically. Can't put a price on that.

Math Overflow is probably the best learning device in history.

2p2 was likely used because of the inordinate amount of time spent on it over other sites. In 2p2 terminology, its a poor sample size :P

Again, I agree with you. But the intangibles of being able to actually learn something and utilize it make it less important how someone learns.


I think this conversation/thread has shifted/is shifting from a rather, well, silly comparison of "degree or 2+2" into a more reasonable and much more intriguing concept of "formal education vs non-formal".

My argument is about the significant quantity of material available for free that, while not being 'taught' can still be used to learn. If someone chooses not to actually "learn" based on a certain source, thats their problem. But it doesn't disqualify the "combined concentrated knowledge of all man kind" as a medium for education.

This is the real problem. The "fundamentals" of learning are not being encouraged - what is being encouraged is people passing standardized tests so they can say their school meets some goal. This results in rote memorization of 'facts' or equations rather than an application of critical thinking/intelligence.

So the question becomes - how much of what is "taught" in school is just facts you memorize for a few years vs things that are actually useful in life.

As a teacher, here's why I think that it's invaluable to learn formally. You get a level of interaction and guidance that is very hard to find by just sifting through information. Of course, things like forums and chat rooms make this available to some extent on the webz, but the people who are skilled at teaching usually don't have the time to give it away for free. So you do get something out of a formal education; but you really do get out what you put in. The students who just show up and don't engage don't get very much out of a formal education. They tend to be the ones bitching that they could have just read the book and learned the same amount. They forget that had they done a little more work, they would have gotten way more out of their classroom experiences.

Usually don't have time to waste in schools, either.

(I should change that to "talented." Because "skilled" teachers are worthless idiots.)

I would say skilled teachers probably are talented.

Yeah, I was going to make that point as well. There are very, very few people with enough knowledge to teach you something you couldn't learn yourself who actually consider teaching their main job.

Math overflow is already a better source for mid/late grad level classes and beginning researcher level topics than asking or emailing an individual prof.

A skilled teacher has to have one trait above all others, be capable of engaging his or her students in such a way that they enjoy themselves and the subject matter. When you enjoy what you're doing you will learn far easier and be excited - excited to learn!

lol

whoa didn't see this before

sigh, guess I am now obliged...

YGOS?

more likely they possess a high level of specialized technical knowledge

Creativity doesn't come from specialized knowledge, it comes from very very broad knowledge.

Don't mean to derail but, if you don't mind I'd be interested in hearing at what level/what subjet you teach.

It comes from both imo

not necessarily. i mean you are required to have a good amount of knowledge, and alot of people who we would consider creative probably have very very broad knowledge, but creativity comes more from the style in which one brings all of that knowledge together and expresses himself, and i think somebody with minimally broad knowledge could still be very very creative.

University (philosophy).

Since no one has bit on this, despite you bringing it up at least twice...

Evidence or argument please.

(fwiw, I agree with your statement, but a statement by itself is just opining.)

I certainly don't want to suggest that it's 'necessary', but there's a strong correlation.

ok, gotchya. probably a nitty point by me. but hey what else is there do on the internet, lol...

Sure, but then their ideas suck at a much higher rate. Actually, that's not even fair, since almost every new idea anyone has is wrong, worthless, or just sucks. Functional creativity has, IMO, three elements. 1) Coming up with some idea. 2) self-analyzing it to make sure it doesn't suck. 3) depending on how bad the evaluation in 2 is, modifying it and going back to step 2, or discarding it completely and going back to step 1.

Only step 1 gets credit in the public mind, but all three are important. Somebody can be "really creative" and come up with 10 times as many new ideas, but with minimal ability to self-analyze them and improve them, they'll keep making the same mistakes over and over and never come up with functional creativity except through dumb blind luck. A more logical, straightforward thinker may not have as many new ideas, but he's much more likely to turn any given one into something functional if it can be turned into something functional. And somebody with a broader knowledge base is just more likely to come up with an idea that can be made functional in the first place.

My experience working with "creative" people, in the sense most people use the word, was that they'd occasionally come up with something that had the hint of a good idea, but they were basically incapable of distinguishing it from the large amounts of utter crap they also came up with. Furthermore, even once the ideas with potential were identified, they were basically useless at optimizing them. Occasionally they'd just nail something, but it was obviously dumb luck because they didn't even know when they'd done it. It was almost functional as a team, they come up with all kinds of random ****, I pick out the parts that don't suck and optimize them. And occasionally come up with a whole thing on my own. And then, of course, filtered through multiple layers of bureaucratic stupidity that ****ed it all up again.

lol ur making me want to stay far far away from academia and research in the coming years.

Why? It's AWESOME!