It could be that as one learns more about a topic, one learns more about what one doesn't know about a topic.
For example, if you know while, for, if/then and case statements you could think that's all you need to know about programming. But once you start getting into encryption and security, you realize there's a universe of knowledge out there and you're really dumb compared to that.
It could be that as one learns more about a topic, one learns more about what one doesn't know about a topic.
For example, if you know while, for, if/then and case statements you could think that's all you need to know about programming. But once you start getting into encryption and security, you realize there's a universe of knowledge out there and you're really dumb compared to that.
That's just it. If you've ever actually studied something (in order to really understand it, not just to pass a test), you already understand what goes on here. This whole discussion on competence and learning is stupid. For example, as I delve more into what's considered the "universe" of Lisp knowledge, I find more information and thus realize that there's more that I don't know than what I knew it was possible not to know. But I still know more than someone who's never studied Lisp at all.
In other words, there's not really much substance to a meme that's being perpetuated in blogs. Imagine that.
Comments
It could be that as one learns more about a topic, one learns more about what one doesn't know about a topic.
For example, if you know while, for, if/then and case statements you could think that's all you need to know about programming. But once you start getting into encryption and security, you realize there's a universe of knowledge out there and you're really dumb compared to that.
It could be that as one learns more about a topic, one learns more about what one doesn't know about a topic.
For example, if you know while, for, if/then and case statements you could think that's all you need to know about programming. But once you start getting into encryption and security, you realize there's a universe of knowledge out there and you're really dumb compared to that.
That's just it. If you've ever actually studied something (in order to really understand it, not just to pass a test), you already understand what goes on here. This whole discussion on competence and learning is stupid. For example, as I delve more into what's considered the "universe" of Lisp knowledge, I find more information and thus realize that there's more that I don't know than what I knew it was possible not to know. But I still know more than someone who's never studied Lisp at all.
In other words, there's not really much substance to a meme that's being perpetuated in blogs. Imagine that.
I hope you're saying that misinterpretation of the research is stupid, not the research itself.
What you and parent poster are saying was nicely illustrated by Alexander Pope in his Essay on Criticism:
A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fir'd at first Sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless Youth we tempt the Heights of Arts,
While from the bounded Level of our Mind,
Short Views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But more advanc'd, behold with strange Surprize
New, distant Scenes of endless Science rise!
So pleas'd at first, the towring Alps we try,
Mount o'er the Vales, and seem to tread the Sky;
Th' Eternal Snows appear already past,
And the first Clouds and Mountains seem the last:
But those attain'd, we tremble to survey
The growing Labours of the lengthen'd Way,
Th' increasing Prospect tires our wandering Eyes,
Hills peep o'er Hills, and Alps on Alps arise!
I hope you're saying that misinterpretation of the research is stupid, not the research itself.
More like the discussion about the research in general, but yes.