Thanks. The "drawing what you see" vs "drawing what you think" distinction combined with the images helped me understand the idea better.This seems somewhat related to what Scott Alexander called "concept shaped holes." So you're saying that some people have a "concept of how to draw what you see" shaped hole, and that Edwards has some techniques of helping you fill that gap.Are you specifically looking for conceptual shifts that would allow you to do something better? Or is just being able to understand something you previously didn't understand enough? Like if someone didn't "get" jazz and there were some way to help them appreciate it, would that count?
Thanks for writing up your thoughts here. I hope you wont mind a little push-back.There's a premise underlying much of your thought that I don't think is true.
But as the world of Social Studies consists of the interactions of persons, places, and things, they are subject to the Laws of Physics, and so the tenants of Physics must apply.
I don't really see how the laws of physics apply to social interactions. To me it sounds like you're mixing up different levels of description without any reason.Yes, at bottom we're all made up of physical stuff that physics describes. But that doesn't really mean that the laws of physics are particularly useful when trying to explain human scale phenomena like why people get hungry, or angry, or why people have a hard time coordinating, or (more to your point), why people sometimes believe the wrong things. The fields of psychology, evolutionary biology, sociology among others seem like they'd be more relevant than physics. The different fields of knowledge exist for a good reason.
I think some question in this area would work well for this collaboration I'm proposing: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oqSMn6WEXPdDEvyyt/what-question-would-you-like-to-collaborate-onIf you add a question there and it gets picked I'd be happy to work on this with you.
Ya I thought it was worth a try. Looks like exactly one person is putting forward a question so far. Do you have any questions you'd be interested in working on?
Thanks for being the first person to submit a question!
It turns people who have "no drawing talent" into people who can easily draw anything they see, not by strenuous exercise, but by a conceptual shift that can be achieved in a few hours.
Did that work for you, or do you know of any evidence that that's the case? I'm skeptical that a few hours can allow anyone to "draw anything they see" but would be happy to change my mind on that. I guess you didn't say how well they'd be able to draw after just a few hours of "conceptual shift." But I read you as saying anyone can draw very well after just a little effort.I guess I'm not really understanding the question. Is the question something like:"What are some small shifts people can make in their mental model of some skill that would have a very large impact in the skill level of the person making that mental shift?"
I'm a bit worried that my question will be picked and then I'll be the only one working on it. So to give this thing a better chance of at least two people collaborating, I'm not submitting a question.
Thanks. I'd heard of wikispore, but not wikifunctions. That looks cool.
"I wrote first wrote"Thanks for the post!
A really easy way to set up your own wiki is to use a github repo. You can make it private if you don't want people to see it. If you use markdown and use the .md file extension, github will show the pages nicely and will even make links to other pages work.
do you ever go back to old free form notes and find yourself unable to reconstruct what you originally meant?
I don't think I've ever had that problem.
Or find the task of wading through your old free form notes unpleasant, since they're not polished?
I think it's fun. I've never found it unpleasant. And if it's on a computer you can always use the search function for topics you're interested in pursuing further.