How do you learn real good?

I test it on patients. If they dont complain I did it right. Test in the field.

Barraco Bisi_sl said:

Click to expand...

This guy is great, and humor helps me learn. It makes it clear he's comfortable and relaxed and usually not condescending, so it's easier to trust him.

I learn best when I am interacting and doing hands on kind of stuff. Someone can explain things to me all day long, but it won't necessarily click in my mind until I try it out for myself. I'm not a fan of lectures for this reason.

As a language teacher I use this approach in my classroom to great effect. I also think making things humorous and interesting aids the learning process because it makes things more memorable.

As an adult these days YouTube is huge for hands-on stuff. For fixing or making things its the best thing that's ever happened. If I had to learn something academic, especially for a class requiring testing and the like, I'd still want some form of facilitated instruction. But I'm not doing any such thing now or probably ever again so it doesn't matter.

I learn from videos and self-reading. But i prefer to learn in a classroom setting. With a real expert and not some hack who is getting paid to fill a seat. Things seem to come easier to me int hat type of setting, although there is more satisfaction figuring something out 100% independently.

No "Hands-on" option. I mix that in with almost all of the above.

Really just comes from using any skills repeatedly until it becomes second nature.

I tend to over research everything. Like crazy. If I'm going to do my motorcycle brakes, I'll read everything ever published on doing that kind of brakes, and then I'll watch 20 youtube videos on it, and, to get me feeling really good, I'll go to a shop and observe a professional doing it. It's in watching the hands on after I'm well informed on the bits in which I find confidence.

If it's history, historiography, philosophy, or the like, I tend to over read on any given topic, and then gain better understanding through discussion with others who have read the same books.

For me learning happens a lot after personal reading moves to discussion or into doing. eLearning is really problematic to me, though I have taught quite a few eCourses for various universities. I stopped doing it, as it isn't something I could personally learn much from, and at one point I was doing it just for the paycheck or for tenure.

Humour in informative videos always helps, unless it is just plain lame. Bad, uncomfortable, failing humour in informative videos is an anti-learning tool.

Depends on the topic/material. Math stuff I mostly just preferred to read the textbook and jam some problems till I figure shit out for myself. Some things are better off being walked through once or twice then just have that person be available for questions afterwards. Random stuff is often just an instructional youtube video away.

I learn good by relying on good ole god-given common sense and blocking out your liberal book reading lies.

teachinglady.jpg

oh lord...

wormie_sl said:

For math, I go by what Paul Halmos said about it:

"Don't just read it; fight it!"

Other than the definitions, nothing in the math book is to be believed. Everything must be challenged. Plus do all the exercises in the textbook and preferably more than just those.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much exactly what I did in Calc 2 and 3. The first time I saw a power series/series expansion I flipped the fuck out. Then I looked at.it again and said, "Alright - how can I tame you?" Same with Greene's/Stokes and all that shit in Calc 3.

Sounds like mental subterfuge, but I had more trouble with precalc than calc 2. Calc 3 was pretty hard, though.

Furry_sl said:

calc 3 was super easy for me. Calc 2 was the one that enraged me the most. learning maclauren series was easy, but it opened up my eyes to the hypocrisy of proof in some areas of math. Accepting things because they're pretty should not be a legitimate form of analytical reasoning.

Click to expand...

I think that's the norm. When I mention to people that have taken the calculus series that I thought 3 was the hardest they always say calc 2 was harder. I did have an awful, awful calc 3 professor, so that might have something to do with it.

Edit: not sure what you mean re the hypocrisy of proof comment. Our calc 1 and 2 were quite proof-based and while I don't recall what any of them were aside from the formal definition of the limit, I remember thinking they seemed more brutish than elegant.

I'll defer to a more seasoned mathematical mind with regard to the proofs' veracity, but I do know that some of the heaviest hitters in 19th and early 20th century math expressed profound unease with the lack of rigor in 'the calculus' and dedicated their careers to formalizing its laws and definitions.

I thought that for something to constitute a proof, it had to be shorn of things like hypocrisy and interpretive language.

Tuco_sl said:

Also I've found that for a topic you just don't get, sometimes the best recourse is to find the dumbest person you know who understands the topic and have them explain it to you.

Click to expand...

I always look for the dumb people to explain things.

Textbooks, instructor (teacher/tutor). Self-lernin is of a variable use. Works for some things just great and others not so great. For some things you need to check base with someone to make sure you're not forming bad habits that will screw you later.

But yeah, basically, all of the above.