Discussion about success from a Philosophy of Science thread

[lawcat]

Moderation note: the first 6 post of this thread were moved from “what is spacetime, really”, because they’re a discussion about the general subject of effective ways to learn, not the original thread’s subject.

 

So you're arguing that having a high IQ is perfectly correlated with being correct about everything?

 

Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose, B)

Buffy

 

Interesting claim. But, I disagree. Success is the only way to learn efficiently. Success is a great teacher.

[lemit]

Interesting claim. But, I disagree. Success is the only way to learn efficiently. Success is a great teacher.

 

The feeling you might be better than everyone else is dangerous. The feeling you are better is disastrous. There are enough sociopaths, psychopaths, and narcissists out there to start their own forum.

 

Wait! I think they probably have started their own forum. In fact, I think they've started most of them. Hypography seems to be a rare refuge from the self-aggrandizing forums.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. Check out John Stuart Mill's autobiography. Also, look at the book, "Son," by Jack Olsen. They are kind of bookends on the question of precociousness and premature success.

[lawcat]

This has nothing to do with spacetime. But, I'd like to think that we can distinguish how we feel about us when succesful, from what success teaches us. One is inward looking, the other is outward looking.

[maddog]

Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose, :confused:

Buffy

Interesting claim. But, I disagree. Success is the only way to learn efficiently. Success is a great teacher.

lawcat,

 

Maybe you misunderstood Buffy. I take her meaning that "smart" people might take for

granted what other may not. Taking a success as a given can trip you up big time.

Success can definitely be a great teacher and Only when we listen to the "warning".

 

Someone is quoted as saying (I forget who):

Better to have lost and learned from it than to won and learned nothing.

 

I think this quote [whomever said it] is the gist of Buffy's claim. :shrug:

 

maddog

[maddog]

I do take one small success from this thread (as long as it was):

 

The going on and on about Ontology had me notice while I was in a bookstore where I

found a Very Interesting book by Martin Heidegger, "Ontology -- The Hermeneutics of

Facticity". It is actually a small book about a 100 pages or so. I snatched it up immediately

when I saw on the shelf. Though I am only about 40 pages or so in. It has already

corroborated what I was referring to as the possible confusion of a representation of an

item and the actual item. Especially is abstract arenas such as Time, Space, or

even Spacetime, etc. Especially something as Michael loved to talk endlessly about

"nothingness". Yes, Heidegger gets into all the intricacies surrounding what [is] and

what [is] is represented by.

 

So I will admit this has been a worthwhile thread (even in a convoluted way).... :confused:

 

maddog

[lawcat]

But how can you learn from a loss, other than to speculate about possibilities. You can certainly learn about what does not work, but you do not learn about what does work.

While learning about what does not work is important part of elimination in trial and error, it is better to have won.

[maddog]

But how can you learn from a loss, other than to speculate about possibilities. You can certainly learn about what does not work, but you do not learn about what does work.

While learning about what does not work is important part of elimination in trial and error, it is better to have won.

True.

 

However, if you pay attention to what worked. You can learn to improve even better.

Typically, we as humans just accept the "win" and move on. This is as you say the

"conventional way".

 

maddog