You absolutely changed the way I'll approach studying now. A true legend. I hope more and more people get to know your channel so they can finally understand why writing linear notes never seems like completely working
Learning the minimum amount required to start doing is bad advice. If the goal is to be able to draw the hulk, this implies the best approach would be to use an ai art software and use "hulk" as the prompt. Or if you wanted to get an A in chemistry, find a way to cheat on every homework and exam. When it comes time to produce something novel (a.k.a something no human has achieved in the past), *you wont even know how to begin*. Let's say I was Elon Musk and I wanted a relaunchable rocket. Now I'm a CEO of SpaceX and the minimum required knowledge method for me is to ask the chief engineer for rockets. Assume the chief engineer has been applying the minimum required knowledge approach all his life. The best move for him is to copy previous designs of relaunchable rockets. There's a problem here. There are currently no rockets that could land back to Earth, they're all one use only. To keep his job, he's now forced to learn the mental tools to be able to generate any correct rocket design (a.k.a aerosoace engineering fundamentals) because he could no longer blindly leverage the preexisting. The chief engineer is fired because Elon Musk promised a launch later this year and took too long to learn the fundamentals. This is what happens to self-taught web developers and mobile app developers who don't learn data structures & algorithms and software design patterns and focus on utilitarianism. Similarly for artists who don't learn color theory, lighting, value, etc.. Quicker to learn the pre-existing fundamentals that have been fully verified than to rediscover them on your own. This is why university prepares you to learn the fundamentals or the root knowledge. The fundamentals prepare you to produce novelty. My point: Learning the minimal amount of knowledge to do something implies learning nothing at all in some cases which is terrible when faced to do something novel.
Agree with basically everything you said - I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives. The point of clarification I'd make (which, perhaps I could have made clearer in the video!) is that Learning For the Sake of Doing requires that your goal is actually the thing you want. While you could *technically* consider typing 'hulk' into Dall-E 2 a method of "being able to draw the hulk," I think we both know that that's not *really* what you meant - you know deep down inside that your goal's going to require actually putting pencil to paper. And your SpaceX argument is definitely on-point. The thing with learning the minimum required to achieve your goal is that "achieve" is defined by you. While many people might hear the word *minimum* with rocket design and assume the rocket will just barely make it off the ground, "minimum" doesn't stipulate any quality of the finished product. Your goal could be "learn the minimum required to build a rapidly reusable rocket that is 99.99999999% reliable." Do that, and you'll outpace the entire industry. What's my point here? The whole idea behind this is that I (and I think lots of other people...) can tend to bias towards spending too much time in the fundamentals research phase. Since you certainly don't need to know *literally all* fundamentals to build a quality reusable rocket, how do you know when to stop studying and start doing? As the video said, (assuming you agree with this statement) the goal isn't to know the most - it's to do the most. This strategy of learning the *minimum* required for your goal (assuming your goal is up to your standards of quality) is merely meant to give people a framework that gets them to stop studying so they can move on to the thing they actually care about in the end: the *doing* phase. In my experience, that line is not clear - especially for something novel. While "you won't even know how to begin" is certainly an issue, the larger issue - in my eyes - is *you won't even know how to end.* If you instead take it step-by-step as you're going along and only learn exactly what you need to achieve the next thing, then this is a way toeing that line. The best way to find out *exactly* what you need to achieve what you're trying to is to simply try it and see where your knowledge falls short. This will be more accurate than trying to predict this out at the beginning. I totally agree that learning those deeper fundamentals (data structures, algorithms, color theory, etc.) could help you come up with a novel idea. If we were omniscient beings we could perfectly navigate this and only learn what we will end up actually using. We're not, so we have to allocate *some* time to Learning for the Sake of Learning (as discussed in the video). But this video is aimed at people like me - people who are just a little *too* caught up in making sure we've covered all possible bases with what we need to know before jumping in. This tendency to bias towards learning more than you need up front is a perfect recipe for never really ending up doing anything, but rather just *thinking* about doing things. It's a balance, and the more precise and accurate you make your goals, the clearer it will be where this line is. The chief rocket engineer in the SpaceX example suffered from an imprecise goal: if you're going to put minimal studying into achieving a reusable rocket, you'll get the minimum reliability reusable rocket. But if you stipulate in your goal that it needs to be X% reliable, then you'll learn only enough to do that and waste no time learning anything extra. *That's* the main concept I was tryna get across - sort of paradoxical that the most *idealized* advice (learn only what you'll ever actually end up using) can end up being the best guide for knowing - practically - when to stop. Given the advice "learn all the fundamentals, and then go out and do it," I actually find that less actionable than "learn the minimum required to achieve your goals." But I really loved your argument here and think my point could have been made a little clearer in the video. As I said at the top, I think we both have the same fundamental idea in our heads, we're just coming at it from different direction. Let me know if I've misinterpreted your argument.
Yes, I only have one vault, though sometimes I use multiple themes (as evident from the previous frame in the video). I don't use inline title - just #h1 since Obsidian didn't have inline title when I started using it, so I've just carried through this habit.
You need to upload more man, use obsidian in the titles to get more views and enjoy the hype of the application. Also share more the way you approach and solve things in real life, the complex ones and the daily ones
You absolutely changed the way I'll approach studying now. A true legend. I hope more and more people get to know your channel so they can finally understand why writing linear notes never seems like completely working
Two videos at once, I'll take it!
This has been one of the most insightful videos I've ever watched regarding learning! Thank you!!!
Learning the minimum amount required to start doing is bad advice. If the goal is to be able to draw the hulk, this implies the best approach would be to use an ai art software and use "hulk" as the prompt. Or if you wanted to get an A in chemistry, find a way to cheat on every homework and exam.
When it comes time to produce something novel (a.k.a something no human has achieved in the past), *you wont even know how to begin*. Let's say I was Elon Musk and I wanted a relaunchable rocket. Now I'm a CEO of SpaceX and the minimum required knowledge method for me is to ask the chief engineer for rockets. Assume the chief engineer has been applying the minimum required knowledge approach all his life. The best move for him is to copy previous designs of relaunchable rockets. There's a problem here. There are currently no rockets that could land back to Earth, they're all one use only. To keep his job, he's now forced to learn the mental tools to be able to generate any correct rocket design (a.k.a
aerosoace engineering fundamentals) because he could no longer blindly leverage the preexisting. The chief engineer is fired because Elon Musk promised a launch later this year and took too long to learn the fundamentals.
This is what happens to self-taught web developers and mobile app developers who don't learn data structures & algorithms and software design patterns and focus on utilitarianism. Similarly for artists who don't learn color theory, lighting, value, etc.. Quicker to learn the pre-existing fundamentals that have been fully verified than to rediscover them on your own.
This is why university prepares you to learn the fundamentals or the root knowledge. The fundamentals prepare you to produce novelty.
My point: Learning the minimal amount of knowledge to do something implies learning nothing at all in some cases which is terrible when faced to do something novel.
Agree with basically everything you said - I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives.
The point of clarification I'd make (which, perhaps I could have made clearer in the video!) is that Learning For the Sake of Doing requires that your goal is actually the thing you want. While you could *technically* consider typing 'hulk' into Dall-E 2 a method of "being able to draw the hulk," I think we both know that that's not *really* what you meant - you know deep down inside that your goal's going to require actually putting pencil to paper.
And your SpaceX argument is definitely on-point. The thing with learning the minimum required to achieve your goal is that "achieve" is defined by you. While many people might hear the word *minimum* with rocket design and assume the rocket will just barely make it off the ground, "minimum" doesn't stipulate any quality of the finished product. Your goal could be "learn the minimum required to build a rapidly reusable rocket that is 99.99999999% reliable." Do that, and you'll outpace the entire industry.
What's my point here? The whole idea behind this is that I (and I think lots of other people...) can tend to bias towards spending too much time in the fundamentals research phase. Since you certainly don't need to know *literally all* fundamentals to build a quality reusable rocket, how do you know when to stop studying and start doing? As the video said, (assuming you agree with this statement) the goal isn't to know the most - it's to do the most. This strategy of learning the *minimum* required for your goal (assuming your goal is up to your standards of quality) is merely meant to give people a framework that gets them to stop studying so they can move on to the thing they actually care about in the end: the *doing* phase.
In my experience, that line is not clear - especially for something novel. While "you won't even know how to begin" is certainly an issue, the larger issue - in my eyes - is *you won't even know how to end.* If you instead take it step-by-step as you're going along and only learn exactly what you need to achieve the next thing, then this is a way toeing that line. The best way to find out *exactly* what you need to achieve what you're trying to is to simply try it and see where your knowledge falls short. This will be more accurate than trying to predict this out at the beginning.
I totally agree that learning those deeper fundamentals (data structures, algorithms, color theory, etc.) could help you come up with a novel idea. If we were omniscient beings we could perfectly navigate this and only learn what we will end up actually using. We're not, so we have to allocate *some* time to Learning for the Sake of Learning (as discussed in the video). But this video is aimed at people like me - people who are just a little *too* caught up in making sure we've covered all possible bases with what we need to know before jumping in. This tendency to bias towards learning more than you need up front is a perfect recipe for never really ending up doing anything, but rather just *thinking* about doing things.
It's a balance, and the more precise and accurate you make your goals, the clearer it will be where this line is. The chief rocket engineer in the SpaceX example suffered from an imprecise goal: if you're going to put minimal studying into achieving a reusable rocket, you'll get the minimum reliability reusable rocket. But if you stipulate in your goal that it needs to be X% reliable, then you'll learn only enough to do that and waste no time learning anything extra.
*That's* the main concept I was tryna get across - sort of paradoxical that the most *idealized* advice (learn only what you'll ever actually end up using) can end up being the best guide for knowing - practically - when to stop. Given the advice "learn all the fundamentals, and then go out and do it," I actually find that less actionable than "learn the minimum required to achieve your goals."
But I really loved your argument here and think my point could have been made a little clearer in the video. As I said at the top, I think we both have the same fundamental idea in our heads, we're just coming at it from different direction. Let me know if I've misinterpreted your argument.
🔥🙌
Summary: There is an ocean of knowledge out there.
We only have to take handful of knowledge we need.
You know the guy knows stuff when he has an obsidian notebook
man do u have a discord or some sort of community so I and people who are interest in such topics come together and learn from each other ?
thanks for uploading man, your a legend. keep it up : )
NO WAY! YOU'RE A LEGEND FOR BLESSING US WITH THIS INFORMATION!
I love the logical way you talk about daily life problems. It would be really useful if you could share your video notes with us.💫
Very inspiring and useful, thank you
Great Video; and editing and of course your philosophy of learning was more important, but I still approbate video style
At 6:41, are you markdown previewing in the same Obsidian vault you usually use? Also, are you using inline title or # h1?
Yes, I only have one vault, though sometimes I use multiple themes (as evident from the previous frame in the video). I don't use inline title - just #h1 since Obsidian didn't have inline title when I started using it, so I've just carried through this habit.
@@Peepnbrick thanks!
Great video. Do you recommend any video or blog for maintaining notes in obsidian?
You need to upload more man, use obsidian in the titles to get more views and enjoy the hype of the application. Also share more the way you approach and solve things in real life, the complex ones and the daily ones
Great things on the horizon 😉
Beautiful, well-made video.
I wish your channel was still active. I just found it out and it's awesome.
Easily one of the best videos on learning.
Damn bro read a five volume treatise in one afternoon.
I cant believe... he is back 🙌 😍
Great video, deserves more attention for sure
Please make more videos.
Is that Hopkinton?
Thank you sir for your great explanation 🔥🙏
Hi, which is the theme you are using in Obsidian?
Your chapter at 6:20 isn't done properly
fixed. thanks!
you are the best
LOVED THIS
woah
zaam
Please add you into account