Ask HN: Books on meta-learning
19 comments
Related, see "How to Solve it": http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/polya.html
There's probably considerable overlap with books on creativity and making your thinking more flexible. Roger von Oech's _A Whack on the Side of the Head_ and _ Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!_ may be helpful.
Also, look at some of the books about home schooling, targeted to both parents and the teenagers themselves. I remember Grace Lewellyn's _ The Teenage Liberation Handbook_ having sections along the line of, "How do I go about really learning history/math/foreign languages/etc."
Many things with meta-learning advice will have it as a secondary topic, albeit an important one. Try your public library -- this is an excellent question for a librarian.
Also, look at some of the books about home schooling, targeted to both parents and the teenagers themselves. I remember Grace Lewellyn's _ The Teenage Liberation Handbook_ having sections along the line of, "How do I go about really learning history/math/foreign languages/etc."
Many things with meta-learning advice will have it as a secondary topic, albeit an important one. Try your public library -- this is an excellent question for a librarian.
overcomingbias.com
i've spent hours clicking everything the blog posts link to. these are your bibles: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
study those throughly and you will be better equipped than the vast majority of humanity. Disclaimer: exposing the fallacies in social sciences may not win you over with your professor.
i've spent hours clicking everything the blog posts link to. these are your bibles: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
study those throughly and you will be better equipped than the vast majority of humanity. Disclaimer: exposing the fallacies in social sciences may not win you over with your professor.
It's not a book, but understanding the methodology behind supermemo is a good place to start.
I didn't fully understand meta-learning until I started reading neuroscience books. Find some introductory text book on neuroscience (Amazon). Then read a book that explains extensively on various forms of neural plasticity. Developmental neuroscience also provides crucial insights Once you understand the fundamental mechanism of how the brain learns, all the methodology behind meta-learning can be derived. (e.g. practice science)
Because the brain is a complicated machine and only recently has evolve more complex types of learning, so I personally think it's more important to understand its limitations, (e.g. when you are not learning, or why you can learn physical skills faster than mental skills etc.)
Kathy Sierra's blog is fantastic:
http://headrush.typepad.com/
Here are printout versions of her posts:
http://enklo.com/passionate/
/Gary
http://headrush.typepad.com/
Here are printout versions of her posts:
http://enklo.com/passionate/
/Gary
http://search.oreilly.com/?q=mind+hacks&submit.x=0&s...
i remember these 2 mind hacks from Oreilly being good, but i htink mine got borrowed forever.
i remember these 2 mind hacks from Oreilly being good, but i htink mine got borrowed forever.
I read the mind performance one. It was good but only as a introduction to things like remembering things, calculating fast or planning the day.
Lifehack.org delivers also great information about this topic and for free ;)
I've never heard of meta-learning, but about a year ago I stumbled onto a branch of philosophy called epistemology or the Theory of Knowledge. My studies there have been absolutely exhilarating and disturbing.
Next time you see someone at the coffee machine, ask them them what is meant by knowledge, reason, belief, truth, evidence, opinion, conviction, and hypocrisy.
The incoherent jumble you'll get back is indicative of the broken and sloppy process of the attempt to process data into knowledge (learning).
Next time you see someone at the coffee machine, ask them them what is meant by knowledge, reason, belief, truth, evidence, opinion, conviction, and hypocrisy.
The incoherent jumble you'll get back is indicative of the broken and sloppy process of the attempt to process data into knowledge (learning).
I later found some material that comprehends both our thoughts.
""Systemic learning theory suggests that it is valuable to distinguish levels of learning.
It is clear that most learning that goes on within and outside learning institutions makes no difference at all to individuals’ or society’s overall paradigm. This is because it is first order learning or basic learning. Bateson distinguished three orders of learning and change, corresponding with increases in learning capacity.
Learning I - basic learning learning, thinking, knowing
Learning II - meta-learning learning about learning, thinking about thinking, knowing about knowing
Learning III: epistemic learning learning about learning about learning, thinking about thinking about thinking, knowing about knowing about knowing
Seeing as how no one may ever read this post, I'm not going to expound any more, but again, I have found studying epistemology to be exhilarating.
""Systemic learning theory suggests that it is valuable to distinguish levels of learning.
It is clear that most learning that goes on within and outside learning institutions makes no difference at all to individuals’ or society’s overall paradigm. This is because it is first order learning or basic learning. Bateson distinguished three orders of learning and change, corresponding with increases in learning capacity.
Learning I - basic learning learning, thinking, knowing
Learning II - meta-learning learning about learning, thinking about thinking, knowing about knowing
Learning III: epistemic learning learning about learning about learning, thinking about thinking about thinking, knowing about knowing about knowing
Seeing as how no one may ever read this post, I'm not going to expound any more, but again, I have found studying epistemology to be exhilarating.
It is easy to describe those terms through their role in interpersonal interaction and culture, but to either 1) make any claim about the working of the mind or 2) try to bridge the gap between symbol and signified is asking for heartache and endless rhetorical squabbling.
Studying a theory of knowledge for the past year hasn't left me with a bunch of definitions, but with models for the acquisition of knowledge that have proven very useful.
I'm sure someone probably told Newton that all that math stuff looked like more trouble than it was worth.
I'm sure someone probably told Newton that all that math stuff looked like more trouble than it was worth.
Oh, surely. I myself have a great deal of interest in knowledge and skill acquisition (in particular, the differences between first and successive language acquisition, but i digress.) Studying processes and patterns in learning can be a fascinating and deeply enriching experience. My comment was intended to warn against delving into endless debate over terms. I see how my (1) was worded incorrectly, instead it should have said something like "to argue about the emergence of consciousness from the material world and its role on the nature of subjective experience and truth", which i do believe is not a fruitful discussion. If anyone has a particularly convincing or useful discourse about the previous I am open to change, but as it stands all I've read on the matter has been speculation and/or justification for some moral or social agenda.
The Art of Memory by Frances Yates. Classic study of how people learned to retain vast stores of knowledge before the printed page.
I've heard that Thinking And Deciding is good, but I haven't read it personally.
Gödel Escher Bach
"Learning How to Learn": Idries Shah
Mine is probably Tony Buzan's "Use Your Head".