Knowledge media face an awkward chasm between theories.
The old theory was naive transmissionism: "I'll convey this knowledge by telling you about it." That's effectively books' learning model.
But we know that model's wrong: learning is an active process of assimilation.
Conversation
Books (and videos and lectures) sometimes work anyway, but because the learner's doing the heavy lifting—making connections, posing & answering questions, etc
In apprenticeships and great classrooms, the new theory (constructivism) operates: teachers foster active assimilation.
2
3
49
But what's the equivalent of a "book" which was composed using an effective theory of how its reader will learn? We don't know.
It's a rock and a hard place: we know the old theory's wrong; we don't know how to make media which operate under our new theories.
Exciting times.
19
11
80
How do you feel about the 'stealing knowledge' paradigm of Japanese craftspeople?
1
Replying to
It’s what’s necessary given the media we have (and in contexts where knowledge is primarily tacit), but I feel we can produce media which convey its benefits to a larger % of people more rapidly and cheaply.
Replying to
FWIW recent ML results suggest that sim-to-real transfer is aided by adding noise into sims along all axes (physics, textures) etc. So as you probe the limits of ar/vr etc that might help.
1