I want to agree with this; but a little knowledge of stats can be worse than none. (Whereas trig is just a painful waste of time.) Can the intro course explain its own limits, and the dangers of misuse?https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/951282864498372608 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
But “embodiment” mostly misses the point anyway. See this, from 1986:https://meaningness.com/metablog/abstract-emergent …
This is very interesting; closer to the mark than much writing on embodiment, which often seems like wishful thinking. What of arguments like Chomsky's &, in a different domain, people like Dehaene: that there is substantial innate structure to support certain abstractions?
-
-
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking? … I agree strongly that brains include evolved task-specific mechanisms, which constrain or at least strongly influence how we think
-
Ok. Reading the article it seemed to tacitly take the point of view of blank slateism. But I guess I misread it. (I'm also not yet finished; some of the sources are quite unfamiliar to me, and it's slow going.)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Put another way, our minds seem very well prepared (evolutionarily) for certain types of abstraction, and very poorly prepared for other kinds of abstraction. All other things being equal, one wishes to target the former when designing new abstractions.
-
For, er, concreteness: Dehaene and others have argued that we have some innate capacity for number. I have, unfortunately, forgotten how or whether they relate this to Piaget.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.