Learning animals

[Magnus Anderson]

I was told (two or three years ago) that this is a term used by Google to refer to people who are good at learning in general but who are not good at anything specific. They are basically people who are able to quickly learn whatever is thrown at them -- they have no other qualifications.

https://enabley.io/becoming-a-learning- ... ker-model/

Jonathan Rosenberg said: “I think that people don’t realize that, fundamentally, we’re focused on learning animals or generalists as opposed to specialists. And the main reason is that when you’re in a dynamic industry where the conditions are changing so fast, then things like experience and the way you’ve done a role before isn’t nearly as important as your ability to think.”

The most important two words in Rosenberg’s saying are “learning animal”. For an organization to survive in 2017 it should encourage its employees to become addicted to learning or “forever learners.”

Horrific

Why does this smell of feminization to me? Sure, I might be biased, I might simply be failing to realize it is me who is the problem, that I am simply a bad learner. But on the other hand, I think I'm quite a learner with the caveat that I am picky about the what and how of learning. In order for me to learn, the subject must be interesting and the method must be adequate.

My own theory, even though I'm obviously not the first to come up with it and even though it's clearly partly influenced by other theories, is that older people (and I am not THAT old) find it difficult to learn due to their prior experiences. Basically, they find it difficult to integrate new information because there's a lot more to process compared to, say, children who are, in a way, tabula rasa. Back when I was a kid, it was far easier for me to learn new stuff -- whatever that stuff was -- but nowadays not so much. And though I am not the only one who feels the same, there appear to be people who are older than me and who find it a breeze to keep up with new trends.

The thing is, I find it necessary to relate new information to existing information, and if I can't do that, I can't proceed. My own explanation is that people who can keep up with this process of learning promoted by Google (and tech companies in general) is that they don't actually think -- they easily and quickly forget whatever they already knew in an effort to make space for fresh new information. That strikes me as a child-like tendency -- a psychological neoteny of some sort.

What are your thoughts?

[Meno_]

I was thinking of duplicity in this regard. In particular to the question of AI, as perhaps the final arbiter, as it retains more and more particular information, while 'learning animals, forget specific information. The simulated mind, can be reacted to positively and negatively on various combinations of cross reference- in interactive matrixes of all kind.

The final question of benign or hostile interaction can also be analyzed with this in mind.

The inference based on the above that AI has a putitive negative effect on the learning animal, because traditional work is being displaced through decreasing demand for traditional work- creates a hidden hostility toward it by people being displaced.

That of course is interpreted as a projective equally badly intended outcome of faulty technical design


But can that be interpreted contrarily? Can the machine ever truly understand its own role as the object that simply becomes a vehicle of interjection - through which, it must finally accept this effect, as a continuos inverse process of data data-memory interaction that takes place between the machine and the animal?

The net result becoming the necessary containment of lower level intelligene, which will become man.(or the coming superman which can internalize the process)

The final question being, the one about , simulated intelligence as the necessary effect of a design, or, the result of an accidental set of contingencies in the process through which. It attained it's identity through it's role as final arbiter.

[Magnus Anderson]

To learn means to find by any means whatsoever a solution to a problem that you previously had no solution for. On its own, that's a good thing.

The thing is that you can learn while preserving your existing knowledge or you can learn by forgetting it. The first approach takes significantly more time which is why those who are in need of fast learners will be looking for people who use the second approach. And rapidly changing technologies ensure that fast learners are more than necessary -- indeed, the only "human resource" that is necessary.

But is it a good thing to unlearn what you already know in order to be able to learn something new? And is it a good thing to do it continually -- to learn in order to unlearn in order to learn and so on?

You learn how to use a technology. Say you become very good at it, you become sort of an expert. And boom! a day arrives when it is pronounced obsolete, and with it, a lot of, if not most of, your knowledge. You're no longer an expert in your field and you now find yourself only slightly more qualified than people who are 10, 20, even 30 years younger than you are. Indeed, in a way, you find yourself less qualified, since you have the baggage of existing knowledge and experience that younger and less knowledgable and experienced people don't have.

Is that a good thing? is that the best choice for you? is that a good thing for society? what does that say about our society?

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-on ... gle-2016-7

Today, the average worker over the course of 40 years will have as many as nine careers in their lifetime, with as many as three jobs in each one.

Career security is now directly tied to your employability a/k/a the relevance of your skills and abilities to the labor market.

If you don't continue to grow, evolve, and adapt your skills to the demand of the workplace, you risk becoming disposable — and unemployed.

Some companies, like Google and Ernst & Young have figured out one trait is more important than the rest when recruiting employees: learnability. Eric Schmidt from Google says they seek, "learning animals" — people who are naturally driven to learn on their own. These companies have figured out faster than the rest that the key to keeping their teams at peak performance is to choose employees who are predisposed to learn and grow on their own. Forget where you went to college and what grades you got, smart companies are now asking the bigger question in interviews, "How are you keeping your ability to learn new things up, now that school is over?"

[MagsJ]

_
All this thread reminds me of, is the time I got the cane, but it was only across the hand, twice..
..not on anywhere soft and tender, coz when I tell this story, that’s where everyone thinks I got caned.

[Mr Reasonable]

a lot of accountants and engineers cry all the time

[MagsJ]

a lot of accountants and engineers cry all the time

Proof and an explain, please?

[Mr Reasonable]

ive dated a bunch of them theyre that kind of smart where they can do all sorts of calculations and they can organize data but they suck at synthesizing information into something that they can use to solve practical issues and they never spent enough time thinking about the things that give a person the sort of dynamic intelligence that makes life easy no matter what the circumstance so they have trouble coping when things become difficult for them and they cry i swear to god this is not scientific but im sure of it

[Mr Reasonable]

bottom line is that almost everyone thinks they are really smart and almost no one actually is its tough so they come up with all these definitions of smart that suit them and make them feel better but no matter how hard they try they dont get the benefit of being in that small minority of people who are actually really smart to the degree that no matter the circumstance life is always easy

[Mr Reasonable]

like the acountant/engineer robot types can read the entirety of philosophy and they probably will still never have inner peace because theres a comprehension wall that they run into

[Mr Reasonable]

magnus in philosophy two of the most bad ass things to understand are the role of function and reduction in descriptions.

everything you ever learn you will learn by way of some description. every description will involve some reduction and some account of function. now youve got preexisting knowledge to compare new knowledge to.

[Mr Reasonable]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/func ... 20a%20part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

[obsrvr524]

Power - acceptance of what you are told and using it - memorizing ("learning").
Descent - thinking about what you are told and questioning it - thinking (verifying).

Now why would ANY socialist activist and pundit (such as Google and University) prefer a thinking animal (male wasting their time) over a memorizing animal (female accepting their authority)?

[MagsJ]

Males can’t memorise? Females can’t think?

Is that why y’all forget birthdays and anniversaries? Oh!

I don’t think that memories are lost forever, but get stored in long-term memory for later retrieval when needed.. both memories of thought and action, so things we learn and things we do. I’m sure the data on how the brain processes each of these can be found online.

Also, memory takes a hella energy to run, so not enough (preferably clean) fuel = an inefficient/sluggish thinking and feeling process.. just ask anyone who’s had chronic fatigue, they can vouch.

[Mr Reasonable]

Power - acceptance of what you are told and using it - memorizing ("learning").
Descent - thinking about what you are told and questioning it - thinking (verifying).

Now why would ANY socialist activist and pundit (such as Google and University) prefer a thinking animal (male wasting their time) over a memorizing animal (female accepting their authority)?

did ur mom not love you or something this is a weird framework to try and shove things into and its a bit clumsy i mean seriously what is wrong with u lol

[Mr Reasonable]

weak bitches sit around all day thinking about power

[Mr Reasonable]

like u gonna read some shit then have some aha moment then all of a sudden u get some power like o glorious power and mmmm power mmmm fucking loser shit lol

[Mr Reasonable]

Power - acceptance of what you are told and using it - memorizing ("learning").
Descent - thinking about what you are told and questioning it - thinking (verifying).

Now why would ANY socialist activist and pundit (such as Google and University) prefer a thinking animal (male wasting their time) over a memorizing animal (female accepting their authority)?

do u mean dissent?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Being a generalist could be good thing, though I am biased. Being an utterly malleable cog is another thing.

[Karpel Tunnel]

My own theory, even though I'm obviously not the first to come up with it and even though it's clearly partly influenced by other theories, is that older people (and I am not THAT old) find it difficult to learn due to their prior experiences. Basically, they find it difficult to integrate new information because there's a lot more to process compared to, say, children who are, in a way, tabula rasa. Back when I was a kid, it was far easier for me to learn new stuff -- whatever that stuff was -- but nowadays not so much.

I find it easier now to learn a lot of things. I have more tools and I know how to learn in ways I did not when I was a kid. There are certain things I had an easier time with when I was a kid: languages, musical instruments. But learning about myself, what makes me tick and changing it...easier now. A lot of academic type things....easier now. Technical stuff - how to use some ungainly kind of software, how to make some device work....easier now. And I am likely older than you. Give it a reassessment. I would guess you can learn some things better now. It's these incredbily complex processes with nuanced physical components - like language (tongues, phonemes, grammar) and musical instrument playing (finger positions, nuances in hearing and times, etc.) that are really ahrd for older adults.

[obsrvr524]

Power - acceptance of what you are told and using it - memorizing ("learning").
Descent - thinking about what you are told and questioning it - thinking (verifying).

Now why would ANY socialist activist and pundit (such as Google and University) prefer a thinking animal (male wasting their time) over a memorizing animal (female accepting their authority)?

do u mean dissent?

No

Power comes from group think - not philosophizing.
Descent (losing power) comes from philosophizing.

[phoneutria]

To learn means to find by any means whatsoever a solution to a problem that you previously had no solution for. On its own, that's a good thing.

The thing is that you can learn while preserving your existing knowledge or you can learn by forgetting it. The first approach takes significantly more time which is why those who are in need of fast learners will be looking for people who use the second approach. And rapidly changing technologies ensure that fast learners are more than necessary -- indeed, the only "human resource" that is necessary.

But is it a good thing to unlearn what you already know in order to be able to learn something new? And is it a good thing to do it continually -- to learn in order to unlearn in order to learn and so on?

You learn how to use a technology. Say you become very good at it, you become sort of an expert. And boom! a day arrives when it is pronounced obsolete, and with it, a lot of, if not most of, your knowledge. You're no longer an expert in your field and you now find yourself only slightly more qualified than people who are 10, 20, even 30 years younger than you are. Indeed, in a way, you find yourself less qualified, since you have the baggage of existing knowledge and experience that younger and less knowledgable and experienced people don't have.

Is that a good thing? is that the best choice for you? is that a good thing for society? what does that say about our society?

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-on ... gle-2016-7

Today, the average worker over the course of 40 years will have as many as nine careers in their lifetime, with as many as three jobs in each one.

Career security is now directly tied to your employability a/k/a the relevance of your skills and abilities to the labor market.

If you don't continue to grow, evolve, and adapt your skills to the demand of the workplace, you risk becoming disposable — and unemployed.

Some companies, like Google and Ernst & Young have figured out one trait is more important than the rest when recruiting employees: learnability. Eric Schmidt from Google says they seek, "learning animals" — people who are naturally driven to learn on their own. These companies have figured out faster than the rest that the key to keeping their teams at peak performance is to choose employees who are predisposed to learn and grow on their own. Forget where you went to college and what grades you got, smart companies are now asking the bigger question in interviews, "How are you keeping your ability to learn new things up, now that school is over?"

it's not so much new technologies we learn, but new paradigms
the bedrock of learning is the capacity for "engineering", in it's true sense
which is to build things and take them apart
learning from the process
and realize how complicated new things are only progressions of previous developments
in the perpetual history of human development
it's only when a revolutionary break comes through, what I mean by a new paradigm
that you need to really get the candles out
things like the combustion engine
or like the concept of talking to a machine in its language
or realizing that there is no actual frame to any given object

though it is true that what passes for engineering nowadays
is not so much becoming an Engineer
as it is becoming a good index of engineering
meaning it is not so much what you know
but how quickly you can search and find where that knowledge is stored
sometimes i get the feeling that all of the programming that is done today
can be accredited to stack overflow
kids these days
tsk tsk

[Magnus Anderson]

I find it easier now to learn a lot of things. I have more tools and I know how to learn in ways I did not when I was a kid. There are certain things I had an easier time with when I was a kid: languages, musical instruments. But learning about myself, what makes me tick and changing it...easier now. A lot of academic type things....easier now. Technical stuff - how to use some ungainly kind of software, how to make some device work....easier now. And I am likely older than you. Give it a reassessment. I would guess you can learn some things better now. It's these incredbily complex processes with nuanced physical components - like language (tongues, phonemes, grammar) and musical instrument playing (finger positions, nuances in hearing and times, etc.) that are really ahrd for older adults.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

I wasn't a particularly good student back in school. Many things I was supposed to learn during that time I learned much later. It mostly has to do with a lack of interest. Back in school I saw no reason to learn most of what I was told I should learn, so I didn't bother. But later on, when I realized how these things can be of use to me, I had no trouble learning them.

I don't think it's learning that bothers me. I think it's the fact that I have to dispense with everything I already know that bothers me.

In many ways, I fit the concept of "learning animal" because I have an intrinsic motivation to learn new things but there are also ways in which I don't because if I have to learn whatever I am told to learn then I don't perform well.

[Magnus Anderson]

though it is true that what passes for engineering nowadays
is not so much becoming an Engineer
as it is becoming a good index of engineering
meaning it is not so much what you know
but how quickly you can search and find where that knowledge is stored
sometimes i get the feeling that all of the programming that is done today
can be accredited to stack overflow
kids these days
tsk tsk

I admit I am not really good at using Google (and other means) to find solutions to problems. I have the old-fashioned tendency (a pretty strong one) to use my own brain to solve problems (I was taught that way 15 years ago by teachers who were old-fashioned even for their own time.)

On the other hand, I have no trouble using ready-made solutions, but if that's pretty much the only thing I have to do then I really am not the person to hire.

it's not so much new technologies we learn, but new paradigms
the bedrock of learning is the capacity for "engineering", in it's true sense
which is to build things and take them apart
learning from the process
and realize how complicated new things are only progressions of previous developments
in the perpetual history of human development
it's only when a revolutionary break comes through, what I mean by a new paradigm
that you need to really get the candles out
things like the combustion engine
or like the concept of talking to a machine in its language
or realizing that there is no actual frame to any given object

I agree.

[Mr Reasonable]

Power - acceptance of what you are told and using it - memorizing ("learning").
Descent - thinking about what you are told and questioning it - thinking (verifying).

Now why would ANY socialist activist and pundit (such as Google and University) prefer a thinking animal (male wasting their time) over a memorizing animal (female accepting their authority)?

do u mean dissent?

No

Power comes from group think - not philosophizing.
Descent (losing power) comes from philosophizing.

groupthink is for idiots like those weird kids who end up in gangs lol at the end of the day man if youre sitting around thinking about power all day you probably dont have any i mean i guess you could form a mob so i mean hey you do you lol

[Magnus Anderson]

He's not a Nietzschean, Mr R.

I think what's he's saying is that those who want a lot of power for themselves can only attain it and keep it by making everyone else weak. Thus, the responsibility of the few becomes extremely high (the regime becomes totalitarian) while the responsibility of the many becomes extremely low (doing nothing but following simple orders.) "Socialism" is a term commonly used to describe such an order.

I like the term "leaning animals" because I think the word "animal" is fitting. Animals don't think and learning animals don't either. They just do whatever they are told. "Learning" merely indicates that they are willing to switch from one task to another or from one recipe to another.