Why ain'tcha better at math
I feel like one response people might have, if they hear that I think I have new and exciting way to learn math, is to ask why I personally am not the best at math. There are a couple responses to this:
- math is pretty interesting, but it's not my main interest. People who are into math enough to become mathematicians are really into math in a way that I am not. I am too much of a generalist to ever become a mathematician.
- I'm more interested in the psychological aspects of math than in pushing the field forward. I like to think about pedagogical and foundational stuff (like how to best teach something, or how to look at very basic stuff in a new way) more than I like pushing forward into the most advanced thing I can get my hands on. I spend time writing solutions manuals for newcomers, writing wikis about the psychological aspects, experimenting with Anki, writing expository pieces, etc. So even within math, the parts that I like don't involve me going super deep into the most advanced stuff.
- my baseline ability/raw processing power isn't as high compared to people who are really good at math.
I think the basic point is a good one, however. If my method has any merit, then the person who is using it should be able to learn and retain non-trivial stuff. I actually have this criticism about people who are seriously into productivity/life hacking stuff: if your note taking method/learning method/to-do list system/life style/whatever is so good, then where is the output? Where are the things you have done with it?
