Stayed up last night reading a molecular bio type paper. Not my cup of tea at all. Had to spend extra time learning stuff. Man! They use too many abbreviations. Deciphering a paper is the first step to critiquing it! T’was fun though.

I heard a joke about a person walking up to various professionals to ask them how much time they would need to read and understand one book. At the end was an engineer, who asked the only counter-question: when’s the exam?

There are fundamental truths in this joke. The old understanding of learning has been log-linear or exponential. We take a long time to take the first bits of knowledge in. Then the learning becomes more rapid. We learn faster as we go on because we are building on prior knowledge.

The modern understanding, as expected, is arrogant and presumptuous. In this school of thought, we measure not knowledge, but ignorance. As knowledge increases, ignorance decreases. Let us use an analogy to comprehend this. When a substance at high temperature us cooling, the rate of cooling depends on the excess temperature of the substance wrt the surroundings. So, the higher its original temperature, the faster the cooling. When the cooling proceeds long enough to bring it close to room temperature though, the cooling rate will be excruciatingly slow. So, 1 liter of water at 27 degrees will take ages to get to the room temperature of 25C.

Ignorance has a similar style. When we attack a subject, what we come across is the surface of a large, juicy apple, and we take a liberal bite. When, however, a few bites have been taken, we find ourselves picking and choosing the next bite-worthy spot. So, we learn in large mouthfuls in the beginning. As time goes on, and the subject becomes more intricate, our large first steps morph into increments. Ultimately, we will learn the subject, but the deeper the microscope focuses, the slower knowledge seems to progress. Or, as we like to say it, ignorance is harder to shake off when you’ve shaken some of it off!


6 thoughts on “Insomnia…ignorance

    • Fair enough! But it wouldn’t have been a learning experience if I had had help from you! This way took more time, but now I can read that stuff without getting irritated!

    • But tell me, is that all you took from the whole article…where’s your opinion on my radical new theory of learning? (with no research or data whatsoever, pure insight, just like the Bush administration!)

  1. the point of’ shaking off ignorance slower after some of it has been shaken off’ – well if there is less of it it probably sticks on to more securely or is it because we lull ourselves to a false feeling that it is not there but the truth is it is still there and we get to know of it only at times.
    am i making any headway or is my ignorance not shaking off at all.

    • Could be…while you’re exploring this on a more philosophical sense, in that a person’s existing thoughts could control his willingness and keenness to learn, I was approaching it from a more scientific perspective, of course my opinion would require some analysis of neurological data which could throw it out altogether. Your hypothesis is not as easy to test scientifically.

  2. Quite an intense post, and I for sure have no two cents to add to this. But I really liked reading the post and the comments 🙂

    Liberalcynic: Come on! This was intense but there is no guarantee that it has any scientific validity! So any contribution is welcome!

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s