interesting! Do you have any tips for readning or maybe other youtube videos on the topic?

​@@eriko9011 Justin Sung or Benjamin Keeps, PHD channel...

@@eriko9011 that it is quite scattered in KZfaq. A good resource is Justin’s course: iCanStudy. However, that course contains more content than just that. Besides being not free, it is quite necessarily painful to go through. About KZfaq material: unfortunately, most of KZfaqrs do a video as soon as they have superficial material and the topic is actually quite nuanced. My opinion is that you can only learn a few details here and there but there’s no single place with the entire underlying knowledge structure. To be fair, that would be a multi-hour video or a course. Try the following to see how it goes: 1. Prime your learning motivation by knowing the problem you’re trying to solve. Or, the ways you’ll need to retrieve the new material. 2. Start with pre-existent knowledge and find bridges to the new material. The principle is: more connections -> easier to memorize. 3. Follow a good material resource quickly to find what things connect with your pre-existing knowledge. Focus on that first and postpone learning other unknown stuff to later. 4. Organize your learning in a top-down approach: pick a handful of overarching key ideas first. Details will then have something to hook on (instead of just being suspended and easily forgotten). 5. Simplify the material until it becomes obvious to you. 6. Now, your pre-existing knowledge is bigger. Repeat everything using the material you postponed in step 3.

You can't remember b'cuz you have a high-falutin approach to remembering things. You need a more meaningful way to connect the bits of info. If I asked you where your bathroom was, or your sofa or what's in your refrigerator..you'd probably be able to recall it with ease simply b'cuz you can visualize your home (a context) and "walk thru" it and use it as a frame of reference to recall _other bits of info_ (like your socks, toothbrush, suitcase, etc). Kids _remember_ their ABC's b'cuz they *attached* it to the song 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star'. But if you asked those same kids all the high level questions about language, phonetics and blah blah blah...all you'll get from them are blank stares..but they can _recall_ every letter of the alphabet like a mofo. And that's what you need to do: Stop taking yourself so seriously. Connect fun/playful associations to whatever it is you're trying to remember. Create a playful & meaningful "house" where you can go to hang those new bits of info - so that when you "walk thru" it, you can find info just as easy as you would your toothbrush or a pair of socks. The more absurd the context/visualization is, the easier it will be to recall the bits of infos _attached_ to it. Hope this helps.

I can only agree with your statement. I learnt R programming by starting to code from scratch the scripts that I needed for my work. I had no knowledge of R whatsoever, and I just googled the pieces I needed and stitched them together in a trial and error way until I finally got the result I wanted. Only then I started to memorise and understand commands and functions

Really?

OLS? Uni or multi variate... And why?

@@angeloj.willems4362 logistic so not OLS. Multivariate model to predict probability of having diabetes. Just my own learning. I want to transition to stats/data science and the best way to learn, IMO, is to do projects. Generates a tonne of questions and forces you to hunt for answers/make mistakes and all that good stuff.

Bloom's Taxonomy is mostly useful for educators designing courses. That being said, the video is correct in that an awareness of the different levels of understanding can be very helpful in terms of avoiding pointless busywork when presented with training programs or in terms of pushing a bit more.

@jackm2293 very powerfull technique

That's where Writing to Learn can be fairly helpful. Writing isn't just for communication, it can also be used as a way of exploring a topic to see what you know, and the result can then be used later on as a refresher if you've stepped away for a while.

I knew it, it is always the same, the moment you dive into what the original maker had intended all questions that arise from the 'common interpretations' are suddenly answered. So, always go to the source.

That's very generous of you. Thank you. Very pleased to read the concept is useful to you. Good luck with the studying 🙂

Use the taxonomy to dissect why you're having such a hard time memorizing, then make a plan to improve. Most people convince themselves they're horrible at memorizing and give themselves all kinds of reasons for why it's impossible. People who truly want to improve at something will find a way. Even marginal improvement is still improvement.

The reason the world is as it is revolves around most people's inability to perform critical thinking.

With code, you would be describing what it is doing, describing what you're allowed to put into it, what limitations there are on the section of code and how various changes might be made to impact the performance in different ways. You'd also want to describe and contrast the impact of different algorithms and how the code might function differently if you use different types of loops or if you ordered switch statements in a different order. The analysis is relatively similar to what you might do if you needed to teach a new coder how this section fo code works in order to hand the job of maintaining it over to them.

That makes three of us. Good catch, by the way!

i agree, i find the whole premise quite interpretive and trying to apply linearity to it doesn't make much sense to me. But he didn't make this up himself, the pyramid he showed for instance is a common interpretation found online. This pyramid doesn't look very useful to me as it's not necessarily the most logical in terms of structuring or semantics. The terms are defined as separate categories but the semantic interpretation and definition of those words aren't mutually exclusive of each other. For example, the second step is called "understanding" but that is completely relative because comprehension itself has several layers to it. At it's most superficial layer, "understanding" is accepting something as real or the supposed reality of it despite having a very limited grasp of it or experience. Just like how everyday people on the street will have an understanding of how biology works, how science works, astronomy, etc from school or in general, while still lacking the ability to fully or even mostly comprehend the subject, which then begs the question what does one really mean by "understanding", as there are multiple levels to it. it's inclusion on the pyramid feels contrived. In fact, you could easily argue that one could redefine the whole pyramid itself as the "pyramid of understanding", as every step proves a different level of understanding. Not to mention evaluate and analyse. You can't evaluate something without analyzing it, and on the flip side how do you specifically analyse something without ever forming any sort of evaluation? We are not computers who just do things without reason. Logically, we ofcourse analyse things because we seek to form evaluations to reach conclusions, the act of trying to evaluate something is what prompts analysis to begin with. "Creating" also feels contrived and i would argue should be folded under "applying". You could rearrange this pyramid in all sorts of ways and it still have it make somewhat sense. but personally, i think the best interpretation of this particular pyramid should just simply be: *remembering -> analysing -> understanding -> applying (proof of understanding)*

analyzing goes deeper. You dont only understand this specific Part of the General Topic you want to learn, but understand how it is related to other concepts of the general Topic. for cooking, you understand that adding parmesan cheese on top of spaghetti is a good way to add to the overall taste. But do you understand, why this specific topping fits with this dish? are there dishes where adding this topping is a bad idea? why?

*Remembering* : a thing like an apple exists; it is something round and has a color, we can cut it into smaller pieces if we need to. What properties does an apple have? This is just raw information like "Paris is the capital of France". *Understanding* : an apple is a type of fruit, a food, therefore we can eat it. It can rot and perish if not consumed in days. Meaning comes from knowing what it does and what we can do with it. *Apply* : we know how to eat a raw apple, we know how to plant a tree with it. We know how to create deserts like an apple pie. We know how to solve a certain problem with apples. Not simply the knowledge of what can be done, but actually the know-how knowledge. *Analyse* : how does apple taste compare with another kind of apple? Is it more acidic? How does an apple compare with other kinds of fruits? You simply compare and look for relationships. *Evaluate* : After making apple pies with various kinds of apples, I can assert that certain kinds of apples are better than others for the job. I can judge why one is better than the other. There's a sense of value scale. *Create* : You genetically modify an apple tree to produce the best apple for apple pie purposes. You know so much that you are capable of producing something new.

@@pedroteixeira5210 Yes, and sometimes you just need to know that something is the case. This is either because it's completely arbitrary like an assigned phone number back before you could choose. Or, it can also be because the explanation of why it is the case involves a lot of things that are much too complicated for the current class. That happens a lot in math and science where the simplified version isn't so bad, but the actual mechanism that causes it requires a lot more studied to understand.

Analysis is the process of identifying the components or building blocks of a thing. It’s not that mysterious really. It’s often confused with synthesis, or putting those building blocks together in a way that explains or aids understanding in others.

“and they’re”

Yes, I dunno about you but I find those AI generated images distracting and offputting.

Yes but it says Apply, the last Y is Y AND L :-D

Bloom's Taxonomy interesting... hmmmm

😂😂😂 Just try

What on earth are you on about mate