Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/07/2014 06:47 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 October 2014 at 08:19:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> But regardless: Yes, there *is* a theoretical side to logic, but logic
>> is also *extremely* applicable to ordinary everyday life. Even moreso
>> than math, I would argue.
>
> Yep, however what the human brain is really bad at is reasoning about
> probability.

Yea, true. Probability can be surprisingly unintuitive even for people 
well-versed in logic.

Ex: A lot of people have trouble understanding that getting "heads" in a 
coinflip many times in a row does *not* increase the likelihood of the 
next flip being "tails". And there's a very understandable reason why 
that's difficult to grasp. I've managed to grok it, but yet even I (try 
as I may) just cannot truly grok the monty hall problem. I *can* 
reliably come up with the correct answer, but *never* through an actual 
mental model of the problem, *only* by very, very carefully thinking 
through each step of the problem. And that never changes no matter how 
many times I think it through.

That really impressed me about the one student depicted in the "21" 
movie (the one based around the real-life people who created card 
counting): Don't know how much of it was hollywood artistic license, but 
when he demonstrated a crystal-clear *intuitive* understanding of the 
monty hall problem - that was *impressive*.


> I agree that primary school should cover modus ponens,
> modus tollens and how you can define equivalance in terms of two
> implications. BUT I think you also need to experiment informally with
> probability at the same time and experience how intuition clouds our
> thinking. It is important to avoid the fallacies of black/white
> reasoning that comes with propositional logic.
>
> Actually, one probably should start with teaching "ad hoc"
> object-oriented modelling in primary schools. Turning what humans are
> really good at, abstraction, into something structured and visual. That
> way you also learn that when you argue a point you are biased, you
> always model certain limited projections of the relations that are
> present in real world.
>

Interesting points, I hadn't thought of any of that.

>
> Educational research shows that students can handle theory much better
> if it they view it as useful. Students have gone from being very bad at
> math, to doing fine when it was applied to something they cared about
> (like building something, or predicting the outcome of soccer matches).
>

Yea, definitely. Self-intimidation has a lot to do with it too. I've 
talked to several math teachers who say they've had very good success 
teaching algebra to students who struggled with it *just* by replacing 
the letter-based variables with empty squares.

People are very good at intimidating themselves into refusing to even 
think. It's not just students, it's people in general, heck I've seen 
both my parents do it quite a bit: "Nick! Something popped up on my 
screen! I don't know what to do!!" "What does it say?" "I dunno! I 
didn't read it!! How do I get rid of it?!?" /facepalm


> Internalized motivation is really the key to progress in school,

This is something I've always felt needed to be, as mandatory, drilled 
into the heads of every educator. Required knowledge for educators, IMO.

Think like "gold stars" are among the worst things you can do. It really 
drives the point home that it's all tedium and has no *inherent* value. 
Of course, in the classroom, most of it usually *is* tedium with little 
inherent value...


> which
> is why the top-down fixed curriculum approach is underperforming
> compared to the enormous potential kids have. They are really good at
> learning stuff they find fun (like games).
>

Yea, and that really proves just how bad the current approach is.

Something I think is an appropriate metaphor for that (and bear with me 
on this):

Are you familiar with the sitcom "It's always sunny in Philadelphia"? 
Created by a group of young writers/actors who were just getting their 
start. After the first season, it had impressed Danny DiVito enough 
(apparently he was a fan of the show) that he joined the cast.

In an interview with one of the shows creators (on the Season 1&2 DVDs), 
this co-creator talked about how star-struck they were about having 
Danny DiVito on board, and how insecure/panicked he was about writing 
for DiVito...until he realized: (His words, more or less) "Wait a 
minute, this is *Danny DiVito* - If we can't make **him** funny, then we 
really suck!"

A school that has trouble teaching kids is like a writer who can't make 
Danny DiVito funny. Learning is what kids *do*! How much failure does it 
take to mess *that* up?

"Those who make a distinction between education and entertainment don't 
know the first thing about either."


> Yes, social factors are more important in the real world than optimal
> decision making,

I was quite disillusioned when I finally discovered that as an adult. 
Intelligence, knowledge and ability don't count for shit 90+% of the 
time (in fact, frequently it's a liability - people *expect* group-think 
and get very agitated and self-righteous when you don't conform to 
group-think). Intelligence/knowledge/ability *should* matter a great 
deal, and people *think* they do. But they don't.

> unless you build something that can fall apart in a
> spectacular way that makes it to the front page of the newspapers. :-)
>

I've noticed that people refuse to recognize (let alone fix) problems, 
even when directly pointed out, until people start dying. And even then 
it's kind of a crapshoot as to whether or not anything will actually be 
done.