Tag Archives: productivity

study skills and note taking

Leave a reply

I find theories on study skills interesting. Even if you are not a student anymore, they can be generalized to try to be more efficient at work and outside of work, and try to learn something every day. I’m the type of personality that concentrating and learning is the most fun thing I can do every day, but only if I can really concentrate without distractions and interruptions (especially noise and people rushing around) and only if the thing I am learning is something I want to learn at my own pace, not something I have to learn at someone else’s pace. And of course, this is not how real work or life work most of the time.

Anyway, this article and lecture on study skills is interesting. The main premise is that people can concentrate for about 25-30 minutes, after which they need a short break. And after several of these short bursts of focus, they need a long break to do something else in another location. I’ve experimented with the Pomodoro technique, which is based on this idea. I think something in the neighborhood of 40 minutes works okay for me. A 5-10 minute break is long enough to take a mental break without losing focus. For those of us chained to our desks by billable hours, this is about the longest break we can take without raising eyebrows with the boss and/or our own consciences.

Anyway, beyond that, the article also mentions Richard Feynman’s “notebook technique” (fill a notebook with notes on a particular subject, then plan out a class where you teach the subject to other people, even if it is only pretend) and some note-taking techniques. Drill down into the links a little and you come to the Cornell note taking system, which I find interesting. I have actually seen real people from Cornell use it.

My teachers really emphasized note taking around 7th-8th grade, and I think what I learned then has served me well throughout school and life. They also focused on how to research a topic and how to write an essay. They taught a preview-read-take notes-review technique that I still think works well. I used to assume other people had learned similar skills around middle or high school, but I have found since then that most otherwise intelligent, educated people actually do not have this skill. The main thing, beyond taking notes, is reviewing them regularly. I actually try to review mine daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly, the last two being more of a heavy skim. I used to use loose leaf paper and a clipboard, after which I would move the notes to binders. The binders would have tabs and occasionally indexes. These days, I use mostly Microsoft OneNote for note taking, with lots of tabs and some hyperlinks. I don’t do a lot of sketches and pictures, I think mostly through lists and writing although I will draw diagrams where my words and lists are in boxes and connected by arrows. I know pictures are more important for a lot of people.

December 2020 in Review

Leave a reply

2020 is officially in the books!

Most frightening and/or depressing story: The “Map of Doom” identifies risks that should get the most attention, including antibiotic resistance, synthetic biology (also see below), and some complex of climate change/ecosystem collapse/food supply issues.

Most hopeful story: The Covid-19 vaccines are a modern “moonshot” – a massive government investment driving scientific and technological progress on a particular issue in a short time frame. Only unlike nuclear weapons and the actual original moonshot, this one is not military in nature. (We should be concerned about biological weapons, but let’s allow ourselves to enjoy this victory and take a quick trip to Disney Land before we start practicing for next season…) What should be our next moonshot, maybe fusion power?

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: Lists of some key technologies that came to the fore in 2020 include (you guessed it) mRNA vaccines, genetically modified crops, a variety of new computer chips and machine learning algorithms, which seem to go hand in hand (and we are hearing more about “machine learning” than “artificial intelligence” these days), brain-computer interfaces, private rockets and moon landings and missions to Mars and mysterious signals and micro-satellites and UFOs, virtual and mixed reality, social media disinformation and work-from-home technologies. The wave of self-driving car hype seems to have peaked and receded, which probably means self-driving cars will probably arrive quietly in the next decade or so. I was surprised not to see cheap renewable energy on any lists that I came across, and I think it belongs there. At least one economist thinks we are on the cusp of a big technology-driven productivity pickup that has been gestating for a few decades.

IMD World Competitiveness Ranking

Leave a reply

The United States fell from 3rd to 10th in the IMD World Competitiveness Ranking this year, after being 1st just a couple years ago. Asian tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong) and Scandinavia/Northern Europe (Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway) make up most of the top 10, when Canada and UAE making the cut, and Taiwan just edged out at #11.

For the second year in a row, the USA failed to fight back having been toppled from its number one spot last year by Singapore, and coming in at 10th (3rd in 2019). Trade wars have damaged both China and the USA’s economies, reversing their positive growth trajectories. China this year dropped to 20th position from 14th last year.

IMD

City-states tend to do well, so my quick reaction is that it might make more sense to compare Singapore and Hong Kong to, say, the New York City or Toronto metro areas rather than the U.S. and Canada as a whole.

December 2019 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story:

Most hopeful story:

  • Deep inside me is a little boy who still likes bugs, and I spotted some cool bugs in my 2019 garden, including endangered Monarch butterflies. So at least I made that small difference for biodiversity in a small urban garden, and others can do the same.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both:

  • Estonia is supposedly the most digitally advanced country in the world. Finland has posted a free AI literacy course.

Robert Skidelski on the robot revolution

Leave a reply

This is a long article on automation and jobs, but what it boils down to is a reminder that if robot come for our jobs, simply working less and spending time on other things will be an option. This has happened many times in history, and the idea that becoming richer leads to working more is a very recent development. On the other hand, this only works if we share the new wealth.

e-Estonia

Leave a reply

Estonia is supposedly the most digitally advanced country in the world. Here’s a 2017 article from the New Yorker:

E-Estonia is the most ambitious project in technological statecraft today, for it includes all members of the government, and alters citizens’ daily lives. The normal services that government is involved with—legislation, voting, education, justice, health care, banking, taxes, policing, and so on—have been digitally linked across one platform, wiring up the nation…

Its government presents this digitization as a cost-saving efficiency and an equalizing force. Digitizing processes reportedly saves the state two per cent of its G.D.P. a year in salaries and expenses. Since that’s the same amount it pays to meet the nato threshold for protection (Estonia—which has a notably vexed relationship with Russia—has a comparatively small military), its former President Toomas Hendrik Ilves liked to joke that the country got its national security for free…

The program that resulted is called e-residency, and it permits citizens of another country to become residents of Estonia without ever visiting the place. An e-resident has no leg up at the customs desk, but the program allows individuals to tap into Estonia’s digital services from afar.

The New Yorker

A 2% boost to GDP seems like a pretty big deal to me. It’s a pretty clear example of how well-functioning government can provide a platform and level playing field for the economy to thrive. I can imagine this potential being even larger in the U.S. where everything is so decentralized and inefficient, even at the metro scale. Of course, this very inefficiency keeps a lot of people busy that would need to find something else to do if it went away.

Apparently anyone can apply to be an e-resident, and it allows you to essentially do business as though you were from, or in, Estonia. You can also hire them as consultants, of course.

leisure-enhancing technologies and productivity

Leave a reply

This article claims that the rise of the entertainment industry explains slowing productivity growth, because not only does entertainment distract us from creative and productive pursuits, but our creative and productive people are pouring their energies into this sector because it is where the profits are. I don’t necessarily buy the former, because it is possible that we could be deciding as a society that we are productive enough and choosing to spend more time on pursuits that do not put ever more monetary wealth in our pockets. I think some people are doing that, perhaps not most. Perhaps in Scandinavia. But the second part does make sense to me, that the smartest and most creative people are not being drawn to the sectors where they could do the most good for society.

even more on the Green New Deal

Leave a reply

I’ve been thinking more about the Green New Deal, because I just can’t help myself. It mentions water, energy, transportation, housing, food and green infrastructure. As your emperor, I will set up an infrastructure bank to fund projects consistent with approved sustainable infrastructure plans produced by metropolitan planning agencies. I will tell you what the minimum goals of your plan have to be. You can add and sub-divide goals if you want, but you can’t subtract them. I will fund generously fund university planning and economics departments and consultants to help you put your plan together if you want. I will match your investments maybe 50 or even 75 cents on the dollar, but not 100% because you have to have some skin in the game or you won’t make good decisions. I will provide some kind of ongoing support for operation, maintenance, repair and retrofit of existing infrastructure, maybe through a trust fund set up for this purpose. My infrastructure bank will be counter-cyclical, opening up the floodgates when the private sector is struggling to employ everyone able to work, and dialing back when the private sector is robust and there are inflation concerns.

States, you can have a voice as stakeholders in the plans put together by metro areas, but money will not pass through you and you will not decide which projects are funded inside metro areas. You can do the planning for areas outside major metro areas. I might let you be an equal partner with the metro areas when it comes to the food and green infrastructure side of things.

I will turn on the taps for massive funding of basic research, into all aspects of energy, climate change, sustainability and resilience yes, but also for a broader focus on innovation and getting as back to the higher productivity growth trajectory of earlier decades. Tax incentives for private R&D are a pet conservative idea that fits well here too.

Along with capital/infrastructure investment, basic research and R&D, education and training are the other key to boosting long-term growth. I will turn on the taps there too, from pre-school to grade school to college to continuing education. Again, incentives for training on the private side will be part of this. If you lose your job to a robot, going back to school or entering a subsidized training program run by a high-value-added industry will be a viable option at no cost to you.

The “federal jobs guarantee” idea surprises me somewhat. Maybe I don’t understand it that well, but it seems like a fairly conservative idea similar to today’s unemployment benefits, but requiring people to work for the federal government to get benefits. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding. If you lose your job and are able to work but lack the education or skills, I’ll pay you to go back to school or enter a training program. If you truly can’t work, you’ll qualify for disability which will be tied to citizenship rather than past employment. I’m not sure just yet whether a universal basic income is the answer, but I’ll fully explore the idea and institute it if it makes sense. If you just want to sit on your ass and watch TV, I’m not going to make you comfortable, but I’ll make sure you don’t starve or die of exposure or a preventable disease.

As far as health care goes, I’ll just do the single payer thing. Everybody else in the world does it and it works fine. If I have to, I’ll figure out what the premium needs to be for people to buy into Medicare, and then give them that option. Tie it to citizenship, not to working for a large employer. Don’t worry about the insurance companies. They will scream, but they will adapt and make money selling “supplemental” plans like they do to rich retirees now.

There are a couple things missing from the Green New Deal. Childcare is one. There is talk of “family leave”, but really supporting working parents the way other advanced countries do means more than that. A lot of people don’t know that the U.S. came within hours of having a comprehensive government childcare system. It was passed by both houses of Congress and Richard Nixon’s pen was hovering inches above, fully primed with ink, when the lobbyists got to him. (Okay, I’m making up the part about the pen, but the part about Congress passing it and lobbyists convincing Nixon to veto it is all true.) What’s good for children is generally good for women, families, the work force and the nation as a whole, so I will do something to give families flexibility to cover that gap between birth and preschool using whatever combination of home care and high-quality government or licensed private care makes sense to them.

Also missing is any concept of a “peace dividend” or taking on the military industrial complex. I’d like to get our security costs down to 2 or 3% of GDP from the current 5%, which is unprecedented in history and unsustainable. A lot of our allies are richer than us at this point and can pay their fair share. Don’t worry about the arms exporters, they will scream but they are going to be really good at building windmills. If I have to ramp up spending quickly to support allies, Congress will have to declare war and there will be war taxes and war bonds and other sacrifices so the public understands what they are giving up to make that happen. Also, I will just get rid of the goddamn nuclear weapons.

Can we afford it, how will I pay for it? I already mentioned the peace dividend. Beyond that, my friends, my plan will pay for itself through a boost in productivity growth. We’ve heard that before, but I will actually do it. Just to be on the safe side, I’ll phase it in gradually and in a counter-cyclical, thoroughly Keynesian manner, so seriously just trust me you are barely going to notice. Oh, and there’s going to be a VAT like all other advanced countries have, and a carbon tax and other taxes on pollution and waste.

do kids do better in private school than public?

Leave a reply

The answer, at least in this study, is a clear no. Kids in private school are doing better than kids in public school, but it can be entirely explained by family income.

Does Attendance in Private Schools Predict Student Outcomes at Age 15? Evidence From a Longitudinal Study

By tracking longitudinally a sample of American children (n = 1,097), this study examined the extent to which enrollment in private schools between kindergarten and ninth grade was related to students’ academic, social, psychological, and attainment outcomes at age 15. Results from this investigation revealed that in unadjusted models, children with a history of enrollment in private schools performed better on nearly all outcomes assessed in adolescence. However, by simply controlling for the sociodemographic characteristics that selected children and families into these schools, all of the advantages of private school education were eliminated. There was also no evidence to suggest that low-income children or children enrolled in urban schools benefited more from private school enrollment.