
Students learn from people they love - kareemm
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/learning-emotion-education.html
======
jimmies
I used to do IT support for a whole building when I was a undergrad student.
One of the professors once had a quote stuck on her door:

"People may forget what you say. They may forget what you did, but people will
never forget how you made them feel."

I was a drop-out college student who attended that small, cheap public
university in the middle of nowhere as a last resort because I ran out of
options in my country. Studying there was nothing short of life-changing. Long
story short, 11 years later, I just earned my doctorate degree not so long ago
and working my dream job.

By the way, after graduating from the small state school, I got accepted in a
much larger research university that gave me a free ride. But it was that
little school that I had to work my ass 20 hours a week for 4 years that feel
I owe my big gratitude for. That little school was the one that gave me hope
that I could change my life and had professors and faculties that went out of
their way to help a no-name international student. The other day, I was
offered an internship in a very good place. The international student office
told me I couldn't accept it because of the laws or whatever. There came a
professor whom I barely talked to. She was then the head of the business
school - one of the departments I did IT support for. She offered to go with
me to that office to argue with the director of the international office on
behalf of me. And she did. And she won. I didn't have to say a word.

I think it was how you make them feel that makes them remember what you did,
not the other way around.

~~~
ErikVandeWater
I really like your story. I'm glad you're successful now!

Just to add one thing:

> People may forget what you say. They may forget what you did, but people
> will never forget how you made them feel."

Maya Angelou is the source of this quote

~~~
lstamour
Actually, the source is disputed:
[https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/06/they-
feel/](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/06/they-feel/) But it’s still a
great quote.

------
thewarrior
This is why I believe that MOOCS will not “disrupt” traditional education in
any meaningful way. Learning is fundamentally a social phenomenon. Apart from
a few genius auto didacts the vast majority of people learn in social
settings. Even some of the geniuses were helped by social settings and peer
groups that served as a constant source of ideas and feedback.

For years I’d tried to learn algorithms to clear big 4 style interviews. But
for reasons ranging from subject matter difficulty to motivation I’d fail
again and again. When I got an interview call I had a competitive programmer
teach me over chat every night one problem at a time explaining his thinking.

I improved by leaps and bounds within weeks and also cleared the interview.

What’s being imparted isn’t just mere knowledge but an enthusiasm for the
subject. The fact that it can be a lot of fun to work on such problems even
though they’re not of any “practical” use. The journey of the instructor and
how they themselves learned to overcome difficult topics. The multiple ways
they have learned to look at a topic which are too long for a textbook to
cover.

Customized feedback on how to improve, the right problems to work on,
motivation when you’re losing interest. It’s very difficult to replace all of
this.

Now to be fair a lot of real life teachers fail this bar and MOOCS can
probably replace them but both are incomplete in any case.

This showed me once and for all that if you’re chasing true expertise then
mere reading books or watching videos will never get you as far as people
learning the subject from each other in a social setting with motivational
instructors and incentives.

~~~
apcragg
I've noticed the best "online" teachers excel in predicting what questions
students will have and addressing them preemptively. I think the person behind
3Brown1Blue on YouTube does a fantastic job doing this. Throughout their
explanations, they interject with things such as "Now, you might ask why I did
it this way... well here is that reasoning" and then "but you also may have
observed this and here's why you did". In some ways, I feel like the ability
to anticipate student's questions and hangups and respond to them is a far
better predictor of their efficacy as an instructor than how well they
understand the material or the quality of the lecturing.

~~~
sametmax
It's not anticipation.

It's experience, either from questions you received during lectures you gave,
questions you asked yourself in lectures you attented to, or just road blocks
you encountered while learning it on your own.

Every time I get a question about something in a training I give, I make sure
people will never have to ask me again (unless it's part of the flow of the
lecture). Every time I asked myself something, or blocked on something, I make
a mental note of it, whatever the subject is. Sometimes, years later, I just
happen to teach that subject, and it comes back to me.

I don't know why good teachers do that. Personnally, I started to do it out of
anger. I felt like it was so unfair somebody failed to understand something
because of a missing piece of information. I found it infuriating, it's a pain
that has no reason to exist. We have been teaching things for centuries, why
do we keep not communicating knowledge correctly ? Eventually I made peace
with human imperfection, as I battled too much with my own, but the habit
remains.

Maybe obsession is what makes anybody great. It's not sane, but it's a hell of
a motivation.

------
inglor
I teach underpriviledged kids programming for the last 5 years and this rings
very true to me. It's more important to teach them self efficacy and to
believe in them than to teach them C++.

I think this is also true more generally than just for students. I've given a
keynote presentation about it at a conference this year if anyone finds that
interesting:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lckris5U5iw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lckris5U5iw)

~~~
empath75
I wonder what percentage of what we measure as IQ is actually measuring an
interest in figuring things out and a belief that we’re capable of it.

~~~
rjf72
There's a really peculiar aspect of IQ that many are not aware of. The
heritability of IQ changes as you age - becoming more heritable over time.
What this means is that environmental factors can play major differences in a
youth's IQ. For instance a child that goes to great schools, has a supportive
family, and so forth and so on will generally have a substantially higher IQ
than a child from a less favorable environment.

But the weird thing is that if you take two adults and compare their IQs the
difference there has a negligible weighting for environmental factors. Modern
studies put the heritability of adult IQ upwards of 80%. This also has the
extremely counter intuitive implication that our privileged child's academic
advantage in youth doesn't necessarily carry over into adulthood. And
similarly an adult who came from a less fortunate background will not often
suffer (at least in terms of intellectual ability in so much as IQ can
measure) for it, as an adult.

The reason I mention this is because the person coming from a privileged
background would ostensibly have a much higher degree of belief in themselves
and presumably a wider array of well supported interests. Our _' 8 year old
solves nuclear fusion in spare time'_ clickbait articles invariably,
coincidentally, happen to have a parent or two who is a nuclear physicist. Yet
in the end that self confidence and supported interests don't amount to
anywhere near as much as we'd expect.

\----

One other major argument against this is the sharp rise of parenting where
parents genuinely belief, and work to prove, that their child is the next
Einstein. And this happening at the same time that the Flynn effect has
entirely disappeared, and in some cases substantially reversed, in much of the
developed world. The Flynn Effect was the observation that IQs were increasing
over time. IQ is a relative value with 100 always set as the mean with a
standard deviation of 15 points. But a '100' in 1900 was scoring, in absolute
terms, worse than a 100 in e.g. 1920. And this kept happening. But then
sometime around the 1990s this trend began reversing. [1]

Flynn observed an average increase of about 3 points per decade. In many
places in the world today we are seeing a decline of about 2 points per
decade. Think about what that means in absolute values. That's a net change of
-5 points per decade. That is one third of a standard deviation decline, per
decade! Getting into hypotheses here is counter productive and outside the
point I'm making which is simply that we've, in most parts of the developed
world, decided to begin pretending that every child is special. If IQ were
connected to self confidence and belief in oneself - we'd expect to see
something at least vaguely looking like a positive correlation here. Instead
we've seen a completely unprecedented and sharp reversal in IQ.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression)

~~~
dragonwriter
> But the weird thing is that if you take two adults and compare their IQs the
> difference there has a negligible weighting for environmental factors.
> Modern studies put the heritability of adult IQ upwards of 80%.

20% isn't negligible.

~~~
rjf72
To be clear heritability is about the _differences_ within individuals and not
a raw value by itself. For instance if we have a trait with 80% heritability
and one individual is measured at 120 against the average of 100, then this
would mean that 4 points (20% of the 20 point difference) would be
attributable to non-genetic factors. Some confuse the term to mean that e.g.
20% of the entire value would be attributable to environmental factors. In
other words a heritability of 80% does not mean that 80% of a trait is genetic
- it means that 80% of observed differences in a trait can be attributed to
genetics.

As a not directly related aside this also leads to another really interesting
aspect of heritability. It changes as the average environmental situation
changes. As we get closer and closer to environmentally equal, any given
trait's heritability approaches 100% as the only differences left between
individuals become genetic. As an obvious example consider height.
Malnourishment tends to stunt an individual's growth. So in an area where some
significant chunks of the population were malnourished and others were not,
you'd see a much lower heritability for height than in places like the US
where that environmental factor has been mostly eliminated.

------
bayindirh
It's actually very true for me. If I don't feel sincerity of the instructor,
or they're cold & rude against the class; my grades for that particular class
doesn't go up much.

However, if the instructor is sincere, likes what he/she's doing, or I'm not
being emotionally or wordly punished for my mistakes, my grades can easily
compete with the top three.

It's a response to perceived hostility / cooperation. I need to feel that
we're on the same side. If I feel otherwise, I just study enough to pass the
class, because my life is more important than a petty hostility in a class.
The bad thing is, when I feel that cooperation, I study even less and get much
higher grades, because I can listen and learn in class, since I don't spend
any effort to protect myself from the instructor, and concentrate instead.

~~~
bytematic
I always, and suggest it to other college students, to pick classes by
professor. A shitty class can be made great by a great professor and vice
versa. Can't take all ratemyprofessor stuff seriously but the rating has never
been too far off for me. (just check the class the review is for!)

~~~
SL61
I check Rate My Professors for every registration. It's very reliable once you
learn to read between the lines of some reviews.

One professor is particular is really great, and I'd sign up for a class with
him each semester even if the topic isn't interesting to me. He even suggested
pursuing publication for a term paper I wrote, and helped me through the
process.

It takes a special kind of person to be able to do that, and it seems like
those types of professors are the kind of people who are happy spending all
day working on academic stuff. The previously mentioned professor goes home in
the evenings and devours books and news to catch up with the latest
developments in his field. Another professor sits in his office until 7-8 in
the evening. They live in breathe their studies but I try not to fault those
who want to have a life outside of academia too.

------
agumonkey
A lot of human existence is emotional transfer underneath.

ps: to elaborate, we want to share things with other beings, when we bond over
positive emotions, our mind get engaged, motivated, open, happy. As an
example, my college math class was mostly the bottom of the barrel (me
included). Our teacher though, was very invested both in the topic and in
making us understand. Nobody cared at first, but with time, even the most
uninterested of us ended coming on optional weekend classes. Why ? He cared.
There are other similar stories about management. Dehumanized management
creates more problems, a simple honest/respectful manager, even if harsh, will
get 10x more results.

------
kkylin
Flip side of this: if there is a teacher / professor who's made a difference
in your life, and you have the means & the opportunity to do so, drop by and
say hi. As someone who's been teaching for a little while, it is truly
gratifying to get a visit from a former student. It matters very little to me
whether the student was a "good" student (i.e., got a good grade), or whether
they've found what I taught them of any use. Just good to see how people have
grown, and done different (and almost always interesting and productive)
things with their lives.

~~~
dependsontheq
He died pretty early... at his funeral it felt like every nerd who ever
attended the school was in that church. I think about 200 former students
came. Teachers matter.

------
TeMPOraL
Mildly interesting article, though sadly at no point it actually expands on
the title. There's nothing about how or why "students learn from the people
they love".

Slightly related: students learn a lot because of having a crush on someone.
I've learned a bunch of things this way too. It's not something that can be
structurally exploited, though.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>It's not something that can be structurally exploited, though. //

If you're motivated to learn in order to impress a potential mate, rev that
seems like something that might rely reduce - in part - to seeing sexual
stimulation? That element might be exploitable, there may even be a way to do
that morally?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
rev -> then

rely -> really

seeing -> seeking

Perhaps a small volume of typo corrections could be allowed as edits for
longer than the normal edit period.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _rev - > then_

I wonder how you made _this_ one :). Mobile?

------
50
Cue this ol' good read:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/what-c...](https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/what-
classrooms-can-learn-from-magic/425100/).

------
8bitsrule
Very well done piece. I'd just add that students can also learn a lot from a
person they don't love, if that person happens to be very good at something
the student is _internally motivated_ to learn more about.

Someone _driven to know more about something_ will somehow manage to overlook
teacher's humanity.

First principle: It's a lot easier to teach someone something once they
understand _why_ it's important _to them_.

------
bellerose
Same can be said about people students hate. If a child hates his or her
parents, the child will learn everything to be nothing like their parents. I
think the article is a fluff piece. School was a complete waste of time for
myself. The only benefit was for social connections. Everything useful I
learned "career wise" was from online and where I found good C++ videos that
got me into programming. I doubt much has changed and even expect it's
becoming even more dominate where you have a better chance of succeeding if
you're a self learner who can navigate online to whatever is needed to be
learned.

~~~
docbrown
>School was a complete waste of time for myself. The only benefit was for
social connections.

With all respect, I’m calling bullshit on this. Social connections were thee
_only_ thing you learned? Where did you learn how to read so you could
understand the C++ texts you were reading? Who gave you lessons to help with
critical thinking so you could understand programming is not a linear process?
Hell, who taught you how to count? If you had done none of this, you’d be
claiming you self taught since an infant.

Simply casting your entire education to the side is extreme. There may be
parts of the system that you disagreed with, perhaps the structure of the
school day, but saying it had no benefit makes it sound like a pendejo
argument.

~~~
gugagore
I agree with this sentiment.

However, if it's true that people learn from people they love, then it might
be hard to learn from a comment that is calling what someone says "bullshit"
and calling them a "pendejo".

------
crushcrashcrush
This is why the future of education is in the hands of educators - it will be
less about where you go to school (Harvard) and more about WHO your professor
was for a given topic. Think Seth Godin’s altMBA

~~~
anonymous5133
What about if the best teachers are basically AIs that are so good that you
can't even tell it is an AI.

Look up google duplex to see what I am talking about.

~~~
crushcrashcrush
Pretty sure the Google Duplex demo has been proven a fraud...

~~~
c22
What's your source? I searched for "google duplex fraud" and found a few
results indicating that maybe the "businesses" called during the demo weren't
real? I can't find anything that _proves_ this assertion, but even if I could
I'm not sure I'd label the whole demo _fraudulent_ in terms of displaying the
state of the technology. For a fraudulent demo I'd expect to see evidence that
the system's responses were actually generated in real-time by a human
controller, but I haven't found anything online that makes this claim.

------
matthewmcg
This is all well and good but the headline is a _bit_ awkward when you
consider the author’s recent personal life:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-
source/wp/2017/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-
source/wp/2017/04/30/new-york-times-columnist-david-brooks-weds-his-former-
researcher-anne-snyder/?utm_term=.2908af0e5f5d)

------
falcrist
Interesting article, but it fails to address the idea that causal link could
go the other way. So for example I might connect better with teachers who have
some pedagogical skill/training, or teachers who put some effort into their
lessons.

I can confirm that I dislike teachers who can't be bothered to properly
prepare their lecture. I also find it easier to make connections with teachers
that do put effort in.

------
ttonkytonk
_...that emotion is not the opposite of reason; it’s essential to reason._

I believe reason is informed by emotion to a degree that's difficult to
appreciate until it has been tested.

That's why it's so disturbing to see issues such as basic economic security
largely ignored in what are generally "good times".

------
Merem
It really depends on the student. If one has great work ethics, the connection
to the teacher doesn't really matter because one would learn regardless.
Similarly, the student can also "just" respect the teacher in his position and
for his knowledge and be animated to learn because of that.

Also, since the article mentions it...fear can have a really positive effect
when it comes to learning something. One year, we had a teacher who made us
stand up in the beginning of the class and he would then ask for vocabulary.
You had only little time to answer and if you got it correct, you were allowed
to sit down. Obviously, no one wanted to be the last one standing, especially
in a class of 31. It was the best class I've ever had and I learned a lot.

~~~
MarsAscendant
> If one has great work ethics, the connection to the teacher doesn't really
> matter because one would learn regardless.

That doesn't sound right to me, but I'm not to question it, since I realize
how different people can be about such basic matters.

What I'd like to bring here is: could it be that people differ in "types" of
work along the same lines as they do politically? Not _correlated_ , but
semantically related.

I wonder if there's a divide between the type of student who could dutifully
learn something because it's the thing they're supposed to do, and the type of
student who won't learn much if they aren't interested, but will quickly
become proficient, if not master, the subject if they have the passion for it?
The classic divide between dutiful order and creative chaos, in other words.

> One year, we had a teacher who made us stand up in the beginning of the
> class and he would then ask for vocabulary. You had only little time to
> answer and if you got it correct, you were allowed to sit down.

Isn't it related to the concept of "eustress"
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress)]?
Fearful stress versus "challenge" stress. I keep hearing bits and pieces about
it (particularly from Tim Ferriss), but don't have the large picture.

~~~
Merem
> I wonder if there's a divide between the type of student who could dutifully
> learn something because it's the thing they're supposed to do, and the type
> of student who won't learn much if they aren't interested, but will quickly
> become proficient, if not master, the subject if they have the passion for
> it?

I'm not really a fan of the word "divide" here because the dutiful learner can
absolutely benefit from the positive effect of being interested in the subject
matter. On the other hand, he/she won't suffer the negative consequences of
not really being interested.

> Isn't it related to the concept of "eustress"?

Related in the way that some students probably had a positive response. As for
me...it was definitely a negative threat, although not as bad as citing a poem
in front of the class for example. It also didn't lead to any growth in that
department, it was an ever-recurring hurdle to be feared. But, as I said, it
worked really well when it came to the aspect of learning the vocabulary. For
that alone it was absolutely worth it.

~~~
MarsAscendant
"Divide" is bad choice of words on my part. I meant to suggest that the two
instances of a hypothetical student are extremes on a spectrum, upon which we
all lie somewhere.

I know I burn out quickly if I'm disinterested, but could work on something
exciting — a website redesign was the latest — for hours, forgetting about
food and rest.

Back in the uni, I'd postpone some assignments until the very last date if
they weren't interesting. They'd still be _good_ , but making them on time
wasn't important to me. Same with revising/learning for a test, or an exam.

(To be fair, a lot of it is also in the anxiety. I'd postpone any project —
more so one that involves public presentation — if I was afraid to not do well
enough, let alone fail.)

~~~
Merem
Ah, I know what you mean but I don't really like the visualization of a
spectrum either. A radar chart with both being pretty much opposite each other
should work better, right? At least that's how I would best visualize it.

That's actually another very interesting aspect. The environment (on the basic
level) can absolutely matter. Students that pay attention in class and do
everything they are told with utmost care may slack with homework because
their home is completely different from school. The opposite can be true as
well, with students, not being comfortable at all within a school setting,
excelling at studying on their own.

~~~
MarsAscendant
> A radar chart with both being pretty much opposite each other should work
> better, right?

Not when there's only two values measured. What else do you have in mind?

I'd never encountered people who experience separate influences, academically
(that I know of). The best-indicative situation I'd seen (or, perhaps, only
noticed) are people who don't do well in school because their home environment
is discouraging and negative.

That said, my experience is such that, at school, I'd enjoy doing tasks –
exercises, experiments etc. – but would avoid homework as much as possible. I
wouldn't be able to sit down and learn anything by rote in a library: somehow,
it increased internal tension, I was unable to sit down for the process.

On the other hand, I once memorized the Latin noun declension system in an
evening, before the exam – more as a result of procrastination on my part than
a motivated necessity.

~~~
Merem
I didn't really have any other value in mind (though, there are likely
possibilities, depending on the perspective from which you want to view the
whole thing). The problem is, if you only place a single dot...where would you
put me? As mentioned above, I'm one of the dutiful learners that benefit from
being interested in the subject matter (like maths, history, computer
science). If both values weigh against each other, I would be somewhere on the
"dutiful learner" side. However, both values don't exclude each other, that's
why I'm not really a fan of a spectrum.

I'm one of the people I've described (first example). I do excel in
school/work environments. Paying attention for hours on end, regardless of
whether it was "boring" or not, was never an issue. That's how I aquired
pretty much all my knowledge. However, at home, I had trouble doing my
homework, doing assignments or even learning for a test. The latter two I
would usually do the day/evening before (at the latest possible opportunity).
Homework, I sometimes skipped _cough_ _cough_. If one class would have been
suddenly canceled, I would have had no troubles doing the homework in that
time frame at school. My home environment was generally neutral and it's also
not like I did something more interesting with my time that I couldn't do it.

That's pretty good. Latin is a case where I wish I had been forced to learn
vocabulary at home...because it was absolutely necessary since we basically
only read Latin texts during class, every single time, with the exception of
grammar every blue moon.

~~~
MarsAscendant
> However, both values don't exclude each other, that's why I'm not really a
> fan of a spectrum.

I see what you mean. It reminds me of the way modern computer RPGs handle
character morality.

It used to be ( _Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic_ , _Fallout: New
Vegas_ ) that the player character's goodness/badness would be measured on a
spectrum. You'd be considered more "good" (moral, altruistic, kind) the more
"good" things you did, and vice versa. Your "good" actions could eventually
negate all the "bad" actions you've done over the course of the game, as long
as there are enough opportunities to gain those morality points.

Nowadays ( _Mass Effect_ , _Tyranny_ ), it leans more towards a two-scale
solution, where your "good" actions are measured _alongside_ your "bad" ones.
In this case, your saving the smith's child doesn't make people forget how
you'd ruthlessly killed an innocent merchant for their stuff earlier. You
could be totally "good", totally "bad", and anywhere in between; a divisive
figure (with both "good" and "bad" scales tipped up high), or someone who
doesn't take that bright of a stance, opting for not rocking the boat instead.

( _Tyranny_ , in particular, handles the social reaction to your actions
brilliantly, in my opinion.)

> However, at home, I had trouble doing my homework, doing assignments or even
> learning for a test.

Now that you say it like that, I do remember that I found doing the homework
at the uni more... "possible", I guess, to doing it at home. There were often
"windows" in our schedule – periods where there are no classes between any
other two. I knew that, if I were to go home during a "window" (maybe I was
tired, or maybe I was depressed that day), I'm not going back to uni. It felt
like the work day was over, in this case.

Do you have any idea why is that so? Is there some sort of mode-switching
happening between the workplace and home, where different priorities take
hold?

> Latin is a case where I wish I had been forced to learn vocabulary at home

Vocab is a bitch, whatever the language. It's the meanest problem I have.
Grammar, phonetics, even subtle semantic differences – I grasp all that pretty
well, but vocab? Can't handle it unless I rote it – which, even if you're
learning a language at the uni, is a tough nut to crack for me. I just can't
memorize stuff that way. I need to work with the lexicon within a context: a
book, a newspaper, a film – anything. Otherwise, it doesn't work for me.

~~~
Merem
> Nowadays (Mass Effect, Tyranny), it leans more towards a two-scale solution,
> where your "good" actions are measured alongside your "bad" ones.

That's good to hear. It always bothered me in a way that you were able to make
your "bad" deeds become forgotten by doing some "good" things here and there.
One notable exception was the "Childkiller" status in the early Fallouts
(haven't played 3 and beyond) which led to possible encounters with bounty
hunters.

> Do you have any idea why is that so? Is there some sort of mode-switching
> happening between the workplace and home, where different priorities take
> hold?

I do think it's because of the "tension" disappearing when you are at home.
However, even that doesn't work entirely for me. For instance, I'm a night
owl. On weekends, it's impossible for me to get up the same time I would on a
work day, regardless of how often the alarm bell goes off. So while I would
easily get up at 6:00 in the morning on a Monday while going to bed at 2:00,
it would be impossible to get up the same time on a Saturday, even if I went
to bed 2 hours earlier. One exception would be having to get up to travel
somewhere. Now, one could argue that that "tension" isn't tied to a physical
environment but that would point against the learning at home/homework stuff
we experienced. Of course, there is the possbility that our body distinguishes
between getting up at the right time to get to school/work and doing school
stuff at home after school due to undetermined differences. I'm also trying to
remember how it was when I had, for instance, two hours of school, four hours
of free time and then another two hours of school. I do think the tension
disappeared once I was home (unless I had a test or something later that day)
but it gradually came back when sitting in class. So it's probably a mode that
is on as soon as you wake up until you are home again. That mode is likely
also emotionally and physically taxing on our body due to the tension. As soon
as we hit home and are powering down, we (ideally) recuperate. Getting back up
and increasing the tension again is maybe not ideal for our body (?) which
would mean that longer pauses (like the four hours I mentioned) are not really
beneficial. Something like that, I would guess.

> Grammar, phonetics, even subtle semantic differences – I grasp all that
> pretty well, but vocab?

We are similar then, as we grasp the feeling for a language rather easily. For
instance, I was very good at writing French words (and also pronouncing them)
and getting all the accents right. That was due to the sound of the word but
also how the word "flowed" or looked. Of course, if I didn't know what the
word meant, it would be pretty pointless. At least for me, ideally, I learn
the language from the ground up, seperately from any other language. This
really helps with trying to translate something from one language into another
one when it simply can't really be done, as is often enough the case. And yes,
learning words from context is the best.

------
jonmc12
In the book, The Secret of our Success, Joseph Henrich offers a perspective of
cultural inheritance from evolutionary biology.

How do children determine who to pay attention to? who to learn from? 1\.
Skill / Competence ("whose arrows hit the target?") 2\. Success ("who brings
back the big prey?") 3\. Prestige (cues of attention, deference) \- use what
other people are doing \- they are worthy of paying attention to 4\. Age (ie,
scaffold to incrementally experience) 5\. Self-similarity \- what might be
useful to you later? \- males copy males, females copy females, etc

[https://youtu.be/jaoQh6BoH3c?t=1162](https://youtu.be/jaoQh6BoH3c?t=1162)
(19:22)

------
ArtWomb
Well established endocrinology of the brain. Hormones have demonstrable
positive outcomes on memory, cognition, neuroplasticity. Despite recent trends
for de-personalized and distance education. It will be exciting to see what
light neuroscience can shed on learning.

Tangential to this is what I consider an absolutely extraordinary phenomenon.
The unexpected explosion of creativity that occurs in a subject subsumed in
the throes of new romantic love ;)

------
keerthiko
The title is everything, and kind of blew my mind as soon as I read it.

I had never for a moment considered this a reason why whenever I was asked as
a kid "who is your favorite teacher" without hesitation my answer was always
"my brother" and never any of my actual school teachers.

------
skybrian
The article rings true, but it's also true that some people do sometimes learn
things from books, videos, or practice on their own. Certainly this happens
with computer programming. It seems that face-to-face isn't the only way to
make a connection?

------
lambdasquirrel
I wonder what the effect is in cultures where teachers are respected more. Not
because those cultures are "better," but because learning more is usually
better than learning less, and I'd like to know what my personal "defaults"
are.

------
shameemreza
Yes, its because they feel comfortable with that person. As a teacher, I also
saw that students love those teachers who are more friendly and easy to
discuss about their problem.

------
hema_n
It’s hard to work through difficulty if your emotions aren’t engaged.-This is
actually true.

------
paultopia
Cue the extreme cynics suggesting that therefore we should only hire
physically attractive teachers.

------
mettamage
I can confirm the opposite is true. My most favorite subject was taught by a
teacher I hated (psychology of game-design). I passed with a 75% mark and I
felt ashamed since I was actively trying to get a 55% (i.e. barely passing).

Edit:

For downvoters, I'd like you to email me. I'd like to have the feedback why
this isn't an interesting observation to make (that hating a teacher may
produce opposite results).

~~~
m0llusk
Perhaps it is the emotional reaction which may spark learning. Many of my
strongest lessons have been taught to me by people I don't along with and
thoroughly loathe. This is the basis of one of the fundamental lessons I tell
all serious students and acolytes: As much as you need mentors you need to
have an enemy. Someone who provides dramatic contrast and direct competition
can teach important lessons that cannot be learned any other way.

~~~
mettamage
Could you give an example? This particular teacher was a dictator and didn't
allow for any autonomy and acted like the class material was much more
difficult than it actually was.

Note: we were master students and other classes that didn't do dictatorial
handholding were much better. I had studied 2 bachelors and 0.5 masters up to
this point.

Why do I then need to come to a lecture on how to learn JavaScript or
otherwise I'd fail the class for not coming? I was more knowledgeable than
what the guest speaker was teaching! (variables, loops, if-statements,
functions)

Teachers that say: it's on you to come to the lecture and if you fail the
class because you never show up that's on you, are much more my style.

