{"id":10099,"date":"2019-07-04T10:25:54","date_gmt":"2019-07-04T18:25:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scotthyoung.com\/blog\/?p=10099"},"modified":"2019-07-03T13:26:53","modified_gmt":"2019-07-03T21:26:53","slug":"time-ultralearning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scotthyoung.com\/blog\/2019\/07\/04\/time-ultralearning\/","title":{"rendered":"You Do Have Time for Ultralearning"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

One of the biggest misconceptions about ultralearning<\/a> is that it\u2019s mostly about putting in a ton of hours towards a project in a short burst of time.<\/p>\n

On the surface, I can see why this impression would be misleading. My own projects<\/a> often involve a ton of hours towards a project in a short burst of time. Therefore, I can hardly be surprised when people think it\u2019s intrinsic to the method I\u2019m advocating.<\/p>\n

But the truth is that you can be an ultralearner even if you only have a few hours per week you can devote to learning something new.<\/p>\n

Aggressiveness \u00e2\u2030\u00a0 80-Hours per Week<\/h2>\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

I define ultralearning as aggressive, self-directed learning. This puts it in contrast with much of what we think about education. Schools, where you are told what to learn, how to learn it, and often don\u2019t really know why, are the major difference.<\/p>\n

However, typical self-education is also not ultralearning because it\u2019s not aggressive. It\u2019s playing on DuoLingo to learn a language, instead of something that actually works. Dabbling instead of really thinking hard about the right way to acquire skills.<\/p>\n

The problem, however, is that when I say \u201caggressive\u201d it often just looks like I\u2019m saying \u201cgo do the same things you\u2019re doing now, but do them eighty hours a week until your brain turns to jello.\u201d<\/p>\n

The truth is actually a lot more subtle.<\/p>\n

What Separates Ultralearning from How Most People Learn<\/h2>\n

Throughout my book, I argue that there are principles of learning which exhibit a common pattern: something that is hard to do, requiring more mental effort or being a bit scarier or more frustrating, is nonetheless more effective for learning than something easy.<\/p>\n

That this happens again and again in cognitive science could just be a coincidence. After all, it could have been that the easiest thing is always the best thing for learning and that avoiding frustration, difficulty and effort were the keys to learning well. That it doesn\u2019t appear to be this way in reality is an interesting observation in and of itself.<\/p>\n

There are some good examples of where a more difficult method works better than an attractive, easier option:<\/p>\n