>And look how poorly they did it until they invented writing.
Yeah, look how poorly they did it until they invented writing.
[peers into the dim ancient past]
Sorry, my time-machine spectacles are on leave or on strike today.
And congrats on being a multi-millen(ium)arian, and a mind reader, who could both 1) exist so far back in the past, and 2) be able to know the thoughts of people who didn't write them down, because they didn't know writing.
/s
How can you know how poorly they did it?
Their lack of progress. Humans existed in the same basic form for around 100k years before they finally invented agriculture, which led to some improvements, and then rapid progress once writing was invented.
IOW, hunter-gatherers follow the best habitat, so controlling for habitat is always going to have the conclusion this paper reached.
I'd be very interested in other studies that support this conclusion; after all, that's how science works - a single study proves nothing if many studies conclude the opposite.
While I mostly agree with this notion, given that all of our understanding of human progress historically comes from writing, there's a selection effect happening here.
Like, why do we talk about the Dark Ages? Because there was less writing, so obviously things were terrible.
There's a bit of a selection bias there, because writing itself is used as a measurement of progress.
But, ignoring writing as a measurement of progress, we can pretty much see that for about 100k years the only tech were primitive tools.
Even after the domestication of wolves (about 40k years ago) there were no visible improvement in tech. After agriculture (10k-12k years ago, maybe?), there's visible progress in tech (tools), but not by much, and visible improvement in societies (also, not by much).
Enter writing - those civilisations that had more advanced writing progressed rapidly, and those that did not barely progressed at all, tech-wise.
Because not all civilisations progressed at the same rate, we can see quite clearly that writing is highly correlated[1] with progress.
---------------------
[1] While correlation does not imply causation, as the data mounts it lends more and more weight to the causation bit.
That's a big "If". The observation we have is that civilisations that never invented writing simply died out with no tech-tree advancement; and this happened for 100k years at least.
We've got 100k years of "no writing, no tech". We've got around 5k years of "with writing came tech".
The actual tech to write was there for much of the 100k years (cave art), but without writing, the tech never improved.
And look how poorly they did it until they invented writing.
> Why is code special?
You don't get better at thinking without doing. With code the "doing" part is writing.
In your view, it is reasonable to expect HS students to thoroughly read a book on trigonometry and then ace the exam? We know, from experience, that only by doing problems does the student actually learn. We also know that when you stop doing problems the facility atrophys.
Why is code different?