The two of you are talking past each other.

Dominus is saying that if you watch sports the right way, it can well be a worthwhile experience. You are saying that most people just zonk out in front of the set.

You are both right.

For the record, here is a data-point. At one point I found tennis uninteresting to watch. A few years later I saw tennis on TV (this was a couple of years ago, I had a TV) and I found it a fascinating game to watch. But I was still bored by watching basketball.

What changed?

Well I had started playing ping-pong fairly often with friends. Tennis and ping-pong are closely related sports with similar factors mattering. Obviously they are very different sports, but my interest in playing ping-pong meant that I was suddenly looking at a different - and far more interesting - game.

Likewise until I tried to program, I found discussions of the practicality of programming boring. I could give detailed considerations of whether a set being uncountable meant that it was in some sense larger than a countable set, or merely that it had a more complex internal structure. (The orthodoxy is larger. I am not entirely orthodox in my opinions about the foundations of mathematics...) Today I find it more interesting to read discussion about questions like whether a better mental model for programming is black boxes with defined behaviour, or black boxes with fixed inputs and outputs you wire together in a network. (Check out the link on my home page about flow-based programming.)

The topic, from sports to CS to math, is irrelevant. There is a world of difference between observers who are engaged in a learning process and observers who are not. I am, like Dominus, someone who enjoys being in a learning process. This engagement has no causal relationship with the subject at hand. Indeed I am not even sure that there is even a positive correlation between that kind of engagement and the subject of their engagement.

But there is a strong correlation between having that kind of engagement and becoming competent.

In reply to Re (tilly) 3: At what rate are YOU progressing? by tilly
in thread At what rate are YOU progressing? by mothra

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.