I think I can explain this better than it’s currently been explained, but also it doesn’t feel like you’re engaging with the OP’s goals or thesis, and would want to see more effort from you to understand it before engaging further.
(I think in this thread you’ve raised some interesting points about what sort of things are worth learning and teaching, but they were mostly unrelated to Benquo’s point)
As I say in the latter part of this comment, it seems to me that Benquo’s thesis is fundamentally confused/misguided, in that it attempts to conflate two things which it not only does not make sense to conflate, but is a bad idea to try and do so.
Perhaps you disagree, or think that I’ve misunderstood. Fair enough. But it is strange to say that I haven’t engaged. The linked comment is absolutely the heart of my counterpoint. Almost no one (certainly not Benquo himself) responded to what I said there, or said anything at all relevant, with the exception of Vaniver (whose comment I did not entirely understand, due—apparently?—to terminological issues, but to which I did respond, as you see).
Again, if you think I’ve misunderstood or you disagree with my view, then please do say why; but the claim that I simply haven’t engaged with the OP’s points strikes me as unsupportable.
I think I can explain this better than it’s currently been explained, but also it doesn’t feel like you’re engaging with the OP’s goals or thesis, and would want to see more effort from you to understand it before engaging further.
(I think in this thread you’ve raised some interesting points about what sort of things are worth learning and teaching, but they were mostly unrelated to Benquo’s point)
It perplexes me to see you say this.
As I say in the latter part of this comment, it seems to me that Benquo’s thesis is fundamentally confused/misguided, in that it attempts to conflate two things which it not only does not make sense to conflate, but is a bad idea to try and do so.
Perhaps you disagree, or think that I’ve misunderstood. Fair enough. But it is strange to say that I haven’t engaged. The linked comment is absolutely the heart of my counterpoint. Almost no one (certainly not Benquo himself) responded to what I said there, or said anything at all relevant, with the exception of Vaniver (whose comment I did not entirely understand, due—apparently?—to terminological issues, but to which I did respond, as you see).
Again, if you think I’ve misunderstood or you disagree with my view, then please do say why; but the claim that I simply haven’t engaged with the OP’s points strikes me as unsupportable.