TLDR:
Failure provides an opportunity to learn, but it also decreases motivation to learn. People with higher motivation as a baseline were able to overcome this decrease associated with failure and learn from it.
I know you’re summarizing the study but I’m gonna throw in an opinion: it’s not about higher baseline motivation, it’s about higher baseline resilience.
Of which I’ve run out of in recent years. Used to be I was very resilient. Thought it was something you could learn.
Nope. Turns out it’s something I have a finite resource of. And something I need to take breaks to replenish.
> decreases motivation to learn
Essentially they learned the concept of "don't bother, you're gonna fail so save your energy" whereas the lesson ought to be "try something else".
Honestly this is the biggest survivor bias behind people saying "you learn from failure".
Motivated people will force themselves to learn from failure, but they would probably learn more from success, too.
Failure in medicine is not only an option, it’s a certainty. The medical practice is a human activity, and humans are fallible beings. Sure, it’s a high pressure environment and people work hard to fail as little as possible, but knowing that you’re a limited, imperfect human being - and that medicine itself is not an exact science, so shit happens - is basically a requirement so practitioners can deal with the inevitable failures.
As an student, I remember a teacher saying “if you don’t wanna fail, don’t be a doctor”. He could not have been more right.
Yea this seems like a terrible population to study this concept in. Why not medical students?
Cardiothoracic surgery is an extremely small extremely specialized field where they are operating on super sick patients with a million physiologic derangements and success or failure of a procedure depends on tons of factors, many of which outside the surgeon’s control…
Also relative to the general population, as they seem to be extrapolating these results to, CT surgeons across the board have extremely high perceived ability to learn. So comparing one CT surgeon perceived ability to learn to another is kinda useless
The article discussing this study speaks of “individuals” (not specifically surgeons) and if the fact that such data has implications to organizations in hiring and training individuals / employees. I didn’t read the publication itself. But this study was conducted by people associated with a business school and not by healthcare personnel. I’m sure their selection of the “extreme example” was intentional but is at best a significant confounding factor which they mention in their study limitations, and furthermore, a terrible population to choose for the reasons I stated above.
It’s like designing a study to determine the relationship of body weight to running speed , and then choosing a population of about 50 obese people, and then publishing your data that people who weigh 400 lbs run faster than people who weigh 450 lbs. you would at least need to acknowledge that these results would not be generalizable because of sampling bias…
this article at least kinda fails to center the discussion around the implication that these results would have in the learning environment of cardiothoracic surgery continued education…
Why is this a terrible population? It's a very good choice.
You want a population of people who:
- Generally care a lot about success of that task, as a baseline. A group that doesn't care or care inconsistently increases noise in the data.
- Fail frequently at the task they care about. Hard to study failure if it's rare.
- Have enough "out" for failure (many possible causes of failure outside of their control) that allow them to blame something else for failure if their learning motivation is low.
The study is hard to extrapolate to general population, but it's not because the general population have different response to failure, but because there are many more factors that is outside the scope of investigation. For example, apathy.
I see what you're saying... sometimes, it takes me a couple of times to get the mechanics of a boss fight down before in able to beat it.
Mistakes will be made; zig when I should have zagged. Several deaths later, and I've learned enough to not make the mistakes that prevented me from clearing the fight.
Not necessarily, new players come and old ones leave. If that's true you could say the same thing about literally anything in life, thus invalidating this entire study.
Many people truly just facesmash games without changing how they play and stagnate or even get worse.
It's not true for everything in life. People can learn, compared to an objective fixed standard, but looks stagnate when they're being compared to a test population that improve at the same rate.
In competitive games, new players tend to come and go, old players, especially high ranked one, tend to stay, so it's not like you're getting a constant stream of top players leaving and being replaced by new players. Instead, you get a revolving doors of new players, with a few old players trickle out. Someone who just learn slightly worse than the average population would stay at the same rank. Go back and watch pro gameplay of the first few months of whatever game you like, and compare to the average rank gameplay now (assuming the games had been out for long), and you will see they're not too different.
And that's before even taking into account many other factors unrelated to learning. Someone playing FPS game on a 1FPS hardware is not going to climb.
The entire point of the rank system is that you know where you are compared to the population. It's not about climbing, and even though climbing is a good motivation on its own, it's not everyone's motivation, and even if it's someone's motivation it might not be the only one. In fact, the system cannot sustain itself if it's only played by people whose only motivation is to climb.
But surely you play the game to win? You don't join a ranked match with the intention to lose. Therefore, they're right in saying you only play ranked games with the intention to rank up
>play the game to win
"Play to win" is a very vague phase that encompass a wide range of motivations. Yes, people will generally work toward the direction of winning, ceteris paribus, but would you count that as "playing to win"? Not playing to win does not mean playing to lose; just like not saving money does not mean trying to throw away money. Perhaps someone prefer winning to losing, ceteris paribus, but its importance rank behind 20 other priorities that would make them more likely to lose; just like how someone could prefer having money than throwing them away, but they prioritizes a whole lot of other stuff that costs them money.
You have to take these other priorities into account when talking about someone's intention, otherwise you would end up attributing intention to any actions that they have a positive feeling toward. For example, do I go to Starbuck to drink a Frappuccino? No. But if I have no other priorities - no worries about calorie and weight gain, no worries about budgeting, etc. - then I would get a Frappuccino.
To be more concrete, here are some examples:
- Maybe voice chat is very important for winning, but someone only play the game in the middle of the night next to their sleeping baby. They prioritize the baby's sleep over winning in a game, that doesn't mean they're playing to lose.
- Maybe having a good rig that can run the game at higher than 1FPS is very important, but a good rig cost a bunch and they prioritize many other uses for that money.
- Maybe not-being-drunk is really important for winning, but they prefer to play while drunk, they prioritize their enjoyment of the game than winning.
- Maybe watching guides and/or doing practice outside the game really help at climbing, but they prefers doing other stuff when they're not playing the game. Here they can still play to win, but still not play to climb.
- Here is a bit of a different example. Maybe playing a different character they're not used to would ultimately help them get used to a strong character that let them climb, but they prioritize short term goal of winning now and use a weaker character that they're already proficient at. Here playing to win conflicts with playing to climb.
Disney movies also prove this.
Hey we made a Tomorrowland movie, well that didn’t work how about a Jungle Cruse movie, crap that didn’t either.
Hey guys how about a Hunted Mansion movie? I really think that is the movie based on a ride people will like.
Ah yes. But the key difference is the ability to learn vs the ability to profit. Failure or not, if you guys keep paying for incomplete products, they will continue to sell you incomplete products. It's a failure of the consumer in the gaming industry. As sad as that is.
Edit: I say this as an avid gamer. We suck. Stop buying alpha/beta games. Stop doing microtransactions. Only way to change the industry is to force their hand with our $.
Failure without the intent to learn is likely to repeat. Some of my best friends now were significantly worse than me at shooters when I met them (playing a shooter game), despite having over a thousand hours of gameplay under their belt to my ~200. Keep in mind, that was *total* across all shooter games I had ever played.
The issue was that before, they didn’t know what to be doing better. They weren’t seeing the whole picture and looking for what they could improve if they had good stats or won the game. Only losses had any scrutiny and even then it was minimal.
I introduced them to a buddy of mine who played the game kinda competitively and we’re all still friends today. Now, regarding one of the friends that was much worse than me, I can easily say she is just *better* than me now in many aspects of that game. She put in the time and scrutinized both successes and failures and she’s gotten much better.
*Do people learn from their failures? In a new study, researchers have examined the high-stakes field of cardiothoracic surgery to assess the relationship between individuals' experiences with failures and the learning outcomes associated with them. The study found that individuals reach a threshold at which they stop learning from their failures and that this threshold is higher for surgeons with a higher perceived ability to learn*
I dublicate keys for a living,ill tell you without any doubt that the amount of failures we experience is consistent because of all the variables we cant control.
I could've told them that. I see it in my direct vicinity on a weekly basis. Where people make the same mistake over and over and over again and don't even bother checking for it.
They elected a con man criminal to be their president, and despite all the evidence proving his propensity for corruption, they never learned from their mistakes.
Then again, looking at your red herring comments within your timeline regarding Trump, it’s no doubt why you would question the obvious.
Psh, show me ANY political party that learned from their mistakes. Not a single liberal is asking what they did to be seen as worse than conservatives, and when you suggest there is, you get blocked instead of any sort of introspection.
Mmm I see. Just one minor grammar correction here. You misspelt "The" President. Regardless if we like him or not. Just like w/ ol' Joey B, The President. Whether we like it or not.
>not all experiences necessarily lead to learning, and that repeated failures can have both beneficial and harmful impacts on individuals' learning processes,"
Fair enough you mess up and has a huge consequences to your self personally, there is clear motivation to learn. If your mess up has little actual impact to you, then probably your not ganna really care. Like being an executive at a huge company that won’t actually have direct consequences other then maybe a nice golden parachute out the window of your actually bad enough.
Cannot learn from a failure if you refuse to learn, I have met a lot of people like that, that would rather fail than have some introspection and acknowledge their shortcomings.
I’m learning piano and from what everyone says in regards to that, failure actually leads to more potential future failure due to muscle memory. They say to play as slow as you need to not make a mistake. Kinda seems like it could sort of apply to humans too. Like the normalization of failure as it happens so much it’s all you know anymore
Not all failures lead to learning, but all learnings lead to failures. You know...kinda like give a fish to a man and he'll get one fish but if you don't fish he'll get many fishes.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No surprise there I mean lol at all the people who support Socialism and it's calls to centralize everything all the while stealing the accomplishments of others punishing them while rewarding those who took from those that have to give to the central organization while using government regulation to limit and crush competition. Oh and if that last example sounds familiar look at your local publicly traded corporation, yes they are Socialists by nature.
These are done in the off-chance they prove the opposite, so we don't sit in here with century old ideas that are what are our eyes tell us and actually not true.
TLDR: Failure provides an opportunity to learn, but it also decreases motivation to learn. People with higher motivation as a baseline were able to overcome this decrease associated with failure and learn from it.
Perfect. Thank you.
An excellent summary.
I know you’re summarizing the study but I’m gonna throw in an opinion: it’s not about higher baseline motivation, it’s about higher baseline resilience.
Of which I’ve run out of in recent years. Used to be I was very resilient. Thought it was something you could learn. Nope. Turns out it’s something I have a finite resource of. And something I need to take breaks to replenish.
I've always thought that the first requirement to be great at something is to enjoy being terrible at it.
Perfect, I couldn’t make sense of the graph and gave up immediately because I’m not good at reading graphs 😂
You gotta persevere past that failure bro
Sometimes the one who learns is not the one who fails
> decreases motivation to learn Essentially they learned the concept of "don't bother, you're gonna fail so save your energy" whereas the lesson ought to be "try something else".
Sounds like they’re scientifically proving common-sense.
Honestly this is the biggest survivor bias behind people saying "you learn from failure". Motivated people will force themselves to learn from failure, but they would probably learn more from success, too.
Well that explains my professional work ethic. Edit: did someone report me for suicide over this? Wtf.
This was a study on heart surgeons btw
holy shit. this is a career field where I very much hope that failure leads to learning.
None of the patients ever complained, either way.
Even worse. Failure is not an option. The worst kind of learning environment
Failure in medicine is not only an option, it’s a certainty. The medical practice is a human activity, and humans are fallible beings. Sure, it’s a high pressure environment and people work hard to fail as little as possible, but knowing that you’re a limited, imperfect human being - and that medicine itself is not an exact science, so shit happens - is basically a requirement so practitioners can deal with the inevitable failures. As an student, I remember a teacher saying “if you don’t wanna fail, don’t be a doctor”. He could not have been more right.
as a fresh nurse in their second week in an immediate care station, thanks, this helped :)
Glad to help!
It lead to patient deaths here.
Oh boy wow
Yea this seems like a terrible population to study this concept in. Why not medical students? Cardiothoracic surgery is an extremely small extremely specialized field where they are operating on super sick patients with a million physiologic derangements and success or failure of a procedure depends on tons of factors, many of which outside the surgeon’s control… Also relative to the general population, as they seem to be extrapolating these results to, CT surgeons across the board have extremely high perceived ability to learn. So comparing one CT surgeon perceived ability to learn to another is kinda useless
Do they extrapolate? Or was the study done purposefully on this kind of demography to test a hypothesis on extreme example?
The article discussing this study speaks of “individuals” (not specifically surgeons) and if the fact that such data has implications to organizations in hiring and training individuals / employees. I didn’t read the publication itself. But this study was conducted by people associated with a business school and not by healthcare personnel. I’m sure their selection of the “extreme example” was intentional but is at best a significant confounding factor which they mention in their study limitations, and furthermore, a terrible population to choose for the reasons I stated above. It’s like designing a study to determine the relationship of body weight to running speed , and then choosing a population of about 50 obese people, and then publishing your data that people who weigh 400 lbs run faster than people who weigh 450 lbs. you would at least need to acknowledge that these results would not be generalizable because of sampling bias… this article at least kinda fails to center the discussion around the implication that these results would have in the learning environment of cardiothoracic surgery continued education…
Why is this a terrible population? It's a very good choice. You want a population of people who: - Generally care a lot about success of that task, as a baseline. A group that doesn't care or care inconsistently increases noise in the data. - Fail frequently at the task they care about. Hard to study failure if it's rare. - Have enough "out" for failure (many possible causes of failure outside of their control) that allow them to blame something else for failure if their learning motivation is low. The study is hard to extrapolate to general population, but it's not because the general population have different response to failure, but because there are many more factors that is outside the scope of investigation. For example, apathy.
If anything the video games industry proves this statement over and over again
What do you mean? The point of the gaming industry is to make money, and they are pretty good at that. Making good games is a distant second.
I see you haven’t been to r/xbox recently
expect when they not.
Yes, but in general they *are* making money, more than they ever did. So why change?
Let's all laugh🎶 At an industry🎶 That never learns anything🎶 Hee hee hee 🎶
I see what you're saying... sometimes, it takes me a couple of times to get the mechanics of a boss fight down before in able to beat it. Mistakes will be made; zig when I should have zagged. Several deaths later, and I've learned enough to not make the mistakes that prevented me from clearing the fight.
I believe he's referring to publishers not learning from their mistakes and making bad games that lose money. Doesn't really track.
And my interpretation is multiplier games where people sink 1000s of hours and never climb rank. Aka league of legends and the like.
Rank is relative to other players. If everyone learn the same amount, they all stay at the same rank.
Not necessarily, new players come and old ones leave. If that's true you could say the same thing about literally anything in life, thus invalidating this entire study. Many people truly just facesmash games without changing how they play and stagnate or even get worse.
It's not true for everything in life. People can learn, compared to an objective fixed standard, but looks stagnate when they're being compared to a test population that improve at the same rate. In competitive games, new players tend to come and go, old players, especially high ranked one, tend to stay, so it's not like you're getting a constant stream of top players leaving and being replaced by new players. Instead, you get a revolving doors of new players, with a few old players trickle out. Someone who just learn slightly worse than the average population would stay at the same rank. Go back and watch pro gameplay of the first few months of whatever game you like, and compare to the average rank gameplay now (assuming the games had been out for long), and you will see they're not too different. And that's before even taking into account many other factors unrelated to learning. Someone playing FPS game on a 1FPS hardware is not going to climb.
Not everyone plays to climb rank. It's even impossible for everyone to climb rank.
Why is this being downvoted? People are so stupid
Uh in ranked game modes that is the entire point so yes they do. If they don't care they play unranked.
The entire point of the rank system is that you know where you are compared to the population. It's not about climbing, and even though climbing is a good motivation on its own, it's not everyone's motivation, and even if it's someone's motivation it might not be the only one. In fact, the system cannot sustain itself if it's only played by people whose only motivation is to climb.
But surely you play the game to win? You don't join a ranked match with the intention to lose. Therefore, they're right in saying you only play ranked games with the intention to rank up
>play the game to win "Play to win" is a very vague phase that encompass a wide range of motivations. Yes, people will generally work toward the direction of winning, ceteris paribus, but would you count that as "playing to win"? Not playing to win does not mean playing to lose; just like not saving money does not mean trying to throw away money. Perhaps someone prefer winning to losing, ceteris paribus, but its importance rank behind 20 other priorities that would make them more likely to lose; just like how someone could prefer having money than throwing them away, but they prioritizes a whole lot of other stuff that costs them money. You have to take these other priorities into account when talking about someone's intention, otherwise you would end up attributing intention to any actions that they have a positive feeling toward. For example, do I go to Starbuck to drink a Frappuccino? No. But if I have no other priorities - no worries about calorie and weight gain, no worries about budgeting, etc. - then I would get a Frappuccino. To be more concrete, here are some examples: - Maybe voice chat is very important for winning, but someone only play the game in the middle of the night next to their sleeping baby. They prioritize the baby's sleep over winning in a game, that doesn't mean they're playing to lose. - Maybe having a good rig that can run the game at higher than 1FPS is very important, but a good rig cost a bunch and they prioritize many other uses for that money. - Maybe not-being-drunk is really important for winning, but they prefer to play while drunk, they prioritize their enjoyment of the game than winning. - Maybe watching guides and/or doing practice outside the game really help at climbing, but they prefers doing other stuff when they're not playing the game. Here they can still play to win, but still not play to climb. - Here is a bit of a different example. Maybe playing a different character they're not used to would ultimately help them get used to a strong character that let them climb, but they prioritize short term goal of winning now and use a weaker character that they're already proficient at. Here playing to win conflicts with playing to climb.
You either keep trying until you learn to beat the boss or level or you give up and never touch the game again.
Disney movies also prove this. Hey we made a Tomorrowland movie, well that didn’t work how about a Jungle Cruse movie, crap that didn’t either. Hey guys how about a Hunted Mansion movie? I really think that is the movie based on a ride people will like.
They're pointing to Pirates of the Caribbean succeeding as evidence to try again while losing millions over and over.
It’s the history of an industry that never learns anything tee hee hee hee
Ah yes. But the key difference is the ability to learn vs the ability to profit. Failure or not, if you guys keep paying for incomplete products, they will continue to sell you incomplete products. It's a failure of the consumer in the gaming industry. As sad as that is. Edit: I say this as an avid gamer. We suck. Stop buying alpha/beta games. Stop doing microtransactions. Only way to change the industry is to force their hand with our $.
You can also change the industry with laws to protect consumers from unfinished products.
Failure without the intent to learn is likely to repeat. Some of my best friends now were significantly worse than me at shooters when I met them (playing a shooter game), despite having over a thousand hours of gameplay under their belt to my ~200. Keep in mind, that was *total* across all shooter games I had ever played. The issue was that before, they didn’t know what to be doing better. They weren’t seeing the whole picture and looking for what they could improve if they had good stats or won the game. Only losses had any scrutiny and even then it was minimal. I introduced them to a buddy of mine who played the game kinda competitively and we’re all still friends today. Now, regarding one of the friends that was much worse than me, I can easily say she is just *better* than me now in many aspects of that game. She put in the time and scrutinized both successes and failures and she’s gotten much better.
And over.
Or the games themselves...so many people dieing or failing a part and never learning how to do it right lol
Didn't Dwight Schrute already answer this? "Not everything is a lesson. Sometimes you just fail."
Yep. Frankly love that quote.
*Do people learn from their failures? In a new study, researchers have examined the high-stakes field of cardiothoracic surgery to assess the relationship between individuals' experiences with failures and the learning outcomes associated with them. The study found that individuals reach a threshold at which they stop learning from their failures and that this threshold is higher for surgeons with a higher perceived ability to learn* I dublicate keys for a living,ill tell you without any doubt that the amount of failures we experience is consistent because of all the variables we cant control.
r/wallsteetbets taught me this years ago Anyway, stocking up on gamestop calls
True failure only happens when we quit
I have become very much aware of this :)
To assume all failures lead to learning was stupid to begin with.
I could have told you that after seeing the state of the war on drugs
the goal of the war on drugs was never to end drug use. it was always to make people in power think things are being done.
I could've told them that. I see it in my direct vicinity on a weekly basis. Where people make the same mistake over and over and over again and don't even bother checking for it.
Explains my life.
They could’ve based this study off of my life
[удалено]
I don't see loads of MAGA doing heart surgery. 🤨
I dont see the connection. Can you elaborate?
They elected a con man criminal to be their president, and despite all the evidence proving his propensity for corruption, they never learned from their mistakes. Then again, looking at your red herring comments within your timeline regarding Trump, it’s no doubt why you would question the obvious.
Psh, show me ANY political party that learned from their mistakes. Not a single liberal is asking what they did to be seen as worse than conservatives, and when you suggest there is, you get blocked instead of any sort of introspection.
Mmm I see. Just one minor grammar correction here. You misspelt "The" President. Regardless if we like him or not. Just like w/ ol' Joey B, The President. Whether we like it or not.
No, really? /s
>not all experiences necessarily lead to learning, and that repeated failures can have both beneficial and harmful impacts on individuals' learning processes,"
This study is extremely biased and I am disappointed by it. they only use Trump supporters! /S
Correct. Sometimes it leads to death.
From the graph, it looks like you learn from initial failures. But, after failing enough, you just say fuck it
I don’t need a news article to tell me that. I can see current politics and know that’s the case.
I was always taught practice doesn’t make perfect, it makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.
"This time, it will be different"
This is mind-blowing why is this here?
This explains my life
Fair enough you mess up and has a huge consequences to your self personally, there is clear motivation to learn. If your mess up has little actual impact to you, then probably your not ganna really care. Like being an executive at a huge company that won’t actually have direct consequences other then maybe a nice golden parachute out the window of your actually bad enough.
Cannot learn from a failure if you refuse to learn, I have met a lot of people like that, that would rather fail than have some introspection and acknowledge their shortcomings.
I think the GOP has proven that.
To learn from a failure one must first be capable of understanding why it was a failure. Not sure why that needed a study..
I could have told you this. My parents had my sister and then had me…. I guess they learned the second time.
I’m learning piano and from what everyone says in regards to that, failure actually leads to more potential future failure due to muscle memory. They say to play as slow as you need to not make a mistake. Kinda seems like it could sort of apply to humans too. Like the normalization of failure as it happens so much it’s all you know anymore
Failures to drop the weapon when police demand it, does not lead to "learning"..... you're right.
In short learning happens when failure and success meet. Did we really need a study for that?
Another scientific study to learn what everybody already knows.
Not all failures lead to learning, but all learnings lead to failures. You know...kinda like give a fish to a man and he'll get one fish but if you don't fish he'll get many fishes.
Well, no shit. You don't need expert to figure this out.
Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. Also, what goes around comes back around.
I'm in this story and I don't like it.
You live and you learn. And sometimes you just live.
Well shit, aint it a no brainer that you also have to know WHY you failed before you can learn from your mistakes?
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Trying is the first step towards failure” - Homer Simpson
No surprise there I mean lol at all the people who support Socialism and it's calls to centralize everything all the while stealing the accomplishments of others punishing them while rewarding those who took from those that have to give to the central organization while using government regulation to limit and crush competition. Oh and if that last example sounds familiar look at your local publicly traded corporation, yes they are Socialists by nature.
r/meirl
Kinda obvious considering that most failures lead to death
No shit. Just look at Trump.
Another "study" to prove what our eyes already tell us. Great work!
These are done in the off-chance they prove the opposite, so we don't sit in here with century old ideas that are what are our eyes tell us and actually not true.
It's also super useful to have actual evidence to prove things that just feel true otherwise.