>>11079920Walking is good for you anon.
>>11079925I don't see formal education as necessarily inferior, I was being dramatic for effect, but I do believe one who succeeds in academia would also succeed without it, because he developed skills that aren't the main focus of formal education.
To expand on what I mean, if you never develop the skill to intuit and discover without guidance, even in an academic environment, you will fail when it matters most and you won't know how to get up, if you managed to get started at all.
There are two things that are necessary to succeed, intuition and resources.
Intuition is a critical skill that cannot be taught by class, but only by doing. You can know about the material while still having no intuition.
Formal education is an inefficient way to teach students to intuit as there is a schedule to follow, while intuition might take time, or even different methods for different people to develop. If you're caught up in classes, you might not have time for self-discovery, and if you have notions served to you, you might not even feel the drive.
Developing intuition is not the same as a class teaching a concept "intuitively", though "intuitive" concepts do help building intuition. But you don't play with the concept yourself, you'll never make it your own, and that takes self-allotted time and effort.
On the other hand, formal education is a great place to gather resources: you have not only easy access to books and journals, but also people in the field to ask for direction. So, that has always been the major push for one to get into academia: resources, and it shows in how formal education is structured as a big infodump.
I claim that in the age of the internet, this advantage is dimished as you can just find the same material resources yourself, the more open the field the easier it is, and a resource advantage is not enough to beat good intuition, as intuition will eventually fill the gaps, but static knowledge stays static.
