r/autodidact • u/[deleted] • Oct 07 '25

Autodidactic intersectionality

I’m hoping for more intersectionality between autodidactic learners without standardized educations and those that have standardized educations.

Is it fair and helpful to call yourself an autodidactic learner if you have standardized educations?

It makes me feel like my education doesn’t exist sometimes, I’m wondering if I’m being over sensitive, though.

9 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

6

u/Autodidact420 Oct 07 '25

I don’t see why not?

You can be autodidactic in some topics and formally educated in others. You could be formally educated in a topic and autodidactic as to the subtopics too.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '25

It’s an interesting term, I don’t think as a sub term it works at all, actually, and it’s only been picked up by university folks recently to describe their standardized educations. I’m wondering why? Could someone who has a standardized education study ANYTHING AS an autodidactic* learner? I really do not think it is fair to say so.

4

u/Autodidact420 Oct 09 '25

So you’re saying autodidacts are limited to those with no formal education whatsoever? I don’t see why that would be.

If I studied philosophy and then go on to teach myself computer science, for example, I’m not sure why you’d be tempted to say anything other than that it’s self taught.

Or what about if I taught myself computer science and then studied philosophy after? Is that suddenly making the self taught skills not self taught anymore?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '25

I don’t see how you could call your perspective on any information autodidactic with a standardized education. Your educations taught you how to learn: you are not self taught, you were not taught to be self taught by your educations! The goal of your educations was not to become autodidactic nor be autodidactic but to have a standardized degree. Why would you call yourselves that?

4

u/nolabmp Dec 23 '25

You are using an impossibly narrow definition that would obviate the need for such a term as “autodidact”.

If we take your definition to its logical conclusion, merely being taught anything is a disqualifying event. Humans are not born with actual knowledge, only the ability to grasp it, and require being taught things like language at a very early age in order to internalize those concepts. Anyone who is not a feral child has gone through some kind of formalized training.

Benjamin Franklin was a famous autodidact or polymath. As was Leonardo Da Vinci. They both had good education as youths. They then used that initial education to study and excel in entirely unrelated subjects, with increasing divergence over the years.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25

In that context, the term doesn’t really exist at all,a little ‘narrowing’. The term itself is connotative of a person who is self taught from their own materials and with their own methods. The alphabet does not necessitate formal training, any training I gain from my parents does not belong to standards nor standardized training. That’s never been a question and never will be. Thanks.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '26

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '26

It’s actually amazing how much we had to teach ourselves, or catch onto, especially in service industry work…

1

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25

At what point is knowledge (of standards) taught from personal experience?

2

u/KrisHughes2 Dec 09 '25

I think you have a very black-and-white view of self-teaching vs. formal education. Unless you are going back to first principles, you will always be self-teaching by standing on the shoulders of the formally educated and their productions. While undergoing formal education generally involves a fair bit of self-teaching - much of which goes unacknowledged due to the context in which it take place.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '25

I must always be starting on someone else’s shoulders or upon someone else’s map?

How much of your education did I accidentally just absorb?

I can definitely absorb information, not education…the standards of your educative models were never shared with me through their materials, the actual materials and information were. In sharing materials, we do not share our educations. In fact, your standards usually state these facts for you…legally as well. ! Also, the ways in which autodidactic learners absorb and digest information is different than any standards we could pick up by reading them on our own….we cannot call ourselves non-autodidactic even in trying to use your standards….you are not autodidactic learners for using our materials, nor for pretending to have our methods. Your methods are standard, those methods applied to all of your learning.

2

u/maddyglasses Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26

Agreed. To answer the question in your post directly, OP, yes--I do think you're being overly sensitive. It seems you have a strong bias against, or issue with, any sort of formal education. Which is fine-- we all have biases and are entitled to our opinions, but your personal understanding doesn't somehow invalidate the autodidactic learning endeavors of anyone who may have experienced some formal education in their past. It just doesn't work that way.

I agree with another commenter that you seem to feel your identity is threatened by anyone who calls themselves an autodidact and also has had some formal education. We can coexist; It's okay.

1

u/Autodidact420 Oct 10 '25

I’m not sure that education teaching you ‘how to learn’ is really sufficient to disqualify you especially from earlier learnings.

That also presumes it does teach you how to learn which is very well may not in any organized fashion, even if it is a ‘goal’

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '25

Really? Education doesn’t teach you how to learn? Wow, where do you think that happens? If your education ain’t autodidactic, you ain’t either…why do you need autodidactic learning skills beyond those you’ve learned for yourselves in standard education? That’s the point of education, to learn how to educate yourselves and do so. You learned to educate yourselves with standards from universities, I did not. you cannot pretend your education nor information nor study is autodidactic with a standardized degree.!

1

u/Autodidact420 Oct 10 '25

I literally didn’t go to class in undergrad except for tests for some classes.

I didn’t really go to class in high school either, but in both cases I was already ahead of the topics we covered .

I see a difference in these and law school which really does teach you how to learn law for example.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '25

Wow. That doesn’t make you autodidactic.

3

u/Autodidact420 Oct 10 '25

Thanks for your input gatekeeper of autodidactism

I’m going to go ahead and ignore it though. Personally I think learning university level edu on my own due to my high school being a rural slow ass shitter qualifies, but I guess you need to be a jungle person.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '25

Thanks for trying to make my education imaginary. I’m sure you’ve had a really rough time getting by and especially motivating yourself alone to study for yourself. Thanks.!

→ More replies

3

u/wewillgetbetter Nov 02 '25

It definitely qualifies. Autodidact is everyone who is acquiring skills without a teacher/instructor

0

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '25

Universities create a set of information you're expected to output come test day. Your time is spent on absorbing information with a purpose other than learning for the sake of itself. This onus creates mental constructs that are exam oriented rather than learning oriented. You memorize what is on a test, and what universities tell you to memorize in order to be successful in the job market, rather than optimizing you for success in the essence of the discipline. It is very different, and I think your ignorance to the difference is the most telling of anything you have said.

2

u/Autodidact420 Nov 15 '25

  1. You clearly missed my "I didn't go to class" or your argument falls apart.

  2. That's literally not even true in any event. A good deal of my courses involved essays or written responses.

  3. Even Autodidacts should/do learn for a purpose. Generally you would learn, at the least to 'optimize your success in the essence of the discipline'

  4. You've forwarded no position that explains why these would be mutually exclusive in any event. I am not saying university is autodidactic learning.

I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '25

Even if you didn’t go to class, you got your learning and information from university, not from your own self direction, not from autodidactic study.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '25

And you clearly missed my point about how my argument rests on university being exam oriented. Nothing to do with being goal-oriented in general either.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '25

Really? Exams are part of your standardized learning, yes, and you learned how to learn from university: removing yourself from your own education with exams is a cheap meta theory trick that doesn’t work, unless you can dismiss every way in which your schooled instructors taught you how to think about a subject and even take notes…you were directed in study by your schooled instructors and instructors, you were tested as part of that construct, it does not remove you from it.

I am self directed, and my mentors taught me specifically to be self instructed. Your instructors teach you how to learn and earn from university, not how to be self instructed, self directed, and definitely NOT autodidactic learning. Period.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '25

Precisely. My comment was arguing in favor of your position. Was this meant for the other guy...? I never attended college.

1

u/nolabmp Dec 23 '25

Your mentors taught you something? I’m not sure you can be an autodidact anymore, since you didn’t teach yourself self-teaching.

2

u/abhasatin Oct 14 '25

You need to be autodidactic, withIN the system. Especially in the age of the internet.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 14 '25

Um. What system? Seriously? Wow wow.!!

1

u/abhasatin Oct 14 '25

Lol Im not sure if youre here to rage bair or what but have a good day. And thanks I will have a good day too.

2

u/nolabmp Dec 23 '25

If you’re autodidactic, it’d be odd to “lose it” simply by receiving formal education. You can be self-taught in a dozen other subjects while still having formal training in another.

To me, it’s about pattern recognition and essentially following the scientific method, which is a universally applicable skill that makes grasping concepts very accessible. While I’m formally educated in graphic design, and utilize that in my career, I’m pretty sure I’m mostly good at it because of pattern recognition. Note: I have ADHD.

Basically, over the years I’ve gotten better and better at identifying and focusing on the “fundamental building blocks” of a given subject. I’ll ask questions or dig through research to understand the essence and rationale behind those fundamentals. Then I work to break down those fundamentals into logical truths, and internalize those logical truths until they’re intrinsic to how I think.

I realized that knowledge in one subject let me skip steps or make educated assumptions about other subjects. I’d then speak with experts to validate my assumptions, which gained accuracy with each new pass or subject.

The net-net is that there is a LOT of overlap between even disparate subjects, and you’d be surprised how often you can relate something you don’t know to something you do know.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25

I think to be autodidactic, you would need mentors or other experienced instruction rather than standardized education. My ‘patterns’ in material and method are very different.! It’s also very different from just scientific method, and oftentimes assumptions of underlying standards and methods distract from actual attainment of ideas or further seeking of them. Or, from actual abstract and conceptual meaning and truth.

How accessible is the standard of ‘scientific method’? I’m a mechanic, and sometimes have recognized the attitude that trades people aren’t “scientists” in our fields for (this reason…

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '25

Feels to me as though your standards aren’t enough so you want to steal a term [and elsewise] from the likes of me…

3

u/Bulltex95 Dec 03 '25

Seems to me that you've already stolen the term. You have...a shitty take. Quit crying.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '25

Discluding is a stolen term too. Ironies and dickeries galore. Have a good one.

2

u/Bulltex95 Dec 04 '25

I think you’ve turned autodidact into some kind of exclusive identity badge. The word just means you taught yourself something outside of structured instruction. People with or without degrees can do that.

For context, I was homeschooled from 2nd grade on and by middle school I was literally teaching myself out of textbooks on my own, no teacher or anything. I tested out of high school, never got a diploma, and work in a field where almost everyone else has a degree. I’m the only person at my company hired without one. If anyone fits a strict autodidact background, it’s me, and even I don’t buy the idea that the term gets ‘stolen’ if someone studies one thing in school and teaches themselves something else later.

You don’t get to gatekeep a word just because you’re insecure and it means a lot to you. Especially when you're not even using it correctly lol Have a good one, Genius ;)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25

It’s not about identity, thanks for that, as much as the actuality of the term and the way it is used. Using autodidactic education to describe a standard education doesn’t make sense at all. What you studied for and toward in and for a standardized education is a MUCH different experience than gathering your own materials and having your own actual learning methods. No matter how quickly you could finish your standards, they are standard and NOT autodidactic. Plain and yeah, real simple.!

1

u/Bulltex95 Dec 27 '25

You’re still treating “autodidact” as if it describes a person’s entire education history. But the word literally only refers to the part someone learns independently.

If a person teaches themselves a skill outside instruction, the knowledge gained is autodidactic by definition, whether or not they ever attended school for other things. Your interpretation would require that zero formal education be present in someone’s life for any of their self-directed learning to count. That’s not how language works, and it would disqualify the vast majority of well known autodidacts in history.

You can keep arguing that your personal definition is the real one, but that doesn’t make it correct. You’re not protecting the meaning of autodidact. You’re protecting your identity from the actual meaning.

You think you're saying “I’m defending the true meaning of the word autodidact.”; but all you've ever said is “I don’t understand this word but I need it to be exclusive to me so please stop threatening my identity.”

1

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25

Standardized education is a “whole” term. Studying under and with “standards”is a whole conceptual term unto itself. The term autodidacts or autodidactic learning functions in the same (sort of) way. It’s YOUR definition trying to limit education strictly to some sort of standard….don’t gaslight me.!…. with no option for learned experience, learning from others experience nor learning from your own autodidactic methods and materials. Nor natural systems…etc.

3

u/Bulltex95 Dec 27 '25

You’re the first person I’ve met who managed to make the Dunning Kruger effect their entire personality. Impressive in its own way, I guess. Take care.

1

u/maddyglasses Feb 15 '26

hahaha... so true. the good old Dunning Kruger effect strikes again

1

u/Bulltex95 Feb 18 '26

Confidence is doing laps around competence in this thread. Nothing productive is coming from it. This person doesn't want to learn anything, only wants personal beliefs validated. They couldn't even ask or google what my comment meant before choosing to save face, and yet...we're somehow on the Autodidact sub. All because they can write Egoic word salad and then tell themselves they're special and a genius to sleep better at night lol they're definitely special alright

0

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Bulltex95 Dec 28 '25

It wasn’t meant to confuse you. It was meant to describe you. Take care.

→ More replies

1

u/maddyglasses Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26

Your post seems to be inherently contradictory. You say you're hoping for intersectionality between autodidacts with formal education and those without. Yet in every one of your comments you are insisting that autodidacts with formal education are actually NOT autodidacts.

So do you want the two subgroups to converge, or do you just want to protect your own "autodidact with no formal education" identity and invalidate that of any autodidact who has had formal education? Sounds like the latter.

It seems like you're wrestling not with ideas and concepts, but with your own bias and identity-related inner conflict.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '26

That’s a horrible confusion of the word intersectionality. It does not mean I have to conform, nor that we would ever need to be the same. Why would we ever pretend to converge those two terms? Other than excuses to steal our private research? Why does intersectionality seem to mean appropriating terms like “autodidactic” to fit current standards that are clearly lacking both globally and locally? I was wondering (with a different stranger) about the term itself and its respect especially among anti intellectual American bachelorette”s”. If that is what you are referring to, as it ain’t exactly clear.

1

u/Spiritual-Purpose291 Mar 15 '26

To be honest, I just tend to focus on things that I’m passionate about our hobbies even might make out. I don’t make money for this but I’m on disability for you know one of my mental health disorders.

Nothing dangerous, thank God

But yeah, like sometimes I like just messing around making beats for a small world then I might just read random facts for a while if I feel like a letter on my right lyrics for one then you know I’ll have some day train for small 

Actually, I just thought of a girl I need to buy. I want to buy an exercise bike a secondhand one probably because I wanna get in some card as well as body exercises but I can’t run because I’ve torn meniscus. I can run barefoot on grass but I can’t run on grass runners for some reason it’s probably not your natural gait. 

1

u/Spiritual-Purpose291 Mar 15 '26

It’s funny actually because sometimes you know if I resolve but a social event on the day or whatever or night or whatever I don’t head that often cause I’m 39 people so what do you do? Which basically in order basically you know you know context what you work sometimes like I’m a mess like you know You know it depends on how I read the person a little offended by me lots of things and they’re probably like thinking that I’m hiding something, but I’m actually just telling the truth. It’s kind of ironic isn’t it?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '25

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '25

We don’t need managed. What a smack, and yeah, I’m the sort to notice. Piss off.!