(Replying to PARENT post)
> I'm going to use "System 1" and "System 2", absolutely as homunculi. [...] They don't exist. [...] Don't look for them in the brain, because they are not two systems in the brain, of which one does one, and the other does the other. So why am I using this terrible language? I'm using it because I think it's helpful. It fits the way our minds work, and to explain the background of that decision--of why I use "System 1" and "System 2"--I refer you to a very good book. [...] It's by Joshua Foer and it's called "Moonwalking with Einstein". [2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVQJdIrDJ0&t=1224s
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonwalking_with_Einstein
The article does put these terms in quotes.
(Replying to PARENT post)
> Problem Solving is Not a Generic Skill
There is going to be some difference between solving problems in a specific domain and solving problems generally (which is what TFA argues for). And since we really care about the specific domain of software engineering, it makes sense to pry open that difference when possible.
However problem solving in the general case is very close to fluid intelligence and IQ. Some interpretations claim that intelligence in humans is just problem solving, and that problem solving is most of what is captured by g [0]. All problem solving will be positively correlated with all other problem solving, and you would never expect to see someone good at one, but not the other.
In section 9 they cite the research on programming ability and its (expected) relation to general intelligence.
I'm not sure how much of a distinction there is to draw here. Psychometrics has historically been filled with attempts to factor out additional clusters from things like g e.g. multiple intelligences. Those findings often fail to replicate. Section 7 seems more like an attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. While section 9 seems like a standard summary of the research (like most things, a mixture of innate intelligence and cumulative experience).
(Replying to PARENT post)
Awareness of these things can make a big difference between well structured training material and a stream-of-consciousness YouTube 'tutorial'.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
"Experts are not always the best at training beginners."
"To emphasize a specific point: Do not test candidates with brain-teaser puzzles."
"...to get candidates to solve interview problems in a room on their own before presenting the solution, as the added pressure from an interviewer observing or requiring talking while solving it adds to cognitive load and stress in a way that impairs performance..."
(Replying to PARENT post)
> System 1 is fast and driven by recognition, relying upon pattern recognition in long-term memory, while system 2 is slower and focused on reasoning, requiring more processing in working memory.
Interestingly, today, LLMs are augmentation for someone's weak system 1, and allowing them to focus solely on strengthening their system 2. LLMs and popular/cheap/generalizable AI today suck at system 2. So, if you are really good at system 2 and suck at system 1, the next decade is going to be amazing for you.
(Replying to PARENT post)
I’ve always told “kids” that you can learn a lot about systems but with programming and IT systems in general, there is just no substitute for getting the raw mileage of having seen many permutations, iterations, and manifestations. It’s not a dig, but a statement made in the context of encouraging new people to stick with it and not beat themselves up too much when they inevitably get overwhelmed by the scope of their unknowns or roll a critical miss. It’s all about learning, all the time.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
The last part about the mindset of the learner gave me an interesting perspective.
The article explains the growth mindset and fixed mindset. The article suggest to nurture a growth mindset by rewarding successes and tolerating failures. Pointing out failures too often might make the learner switch to a fixed mindset.
(Replying to PARENT post)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/a-hovercraft-full-of...
Makes me wonder if item (0) should be "Suspect every one" (with a nod to Maria Gambrelli, of course)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
I would disagree with this premise, deep work and the forbidden word "discipline" are problem solving skills that are learned and need constant training. They are just as important as any other specific skill needed for the subject. Thus, making some problem-solving skills indeed free flowing from subject to subject.
(Replying to PARENT post)
He frames this as negative in the next paragraph, but this sounds like the mechanism by which memory palaces work.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Well there is a problem with that but I will leave it to others to work out what the problem is. (Hint: How do you measure programming ability without, you know some sort of measurement. :)
(Replying to PARENT post)
This had me wondering on the power of building a "warm up" exercise when we're trying to solve a problem - can we brute force an optimal activation hot paths for better problem solving (obviously it would be highly individual - but presumably such a thing exists given this fact).
It seems you would need a routine per category of problem, but none the less there may be more value than we think in spending 5 minutes just asking/answering some probing questions around the domain in question, before trying to solve the problem.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Hope to use this in various other places to improve
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
But of course everything has to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, their recommendations at the end on how to access papers is not very good. Ever heard of Sci-Hub and VPNs? It is obvious why they cannot mention this in their paper, but it is also equally obvious then that if there was evidence linking race or gender with programming ability, they would not mention it, for pretty much the same reasons.
I also don't like their example of achieving a Nobel Prize as something that practically no one can attain. Yes, that's true, but that is because Nobel Prizes are artificially limited to a few people a year. I think many, many more people can achieve that level of expertise than just a few per year.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
If you really want to put your text in an image, can you pick a decent font and not make it blurry? Puzzling.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
https://gist.github.com/androidfred/75629dfda63180b6f0a0eaa4...
no data, no research :P just anecdote and opinon
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
> Papers that cannot be replicated are cited 153 times more because their findings are interesting, according to a new UC San Diego study
> In psychology, only 39 percent of the 100 experiments successfully replicated.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
Doesn't jibe with my experience.
(Replying to PARENT post)
I’m sorry, what? If I only vaguely understood physics and believed now that the earth is flat, that would neither count as knowledge in some intermediate state. Knowing is binary—you either know or you don’t, no matter how strongly believe what you think.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Turns out I do in fact agree with this explanation; that it’s more about what’s being taught that should dictate the how:
> While learners have preferred styles, effective instruction matches the content, not learning styles. A science class should use graphs to present data rather than verbal descriptions, regardless of visual or auditory learning styles, just like cooking classes should use hands-on practices rather than reading, whether learners prefer a kinesthetic style or not.