3 ms·

Fair. Would you agree that age is relevant context in an experience-based field? The OP's relatively young age puts an upper bound on how many years of experien

Fair. Would you agree that age is relevant context in an experience-based field? The OP's relatively young age puts an upper bound on how many years of experience he has doing this sort of work. And he's clearly mastered an impressive range of techniques.

hypertexthero 9y ago
I don't know. But see also Lartigue, who made some of the most wonderful photographs I have ever seen before he was 10 years old — https://www.lartigue.org/en/jacques-henri-lartigue/biography/ https://www.lartigue.org/en/jacques-henri-lartigue/biography... — and Aaron Swartz — http://www.aaronsw.com/ http://www.aaronsw.com/ I think when a person finds what they love to do at an early age, through supportive rather than forceful education, they bloom. Recommended reading: Think on These Things by Jiddu Krishnamurti
mncharity 9y ago
> Would you agree that age is relevant context in an experience-based field? Long ago as a kid, I had a conversation something like "I play the piano. Are you good? I've played for 4 years. But how good are you?" And I didn't know how to answer. Years can contain a lot of practice, or not. With diverse concepts of "a lot" (eg some dancers). With rapid progress, or not. Achieving some form of excellence, or not. Excellence as compared to... who, or what? By what standard and emphasis? I'm still fuzzy on just why "Good, for a foo" bothers me. Maybe because it sometimes unpacks as something like "Better than is to be expected from someone like you"? Which can certainly be a reasonable and statistically supported observation. But those hidden extra parameters seem troublesome ones. Someone's filter for what aspects of "you" matter. Someone's expectation over those aspects. And the focus seems shifted from the work, to the person. I once separately encountered some teachers from the same school, who seemed to have a story in common. That their students were failing to learn physics, because "they are at that age - hormones". This, despite the regrettably little physics which is generally taught. That they were teaching physics really badly, seemed off their radar as an alternate or supplemental hypothesis. If they had then said "oh, but Joe, his physics is excellent for an Nth-grader"... there would have been so much wrongness embedded in that short phrase.

hypertexthero 9y ago

I don't know. But see also Lartigue, who made some of the most wonderful photographs I have ever seen before he was 10 years old — https://www.lartigue.org/en/jacques-henri-lartigue/biography/ https://www.lartigue.org/en/jacques-henri-lartigue/biography... — and Aaron Swartz — http://www.aaronsw.com/ http://www.aaronsw.com/ I think when a person finds what they love to do at an early age, through supportive rather than forceful education, they bloom. Recommended reading: Think on These Things by Jiddu Krishnamurti

mncharity 9y ago

> Would you agree that age is relevant context in an experience-based field? Long ago as a kid, I had a conversation something like "I play the piano. Are you good? I've played for 4 years. But how good are you?" And I didn't know how to answer. Years can contain a lot of practice, or not. With diverse concepts of "a lot" (eg some dancers). With rapid progress, or not. Achieving some form of excellence, or not. Excellence as compared to... who, or what? By what standard and emphasis? I'm still fuzzy on just why "Good, for a foo" bothers me. Maybe because it sometimes unpacks as something like "Better than is to be expected from someone like you"? Which can certainly be a reasonable and statistically supported observation. But those hidden extra parameters seem troublesome ones. Someone's filter for what aspects of "you" matter. Someone's expectation over those aspects. And the focus seems shifted from the work, to the person. I once separately encountered some teachers from the same school, who seemed to have a story in common. That their students were failing to learn physics, because "they are at that age - hormones". This, despite the regrettably little physics which is generally taught. That they were teaching physics really badly, seemed off their radar as an alternate or supplemental hypothesis. If they had then said "oh, but Joe, his physics is excellent for an Nth-grader"... there would have been so much wrongness embedded in that short phrase.