4 ms·
Unlike what this review seems to imply, the author of the book doesn't actually discount that concept - he says it's true for a certain kind of activity, one wi
by icebraining 7y ago
Unlike what this review seems to imply, the author of the book doesn't actually discount that concept - he says it's true for a certain kind of activity, one with reliable feedback, such as programming. Quote from the interview I linked:
"The way that chess works makes it what's called a kind learning environment. So, these are terms used by psychologist Robin Hogarth. And what a kind learning environment is, is one where patterns recur; ideally a situation is constrained--so, a chessboard with very rigid rules and a literal board is very constrained; and, importantly, every time you do something you get feedback that is totally obvious--all the information is available, the feedback is quick, and it is 100% accurate. Right? And this is chess. And this is golf. You do something: all the information is available; you see the consequences. The consequences are completely immediate and accurate. And you adjust accordingly. And in these kinds of kind learning environments, if you are cognitively engaged you get better just by doing the activity. On the opposite end of the spectrum are wicked learning environments. And this is a spectrum, from kind to wicked. Wicked learning environments: often some information is hidden. Even when it isn't, feedback may be delayed. It may be infrequent. It may be nonexistent. And it maybe be partly accurate, or inaccurate in many of the cases. So, the most wicked learning environments will reinforce the wrong types of behavior."
- piker 7y agoInteresting paradigm. It's like wicked learning environments are the SLAM of life.
- Jtsummers 7y agoThat is actually discussed in this review (kind versus wicked learning environments). It just isn't at the top of the article because it's not as catchy.
- dlivingston 7y agoWould you count coding as a kind or a wicked environment? To me, it seems wicked - standards change, you switch languages, frameworks come and go. On the same token, it could be 'kind' if you isolate yourself to one or two robust languages (i.e. your career is built on C++).
- coreymatyas 7y agoCoding is kind. The dichotomy is based on feedback availability, quality, and delay. While the environment does change over time, it continues to be kind: 99% of the time, you're able to hit compile and see instantaneous, accurate feedback. Doesn't matter which language, framework, or standard you're using (except maybe Malbolge). Even debugging is kind save perhaps for heisenbugs, but that's a bit of a stretch to declare the whole field a wicked environment.
- NateEag 7y agoCoding is the kindest learning environment mankind has ever known. Constructing valid experiments in software development is incredibly easy. Add an assert, recompile, and see if it gets triggered. We programmers consider it unacceptably painful if testing a hypothesis takes ten minutes. Real life is never that clean or easy.
- gubbrora 7y agoWill it compile takes 10 minutes. Is this good long term design or am I building a castle on quicksand takes much longer.
- alasdair_ 7y ago>Will it compile takes 10 minutes. That's a sign something is wrong.
- mattmanser 7y agoHe meant it will take a short amount of time to write and then compile, not that the compilation takes 10 minutes.
- pjscott 7y agoThat's definitely less kind, and it's a huge problem in practice. I think it's still not that bad -- people can and do get much better at designing things for medium- to long-term maintenance over the course of a few years.
- clairity 7y agoneat, that's how i basically intuit the difference between playing basketball and working. feedback in basketball is immediate and (mostly) obvious; not so in many work environments. basketball for me is like a microcosm of work (working in teams, varying skillsets, differing tactics, etc), which leads directly to my oft-reliance on basketball analogies at work. =)