3 ms·

“I left an important part out of the process above - how do you actually find the best resource. I don’t know. That said, I’ve gotten “lucky” enough times that

“I left an important part out of the process above - how do you actually find the best resource. I don’t know. That said, I’ve gotten “lucky” enough times that I think I know how to optimize for finding it.” Pro tip: No, you don’t. I’m game to explain it over coffee to the author, who seems to be in the Bay Area, but this writing reads a lot like someone who just started to scratch the surface on abstract learning and metacognition while thinking that it’s a wildly new discovery. It’s hard to hear/read the reenforcing recitations of new-to-the-(speaker/author) concepts and not see it as a slow-motion replay of a common thought process, akin to sitting in Dolores park listening to musings on democracy and governance in the age of automation... thirty minutes after a batch of pot truffles has sold out... As a generalist/multi-whatever, let me say this: expert engineers hate the knows-enough-to-be-dangerous guy who thinks he’s god’s gift to learning that can just walk in and be conversant after reading one book. That guy is a pain in the ass know-it-all that spoils conversations, derails projects, and digs bottomless pits of technical debt. How do I know? I was that guy when I was younger, and I’m sure I drove people nuts. No doubt there are times when I’m still that guy, but I try to hold my tongue more now until I’m confident in what I know and openly disclose where I think I fall short. If you can’t take that mechanism for learning and flex it down to the bottom of the rabbit hole, or if you always fall back onto the crutch of relating a complex topic to a comfortable imperfect analogue, you’re aiming to be the engineer that gets handed non-critical work or the manager that nobody wants in a meeting... Or maybe a successful founder of some kick-ass mega unicorn... sigh... whatever. In the big companies (and Silicon Valley) I hear/see this type of thinking and self-congratulation all the time among engineers with 1-4 years of professional experience. On occasion, those engineers have the horsepower to back it up, but it’s rare. Some of that write-up resonates with how I’ve learned/worked over time, but I’d never write something so stridently confident. Me 20 years ago?

satyanash 7y ago
Given that software as a arena is a widely competitive and rapidly evolving one, you can never know if the person in front of you is an expert or not. In such a case, what has always helped me is to first remind myself to be humble and use this cheatsheet: * ask questions that probe your point of concern, instead of pointing out flaws. This allows the other person to reveal his expertise with a solution and also enlighten you in the process or admit their mistake. * Never claim to know everything. Always be cognizant of the fact that other people ("newer" people) will show you up. Always be willing to learn from anybody who makes a concise argument.
pranaygp 7y ago
Author here >I’m game to explain it over coffee to the author I'm game. You make some great points and I feel like I could learn a lot from you. DM me :)
linza 7y ago
I feel your tone is slightly too condescending, but I have to agree with the general statement. I'm responsible for hiring in my small department, and the OPs blog post would be a red flag. We appreciate if candidates show they can learn quickly, but it's not useful to us in isolation. You already need to have a good base set of skills (CS, physics) but more importantly the humility to accept that with 5 years of experience you probably don't really know the thing you claim to know. Some bay area tech companies like to hire more riskily, so it might be a good strategy after all though.
- chaboud 7y ago
  Ha! I wouldn’t be surprised if you found it altogether too condescending... I generally find myself being a little more brutal with people who sound/read like me 18-20 years ago, partly because I think that being hit over the head can actually do some good. It certainly helped me, and I’d have done better to listen more quickly rather than having the echoes of those much wiser than me take decades to sink in. I strongly favor raw learning ability over knowledge when hiring for most positions. It’s incredibly valuable to be able to transition from one space to another over the span of 3-12 months (depending on the domain). Some badges are harder to earn (e.g. mathematics, physics, hardware, distributed design), but I generally feel okay taking someone who is an expert in one space and pointing them at another space that relies on the same fundamentals if they seem like they can learn. I do, however, prioritize two things above learning proficiency when hiring: 1. Accurate self-assessment. If you can’t understand where you are, you’re going to be a constant headache. 2. Not an asshole. An asshole can destroy a team, even if they’re brilliant. I want someone to be able to learn deeply quickly, though. Generally, if they have that ability, they’ll have real depth in areas of prior learning. For candidates at the Senior Engineer levels and above, I’ll spend at least an hour or two before the interview reading their publications or digging in on their areas of stated expertise so I can ask questions probing to their edge (or mine). Sadly, I hit the candidate edge first for roughly 80% of candidates, and it strongly correlates to no-hires.
ngngngng 7y ago
Could you explain it in a blog post for those of us that don't live in the bay area?
azmodeus 7y ago
Could you recommend a more principled approach to abstract learning and metacognition?
foxhop 7y ago
My wife and I really enjoyed reading and discussing this blog post over our morning coffee. The author said it himself that he has trouble writing and maybe more importantly posting his work for others to read. That said, I can see how the first paragraph (with it's the self-congratulatory tone) could have primed you with these feelings. I'm a firm believer that there is nothing wrong with re-explaining a well known topic (learning how to learn). After blogging for the last 10 years, I find it amazing how my writing on a topic which I find elementary could be such a great resource for someone else in their research and problem solving. Since you appear well versed in the topic of metacognition, you likely just proved the authors point. You spent time on a beginner/intermediate level resource on metacognition... It is not the authors fault that you experienced diminishing returns on your time and effort.
- chaboud 7y ago
  Yeah... I don't think you got my point at all (which may be down to how I made it). The author started with "I amaze people with how well I can learn", bridged with "here's my method", which could be reduced to the mixed-media version of the stereotypical programmer who "read one book about that once" (which drives experts crazy), and closed with "I think I've optimized this! Behold!" So it easily reads as hubris, possibly mixed in with some raw horsepower, with a dash of Dunning and Kruger giggling in the corner at invocation of their work in what is likely a demonstration of their work. So it's not the musing on a well-trodden topic that bugged me. It's the tone and subtextual (and, at times, overt) assertions... Two more things, one of them important-ish: 1. I haven't experienced diminishing returns on my time and effort. I learn much more quickly now than I did when I was a fresh-to-industry voracious hot-head, in large part because I've learned how I learn, a mechanism that doesn't map well to all (or, really, many) other learners. My scoffing at 1000X comes from having thought the same sort of thing 20 years ago and having been dead wrong at how much more ceiling there is. 2. I'm in no way well versed in metacognition, proving a different point: One needs merely know more than the others around at the time to seem like an expert, and slinging some language around can buy one a false sense of expertise, for others and oneself.
  - foxhop 7y ago

satyanash 7y ago

Given that software as a arena is a widely competitive and rapidly evolving one, you can never know if the person in front of you is an expert or not. In such a case, what has always helped me is to first remind myself to be humble and use this cheatsheet: * ask questions that probe your point of concern, instead of pointing out flaws. This allows the other person to reveal his expertise with a solution and also enlighten you in the process or admit their mistake. * Never claim to know everything. Always be cognizant of the fact that other people ("newer" people) will show you up. Always be willing to learn from anybody who makes a concise argument.

pranaygp 7y ago

Author here >I’m game to explain it over coffee to the author I'm game. You make some great points and I feel like I could learn a lot from you. DM me :)

linza 7y ago

I feel your tone is slightly too condescending, but I have to agree with the general statement. I'm responsible for hiring in my small department, and the OPs blog post would be a red flag. We appreciate if candidates show they can learn quickly, but it's not useful to us in isolation. You already need to have a good base set of skills (CS, physics) but more importantly the humility to accept that with 5 years of experience you probably don't really know the thing you claim to know. Some bay area tech companies like to hire more riskily, so it might be a good strategy after all though.

chaboud 7y ago
Ha! I wouldn’t be surprised if you found it altogether too condescending... I generally find myself being a little more brutal with people who sound/read like me 18-20 years ago, partly because I think that being hit over the head can actually do some good. It certainly helped me, and I’d have done better to listen more quickly rather than having the echoes of those much wiser than me take decades to sink in. I strongly favor raw learning ability over knowledge when hiring for most positions. It’s incredibly valuable to be able to transition from one space to another over the span of 3-12 months (depending on the domain). Some badges are harder to earn (e.g. mathematics, physics, hardware, distributed design), but I generally feel okay taking someone who is an expert in one space and pointing them at another space that relies on the same fundamentals if they seem like they can learn. I do, however, prioritize two things above learning proficiency when hiring: 1. Accurate self-assessment. If you can’t understand where you are, you’re going to be a constant headache. 2. Not an asshole. An asshole can destroy a team, even if they’re brilliant. I want someone to be able to learn deeply quickly, though. Generally, if they have that ability, they’ll have real depth in areas of prior learning. For candidates at the Senior Engineer levels and above, I’ll spend at least an hour or two before the interview reading their publications or digging in on their areas of stated expertise so I can ask questions probing to their edge (or mine). Sadly, I hit the candidate edge first for roughly 80% of candidates, and it strongly correlates to no-hires.

ngngngng 7y ago

Could you explain it in a blog post for those of us that don't live in the bay area?

azmodeus 7y ago

Could you recommend a more principled approach to abstract learning and metacognition?

foxhop 7y ago

My wife and I really enjoyed reading and discussing this blog post over our morning coffee. The author said it himself that he has trouble writing and maybe more importantly posting his work for others to read. That said, I can see how the first paragraph (with it's the self-congratulatory tone) could have primed you with these feelings. I'm a firm believer that there is nothing wrong with re-explaining a well known topic (learning how to learn). After blogging for the last 10 years, I find it amazing how my writing on a topic which I find elementary could be such a great resource for someone else in their research and problem solving. Since you appear well versed in the topic of metacognition, you likely just proved the authors point. You spent time on a beginner/intermediate level resource on metacognition... It is not the authors fault that you experienced diminishing returns on your time and effort.

chaboud 7y ago
Yeah... I don't think you got my point at all (which may be down to how I made it). The author started with "I amaze people with how well I can learn", bridged with "here's my method", which could be reduced to the mixed-media version of the stereotypical programmer who "read one book about that once" (which drives experts crazy), and closed with "I think I've optimized this! Behold!" So it easily reads as hubris, possibly mixed in with some raw horsepower, with a dash of Dunning and Kruger giggling in the corner at invocation of their work in what is likely a demonstration of their work. So it's not the musing on a well-trodden topic that bugged me. It's the tone and subtextual (and, at times, overt) assertions... Two more things, one of them important-ish: 1. I haven't experienced diminishing returns on my time and effort. I learn much more quickly now than I did when I was a fresh-to-industry voracious hot-head, in large part because I've learned how I learn, a mechanism that doesn't map well to all (or, really, many) other learners. My scoffing at 1000X comes from having thought the same sort of thing 20 years ago and having been dead wrong at how much more ceiling there is. 2. I'm in no way well versed in metacognition, proving a different point: One needs merely know more than the others around at the time to seem like an expert, and slinging some language around can buy one a false sense of expertise, for others and oneself.
- foxhop 7y ago