3 ms·

The problem with Emil's approach to learning is that it restricts his ability to learn anything that he has no intrinsic goal off. That includes areas like pure

The problem with Emil's approach to learning is that it restricts his ability to learn anything that he has no intrinsic goal off. That includes areas like pure mathematics, theoretical computer science, finance, economics, literature, etc. Those subjects require a different sort of motivation than a motivation to just achieve a set goal i.e capitalistic motivation Also, Emil's approach to learning will create a flawed sense of expertise. Look at how the article presents him as if he has a deep-domain expertise which might not be true. One important thing to consider is to look at the article more like content marketing tactic, that FloydHub is using promote its brand which might not serve well for engineers as it lacks some aspect of truth.

ramblerman 7y ago
It's not a zero sum situation. Him taking this approach does not restrict someone else from studying what they want. Also finance... really? I'm not sure I would agree that is a subject with a less capitalistic motivation. I don't get a lot of the bitterness here. I mean not everyone here creates their own programming language, or would know how to write a database, yet we are fine using them as tools. Why must we understand all the code and concepts in a neural network to apply it?
- itsmefaz 7y ago
  Not necessarily bitterness! I'm very happy for what he is doing. I'm looking at it very objectively, the problem is that the way the article presents his story is very flawed and incorrect. It sounds very much like a PR post. To address the Finance point, there are few areas of finance that is purely research driven and requires a lot of expertise of lateral domain like economics, mathematics. And once cannot grok that expertise in a year or so.. That was the point I was making! > Why must we understand all the code and concepts to apply it? That is one of the reason why our engineers are so sub-par because we were told to just shut up and write shit. We could have become a force to be reckoned with because of our expertise, because of our ability to solve complex problems. Yet we are living in an industry were there is huge disparity in salary, structure, and principles. I don't necessarily agree with why one shouldn't understand the concepts, I'm more a guy who says why not? Because, if you are standing on the shoulders of pioneers and claiming to be improving their work at least do it with compassion and honesty. Sorry about the rant.. would love to hear alternative opinions!
pingyong 7y ago
>Those subjects require a different sort of motivation than a motivation Is that really the case? Apart from the obvious "maybe that's what they're intrinsically interested in" - if you start with a problem, try to solve it, and "pure mathematics" (whatever exactly that is supposed to be, anyway) is required to arrive at a solution, it becomes part of the intrinsic motivation. And if you keep solving problems without it the question that eventually comes up is "is it really useful at that point?" I do however agree that if you're looking at someone who's qualification is primarily his "portfolio", you do actually need to check whether it includes interesting problems, or at least projects that are related to what you need them to do at your company. But if that is the case, I really don't see a problem.
- itsmefaz 7y ago
  That's correct. If one is solving a problem and its requires learning of complex topics, then those topics become a part of the individual's intrinsic motivation. However, the problem with his idea is that learning always requires a goal and ones that do not have any have no intrinsic value. My argument here is that learning doesn't have be attached to any goal and the process of learning can purely be a stimulating activity and might not necessarily have any capitalistic value attached to it. Few ex: Like, reading literature is a purely fun and mentally draining activity that might/might not have any goal attached to it. Like travelling, is a purely fun activity and might/might not have any intrinsic goal attached to it. I started learning Algebra out of the random, without any intrinsic goal. Because, it was purely out of fun. Playing chess is an activity without any intrinsic goal.
  - krageon 7y ago
    > learning doesn't have be attached to any goal For some people it does. Everyone has a different approach to learning and I think outside of the heavily regimented strata of traditional schools it would help everyone if we could celebrate that. Maybe that means not everyone learns for the sake of learning, but then again not everyone has to do the same things.
  - pingyong 7y ago

ramblerman 7y ago

It's not a zero sum situation. Him taking this approach does not restrict someone else from studying what they want. Also finance... really? I'm not sure I would agree that is a subject with a less capitalistic motivation. I don't get a lot of the bitterness here. I mean not everyone here creates their own programming language, or would know how to write a database, yet we are fine using them as tools. Why must we understand all the code and concepts in a neural network to apply it?

itsmefaz 7y ago
Not necessarily bitterness! I'm very happy for what he is doing. I'm looking at it very objectively, the problem is that the way the article presents his story is very flawed and incorrect. It sounds very much like a PR post. To address the Finance point, there are few areas of finance that is purely research driven and requires a lot of expertise of lateral domain like economics, mathematics. And once cannot grok that expertise in a year or so.. That was the point I was making! > Why must we understand all the code and concepts to apply it? That is one of the reason why our engineers are so sub-par because we were told to just shut up and write shit. We could have become a force to be reckoned with because of our expertise, because of our ability to solve complex problems. Yet we are living in an industry were there is huge disparity in salary, structure, and principles. I don't necessarily agree with why one shouldn't understand the concepts, I'm more a guy who says why not? Because, if you are standing on the shoulders of pioneers and claiming to be improving their work at least do it with compassion and honesty. Sorry about the rant.. would love to hear alternative opinions!

pingyong 7y ago

>Those subjects require a different sort of motivation than a motivation Is that really the case? Apart from the obvious "maybe that's what they're intrinsically interested in" - if you start with a problem, try to solve it, and "pure mathematics" (whatever exactly that is supposed to be, anyway) is required to arrive at a solution, it becomes part of the intrinsic motivation. And if you keep solving problems without it the question that eventually comes up is "is it really useful at that point?" I do however agree that if you're looking at someone who's qualification is primarily his "portfolio", you do actually need to check whether it includes interesting problems, or at least projects that are related to what you need them to do at your company. But if that is the case, I really don't see a problem.

itsmefaz 7y ago
That's correct. If one is solving a problem and its requires learning of complex topics, then those topics become a part of the individual's intrinsic motivation. However, the problem with his idea is that learning always requires a goal and ones that do not have any have no intrinsic value. My argument here is that learning doesn't have be attached to any goal and the process of learning can purely be a stimulating activity and might not necessarily have any capitalistic value attached to it. Few ex: Like, reading literature is a purely fun and mentally draining activity that might/might not have any goal attached to it. Like travelling, is a purely fun activity and might/might not have any intrinsic goal attached to it. I started learning Algebra out of the random, without any intrinsic goal. Because, it was purely out of fun. Playing chess is an activity without any intrinsic goal.
- krageon 7y ago
  > learning doesn't have be attached to any goal For some people it does. Everyone has a different approach to learning and I think outside of the heavily regimented strata of traditional schools it would help everyone if we could celebrate that. Maybe that means not everyone learns for the sake of learning, but then again not everyone has to do the same things.
- pingyong 7y ago