4 ms·

This was a refreshing write-up. I admit I went in being ready to cringe at some bad metaphors, but the author pulled it off. Overall, the whole piece gave me q

This was a refreshing write-up. I admit I went in being ready to cringe at some bad metaphors, but the author pulled it off. Overall, the whole piece gave me quite systems thinking vibes. For example, this part (well, and also the other 2 of the "three high-level features" the author lays out) towards the end: > But in a more “Elvish” paradigm, however, the moment the house is built is not the end. How will this building grow? What other purposes will it satisfy in the future? When and how will it be deconstructed? What would happen with the earth on which it is built? All these “Elvish” questions[20] (and many more) can help develop a deeper understanding of both the problem and the solution spaces, and reframe (re-timeframe) both. The moment when the house is needed is not the end, but it is also not the beginning. How did the need for the house emerge? Where did the materials for it come from? Edit: actually, on second read this hits so close it's almost spooky: > the relationship between action and understanding is more symmetrical: we act so that we can learn, as much as we learn so that we can act I've lost the count how many times I've had the discussion in my organization lately about "starting the implementation already so that we can learn more, as currently we know less about the problem than we will ever know". Granted, to maximize learning there must be some, usually non-trivial amount of effort at understanding and learning before the initial direction is sufficiently correct for the "act" part to provide actual learning and insight. But in my experience that's most of the time much easier to achieve than one would initially think. The amount of effort also tends to scale rather well with experience, so more experienced engineers are able to start acting into the broadly right direction with much smaller initial effort (which, in essence, is probably the definition of "experience").

galaxyLogic 5y ago
There's multiple types of learning: intellectual and muscular. Latter often called "training". Former is "understanding". You learn chess by playing chess. You learn riding by riding. You learn from mistakes when you learn by doing. But you can also learn by listening to a teacher or reading a book. So perhaps the big dichotomy is self-acquired-learning vs. passed-on-learning.

galaxyLogic 5y ago

There's multiple types of learning: intellectual and muscular. Latter often called "training". Former is "understanding". You learn chess by playing chess. You learn riding by riding. You learn from mistakes when you learn by doing. But you can also learn by listening to a teacher or reading a book. So perhaps the big dichotomy is self-acquired-learning vs. passed-on-learning.