3 ms·

Tools are important. Professionals use tools they understand and use them deliberately to specific ends. Mastering your tools is an important step in mastering

Tools are important. Professionals use tools they understand and use them deliberately to specific ends. Mastering your tools is an important step in mastering any craft and being able to evaluate new tools is an important part of that. "Tools don't matter" or "caring about tools is for amateurs" is plainly false and anybody who is proficient at any tool based skill knows this. The actual fallacy of the amateur is thinking that having the tool is what creates the skill, when actually having the skill is what allows you to make use of that tool effectively. Almost always having a good tool you are deeply familar with beats a great tool you have little understanding of. Regardless of that, bad tools lead to bad results, even if experience can reduce that effect.

Barrin92 3y ago
>anybody who is proficient at any tool based skill knows this. I've taught the guitar for a long time and I don't consider it wrong advice at all. Yes, if you can spend 200-300$ on a guitar instead of 80$ go for it, but the amount of amateurs who buy much more expensive instruments is staggering. An amateur does not even understand why the features of expensive instruments are there to begin with, and it doesn't actually take much skill to make a cheap guitar sound great. Don't believe me, just check Youtube. We live in a culture that is extremely biased towards the notion that you can shortcut your way to proficiency with money, and this kind of article is an important corrective. A few years ago people were scoffing at Macron, the President of France, buying 300$ suits. I can't count how often I've seen ordinary guys spend more on a suit going to events were nobody could even tell the difference. Tools are sometimes important, but 80-90% it's about the proficiency of the wielder. And this is completely skewed because that kind of reality does not sell, and selling people more stuff is now the primary objective of a lot of televised sports, music what have you. As software developers too we are constantly being bombarded with sales pitches for tools, rather than encouraged to cultivate genuine skills, AI assistants being the best example.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >We live in a culture that is extremely biased towards the notion that you can shortcut your way to proficiency with money Exactly, that was my point. And if it isn't money it is "that one trick". Mastery over a tool is what actually matters and makes a professional. The professional understands his tools and knows exactly how to make them work and where the limitations are. I just do not think it is in any way productive to believe that you shouldn't care about what tools you are using.
- sfuller808 3y ago
  [dead]
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  The problem with all this, is that all those takes are true to an extent. For instance: I may spend $80 or even $40 to get a guitar to start learning, but my experience across many areas tells me that spending those $100-200 more will buy me a guitar that I won't actively hate. Which is important early on when learning something. Even more important is to avoid confusing tool deficiencies for lack of skill, which is easy if you never get to compare what you have with what is actually good. So basically, there is great value in not having to fight your tools - mechanically, cognitively, or emotionally. Another thing: tools, in general, have positive "y-intercept" for non-negative amount of skills. That is, even someone with zero experience in a field will produce better results with better tools. In some cases, better results than pros with no tools[0]. Another thing still, though very close to the first case: while "more expensive = better" generally doesn't hold, and especially doesn't when the target customer base isn't known for their reasoning skills, it's still often enough a good heuristic that "more expensive = less bullshit". See also: "I'm too poor to buy cheap". > A few years ago people were scoffing at Macron, the President of France, buying 300$ suits. I can't count how often I've seen ordinary guys spend more on a suit going to events were nobody could even tell the difference. Maybe it's you who couldn't? In clothing, there are couple quality/price levels clearly apparent to the eye, though perhaps not if you've never worn anything at that level. And beyond that, the price bracket of someone's suit is something you'll learn indirectly, from random gossip, if you're in the crowd that cares. And that is the reason people spend that money on suits (or expensive cars) - they're in, or trying to break into, a peer group that cares, because those suits/dresses/cars/whatnot are status symbols. Social signals difficult to falsify. Basically, the OG "Proof of Work" scheme. > Tools are sometimes important, but 80-90% it's about the proficiency of the wielder. And this is completely skewed because that kind of reality does not sell, and selling people more stuff is now the primary objective of a lot of televised sports, music what have you. OTOH, I came to believe that what you say is also a fake reality - one of "MacGyverism". It's a ego/status trading reality. "A true pro doesn't need to read instructions." "Amateurs obsess over tools, pros obsess over mastery." "A bad ballerina is bothered by the hem of her skirt." Yes, mastery means you can do the job without adequate tools. But it also means you'll instead first try and get the right tools, because there's little point in making the process more difficult and risky. -- [0] - Such cases are somewhat infrequent and definitely small-scale, because any such case represents money left on the table, which the market quickly captures when it spots it. Some examples, however, include: - Me beating handymen on a repair job, despite having no relevant skills, by virtue of having right tools on hand (and caring about the outcome). - People writing complex data processing monstrosities in Excel, because even if you have zero programming skills, Excel can get you much further than you could ever get by asking the IT department for help. - IANAHistorian, but my high-level understanding of the history of warfare was that rifles, early on, were really really bad, barely above throwing a rock at someone. However, they displaced archers and armored knights because while the latter two roles were much more lethal, they required many years of concentrated training - meanwhile, you could hand a rifle to a random peasant, tell them which end the bullets come out of (and how to put new ones in), and you'd have an effective fighter. - The elephant in the room: random Internet anon with access to Stable Diffusion > plenty of artists in many contexts. Same with anon + LLM and marketing copywriters. - EDIT: more historical examples include: reading, writing, numbers, basic maths (of the type kids learn by rote), calculators, measuring tools, precisely manufactured tools. All of which gave huge baseline boost to people who used them, regardless of their experience.
- tetha 3y ago
  This is something I've been told multiple times about power tools and tools from several people: Be ready to spend around $100 - $200 to get something you won't really hate. Drills, wrench sets, tools. Then wear that thing out, or use it long enough to learn why it's not enough. This in turn will teach you what you want from a more expensive thing. Like, I have a simple battery powered drill in that price range. It's wonderful to use for everything in the flat or putting furniture together. It also taught me what an expensive Makita drill could do and why I won't need it. In a similar way, I'm fully aware my bass and guitar are on the cheaper end of the spectrum. But hell, watching what Ola or Bernth or Herman Li can do on cheap pieces of crap... And eventually I might outgrow them and figure out what I need next.
- fbdab103 3y ago
  I suddenly feel less badly about my ~$200 off the rack suit I wear twice a year. Nearly good enough for a world leader, good enough for me.
- dorkwood 3y ago
  > Tools are sometimes important, but 80-90% it's about the proficiency of the wielder. It probably depends on the domain you're working in. In the motion graphics industry, for example, if you're not using the right tools, you just won't be able to compete. Third-party render engines such as Octane offer near-photorealistic rendering straight out of the box. If you're trying to squeeze the same results out of, say, Cinema4D's standard renderer, then you're playing with both hands tied behind your back. I do think there are beginners who wrongly emphasize tools over skills, but I also think there are experts who don't realize what an advantage their tools are giving them, and choose instead to pretend that they don't matter, when they do.
coffeepancakes 3y ago
Your comment made me think about the book Track Changes. It's about the advent of word processors for creative writers. Apparently Isaac Asimov was an early adopter of the computer. Had one sent to his office and there were computer boxes all around the room while it was getting set up. He was fascinated by it and used it often. But he used it for short pieces like letters or short stories and used his typewriter for long pieces of fiction. I guess that's a good example of "deeply familiar" tools.

Barrin92 3y ago

>anybody who is proficient at any tool based skill knows this. I've taught the guitar for a long time and I don't consider it wrong advice at all. Yes, if you can spend 200-300$ on a guitar instead of 80$ go for it, but the amount of amateurs who buy much more expensive instruments is staggering. An amateur does not even understand why the features of expensive instruments are there to begin with, and it doesn't actually take much skill to make a cheap guitar sound great. Don't believe me, just check Youtube. We live in a culture that is extremely biased towards the notion that you can shortcut your way to proficiency with money, and this kind of article is an important corrective. A few years ago people were scoffing at Macron, the President of France, buying 300$ suits. I can't count how often I've seen ordinary guys spend more on a suit going to events were nobody could even tell the difference. Tools are sometimes important, but 80-90% it's about the proficiency of the wielder. And this is completely skewed because that kind of reality does not sell, and selling people more stuff is now the primary objective of a lot of televised sports, music what have you. As software developers too we are constantly being bombarded with sales pitches for tools, rather than encouraged to cultivate genuine skills, AI assistants being the best example.

constantcrying 3y ago
>We live in a culture that is extremely biased towards the notion that you can shortcut your way to proficiency with money Exactly, that was my point. And if it isn't money it is "that one trick". Mastery over a tool is what actually matters and makes a professional. The professional understands his tools and knows exactly how to make them work and where the limitations are. I just do not think it is in any way productive to believe that you shouldn't care about what tools you are using.
sfuller808 3y ago
[dead]
TeMPOraL 3y ago
The problem with all this, is that all those takes are true to an extent. For instance: I may spend $80 or even $40 to get a guitar to start learning, but my experience across many areas tells me that spending those $100-200 more will buy me a guitar that I won't actively hate. Which is important early on when learning something. Even more important is to avoid confusing tool deficiencies for lack of skill, which is easy if you never get to compare what you have with what is actually good. So basically, there is great value in not having to fight your tools - mechanically, cognitively, or emotionally. Another thing: tools, in general, have positive "y-intercept" for non-negative amount of skills. That is, even someone with zero experience in a field will produce better results with better tools. In some cases, better results than pros with no tools[0]. Another thing still, though very close to the first case: while "more expensive = better" generally doesn't hold, and especially doesn't when the target customer base isn't known for their reasoning skills, it's still often enough a good heuristic that "more expensive = less bullshit". See also: "I'm too poor to buy cheap". > A few years ago people were scoffing at Macron, the President of France, buying 300$ suits. I can't count how often I've seen ordinary guys spend more on a suit going to events were nobody could even tell the difference. Maybe it's you who couldn't? In clothing, there are couple quality/price levels clearly apparent to the eye, though perhaps not if you've never worn anything at that level. And beyond that, the price bracket of someone's suit is something you'll learn indirectly, from random gossip, if you're in the crowd that cares. And that is the reason people spend that money on suits (or expensive cars) - they're in, or trying to break into, a peer group that cares, because those suits/dresses/cars/whatnot are status symbols. Social signals difficult to falsify. Basically, the OG "Proof of Work" scheme. > Tools are sometimes important, but 80-90% it's about the proficiency of the wielder. And this is completely skewed because that kind of reality does not sell, and selling people more stuff is now the primary objective of a lot of televised sports, music what have you. OTOH, I came to believe that what you say is also a fake reality - one of "MacGyverism". It's a ego/status trading reality. "A true pro doesn't need to read instructions." "Amateurs obsess over tools, pros obsess over mastery." "A bad ballerina is bothered by the hem of her skirt." Yes, mastery means you can do the job without adequate tools. But it also means you'll instead first try and get the right tools, because there's little point in making the process more difficult and risky. -- [0] - Such cases are somewhat infrequent and definitely small-scale, because any such case represents money left on the table, which the market quickly captures when it spots it. Some examples, however, include: - Me beating handymen on a repair job, despite having no relevant skills, by virtue of having right tools on hand (and caring about the outcome). - People writing complex data processing monstrosities in Excel, because even if you have zero programming skills, Excel can get you much further than you could ever get by asking the IT department for help. - IANAHistorian, but my high-level understanding of the history of warfare was that rifles, early on, were really really bad, barely above throwing a rock at someone. However, they displaced archers and armored knights because while the latter two roles were much more lethal, they required many years of concentrated training - meanwhile, you could hand a rifle to a random peasant, tell them which end the bullets come out of (and how to put new ones in), and you'd have an effective fighter. - The elephant in the room: random Internet anon with access to Stable Diffusion > plenty of artists in many contexts. Same with anon + LLM and marketing copywriters. - EDIT: more historical examples include: reading, writing, numbers, basic maths (of the type kids learn by rote), calculators, measuring tools, precisely manufactured tools. All of which gave huge baseline boost to people who used them, regardless of their experience.
tetha 3y ago
This is something I've been told multiple times about power tools and tools from several people: Be ready to spend around $100 - $200 to get something you won't really hate. Drills, wrench sets, tools. Then wear that thing out, or use it long enough to learn why it's not enough. This in turn will teach you what you want from a more expensive thing. Like, I have a simple battery powered drill in that price range. It's wonderful to use for everything in the flat or putting furniture together. It also taught me what an expensive Makita drill could do and why I won't need it. In a similar way, I'm fully aware my bass and guitar are on the cheaper end of the spectrum. But hell, watching what Ola or Bernth or Herman Li can do on cheap pieces of crap... And eventually I might outgrow them and figure out what I need next.
fbdab103 3y ago
I suddenly feel less badly about my ~$200 off the rack suit I wear twice a year. Nearly good enough for a world leader, good enough for me.
dorkwood 3y ago
> Tools are sometimes important, but 80-90% it's about the proficiency of the wielder. It probably depends on the domain you're working in. In the motion graphics industry, for example, if you're not using the right tools, you just won't be able to compete. Third-party render engines such as Octane offer near-photorealistic rendering straight out of the box. If you're trying to squeeze the same results out of, say, Cinema4D's standard renderer, then you're playing with both hands tied behind your back. I do think there are beginners who wrongly emphasize tools over skills, but I also think there are experts who don't realize what an advantage their tools are giving them, and choose instead to pretend that they don't matter, when they do.

coffeepancakes 3y ago

Your comment made me think about the book Track Changes. It's about the advent of word processors for creative writers. Apparently Isaac Asimov was an early adopter of the computer. Had one sent to his office and there were computer boxes all around the room while it was getting set up. He was fascinated by it and used it often. But he used it for short pieces like letters or short stories and used his typewriter for long pieces of fiction. I guess that's a good example of "deeply familiar" tools.