4 ms·

I try to do this as much as possible. Unfortunately some people are not actually interested in knowledge transfer. Those people are just interested in unblockin

I try to do this as much as possible. Unfortunately some people are not actually interested in knowledge transfer. Those people are just interested in unblocking themselves for the ultimate short dopamine hit. For those people doing this is like nails on a chalkboard. "Just tell me what I need to do"

PaulHoule 2y ago
You catch different people at different places in their journey.
sublinear 2y ago
From the article: > explaining things in context as they become relevant is infinitely better for retention and comprehension than explaining them upfront At one point in my life "explaining things as they become relevant" was equivalent to not really giving a crap and letting them presumably mess it all up after I showed/told them the bare minimum. What I found was that they learned on their own quicker than I assumed, didn't really mess up as bad as I thought, and loved me for the simple explanation. That's when I decided this is the way. I don't know why I'm adding this in, but this strategy is also relevant to other topics such as relationships. Don't rush or get too excited. Don't ever offer more than what they're giving you. Expect people to bail when they got what they wanted. Embrace and reward them for sticking around. You become more than a means to an end when the fear of missing out is a factor. You also automatically filter out people who didn't respect you anyway.
- nuancebydefault 2y ago
  Indeed learning from experience, with just a few hints to fall back on, tends to stick better. I think it might be so because the feedback loops introduced are positive as well as negative. You can't learn how to hold your fork without learning in which ways your food tumbles off.
soneca 2y ago
That is common in several occupations. It is worth asking yourself an important question when you are deciding to become something that you are not. “Do you want to write or to be a writer?”, ”Do you want to develop software or be a software developer employee?” Often the role/title is desired for its status and/or money. I think that’s a fair enough motivation actually, except it should not _solely_ be that. You have to want to learn and practice. Or else, counterproductively, you will have less chance to get the role/title.
- necovek 2y ago
  I think the more important thing is that some people build up confidence upfront by reading up on theory, and embarking on a problem next; and others want to try building things and only once they hit the wall, figure out the background. And there's all sorts of middle ground. And as we develop, we move left and right on that continuum (and it also depends on the topic). So I don't even think what the article claims is universally true: I've seen people who simply get frustrated if you don't give them enough time to read up on a bunch of (to you) irrelevant documentation, and struggle to get anything done otherwise. The real take away for me is that people learn and synthesise knowledge in a myriad of ways, and we should strive to figure out which person prefers which way, and failing that, offer all of these ways so we can observe and learn.
  - soneca 2y ago
    I agree. > ” others want to try building things and only once they hit the wall, figure out the background” I am exactly this type as a software developer. I am ok that I won’t be a computer scientist, nor a very senior engineer working for a state of the art company. Still, I enjoy developing software. I like the daily activity of writing code. Be it a personal project to learn stuff or learning new things at work. It is kind of limiting in a way (I will never expand the body of human knowledge in software development), but that’s ok for me. It’s liberating in other dimensions too (I am always creating new, if simple, stuff).

PaulHoule 2y ago

You catch different people at different places in their journey.

sublinear 2y ago

From the article: > explaining things in context as they become relevant is infinitely better for retention and comprehension than explaining them upfront At one point in my life "explaining things as they become relevant" was equivalent to not really giving a crap and letting them presumably mess it all up after I showed/told them the bare minimum. What I found was that they learned on their own quicker than I assumed, didn't really mess up as bad as I thought, and loved me for the simple explanation. That's when I decided this is the way. I don't know why I'm adding this in, but this strategy is also relevant to other topics such as relationships. Don't rush or get too excited. Don't ever offer more than what they're giving you. Expect people to bail when they got what they wanted. Embrace and reward them for sticking around. You become more than a means to an end when the fear of missing out is a factor. You also automatically filter out people who didn't respect you anyway.

nuancebydefault 2y ago
Indeed learning from experience, with just a few hints to fall back on, tends to stick better. I think it might be so because the feedback loops introduced are positive as well as negative. You can't learn how to hold your fork without learning in which ways your food tumbles off.

soneca 2y ago

That is common in several occupations. It is worth asking yourself an important question when you are deciding to become something that you are not. “Do you want to write or to be a writer?”, ”Do you want to develop software or be a software developer employee?” Often the role/title is desired for its status and/or money. I think that’s a fair enough motivation actually, except it should not _solely_ be that. You have to want to learn and practice. Or else, counterproductively, you will have less chance to get the role/title.

necovek 2y ago
I think the more important thing is that some people build up confidence upfront by reading up on theory, and embarking on a problem next; and others want to try building things and only once they hit the wall, figure out the background. And there's all sorts of middle ground. And as we develop, we move left and right on that continuum (and it also depends on the topic). So I don't even think what the article claims is universally true: I've seen people who simply get frustrated if you don't give them enough time to read up on a bunch of (to you) irrelevant documentation, and struggle to get anything done otherwise. The real take away for me is that people learn and synthesise knowledge in a myriad of ways, and we should strive to figure out which person prefers which way, and failing that, offer all of these ways so we can observe and learn.
- soneca 2y ago
  I agree. > ” others want to try building things and only once they hit the wall, figure out the background” I am exactly this type as a software developer. I am ok that I won’t be a computer scientist, nor a very senior engineer working for a state of the art company. Still, I enjoy developing software. I like the daily activity of writing code. Be it a personal project to learn stuff or learning new things at work. It is kind of limiting in a way (I will never expand the body of human knowledge in software development), but that’s ok for me. It’s liberating in other dimensions too (I am always creating new, if simple, stuff).