4 ms·

This is relevant: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=316 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=316 Also, I'm curious about something. Those of you who are good at building mentals

by itmag 14y ago

This is relevant: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=316 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=316 Also, I'm curious about something. Those of you who are good at building mentals models: are you also visual thinkers?

lhnz 14y ago
Some are visual thinkers but I am not. I am a logical thinker and good at creating sensible (that is high-level or very granular dependent on importance) abstractions in my head. Once this is done, it's easy to think "this abstract data gets computed by this function which passes its output to this function, etc." The actual solution will then appear from (0) the association of an (erroneous) result with a particular piece of data/behaviour, (1) strictly following through this model in my head, (2) a holistic understanding of the flow of data and the computational roles inside the system (or external to it in the case of end-users), or (3) a whim to subvert and reframe the question/problem in interesting ways. As Carl Jacob's said: "Invert, always invert." Generally you progress from (0) to (2) before taking out a debugger. Most easy problems are solved at (0). (3) is unusual but intellectually gratifying if you find a way of solving a problem in a way that could not be understood simply through using a debugger and hacking a couple of lines of code.
svdad 14y ago
Very. It's just how my mind puts things together, not something I can try to do or not do. I tend to see programs in blocks and patterns interacting rather than sequences of logical operations, probably why I tend to prefer the object-oriented paradigm over others. I get bogged down when I can't visualize the interactions. It isn't just programming, either -- working with derivative products in finance I formed very detailed visual mental models of how they operated.
sp332 14y ago
Sometimes visual but more often I imagine the code physically. It has weight, or friction, or rigidity, depending on what aspects of the code I'm trying to think about.
- itmag 14y ago
  Yes, I recognize this. A piece of code may be ugly (visual) but it may also be solid (kinesthetic). Or beautiful/brittle.
- aangjie 14y ago
  Interesting. I should try using that. That is mechanical models. I have come across it(using a mechanical device analogy/metaphor for thinking about something) in other fields(http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/06/30/the-philosophers-abacus/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/06/30/the-philosophers-abacus...).But never really used it in code/design consciously so far.
  - ajankovic 14y ago
    It's not actually mechanical. It's called kinesthetic learning or sensing. That's one of the three types: kinesthetic, visual, and auditory.

by itmag 14y ago

This is relevant: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=316 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=316 Also, I'm curious about something. Those of you who are good at building mentals models: are you also visual thinkers?

lhnz 14y ago

Some are visual thinkers but I am not. I am a logical thinker and good at creating sensible (that is high-level or very granular dependent on importance) abstractions in my head. Once this is done, it's easy to think "this abstract data gets computed by this function which passes its output to this function, etc." The actual solution will then appear from (0) the association of an (erroneous) result with a particular piece of data/behaviour, (1) strictly following through this model in my head, (2) a holistic understanding of the flow of data and the computational roles inside the system (or external to it in the case of end-users), or (3) a whim to subvert and reframe the question/problem in interesting ways. As Carl Jacob's said: "Invert, always invert." Generally you progress from (0) to (2) before taking out a debugger. Most easy problems are solved at (0). (3) is unusual but intellectually gratifying if you find a way of solving a problem in a way that could not be understood simply through using a debugger and hacking a couple of lines of code.

svdad 14y ago

Very. It's just how my mind puts things together, not something I can try to do or not do. I tend to see programs in blocks and patterns interacting rather than sequences of logical operations, probably why I tend to prefer the object-oriented paradigm over others. I get bogged down when I can't visualize the interactions. It isn't just programming, either -- working with derivative products in finance I formed very detailed visual mental models of how they operated.

sp332 14y ago

Sometimes visual but more often I imagine the code physically. It has weight, or friction, or rigidity, depending on what aspects of the code I'm trying to think about.

itmag 14y ago
Yes, I recognize this. A piece of code may be ugly (visual) but it may also be solid (kinesthetic). Or beautiful/brittle.
aangjie 14y ago
Interesting. I should try using that. That is mechanical models. I have come across it(using a mechanical device analogy/metaphor for thinking about something) in other fields(http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/06/30/the-philosophers-abacus/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/06/30/the-philosophers-abacus...).But never really used it in code/design consciously so far.
- ajankovic 14y ago
  It's not actually mechanical. It's called kinesthetic learning or sensing. That's one of the three types: kinesthetic, visual, and auditory.