4 ms·

but the idea that Big O is "scary" is just absurd. To you. I never studied things like these in school and getting to a point of "Oh that's what that means" wa

by eksith 13y ago

but the idea that Big O is "scary" is just absurd. To you. I never studied things like these in school and getting to a point of "Oh that's what that means" was long and arduous as it pertained to a lot of scientific literature. Plain English, it seems, isn't in the tool set for a lot of very smart people who, coincidentally, feel that it's their duty to Explain All the Things. It's unfortunate that so many of them are deluded by the "x should be elementary" mindset or the like without regard to the language they use or the specificities of notation (Big-O in this case). I wish computer scientists can be more like Neil deGrasse Tyson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ulkX-DA9BM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ulkX-DA9BM

Ixiaus 13y ago
I'm as autodidactic as they come (high school drop out, self-taught in math, comp sci, psychology) and I to think this is elementary stuff. The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises. Would you take a scientist seriously if they didn't understand what the scientific method was? You're right. English is not the tool to use here in explaining theory, it's not capable of it. Mathematics and programming languages are!
- eksith 13y ago
  It's unfortunate you've read my post as a claim to avoid actually learning these. I was pointing out that the "x is elementary" attitude doesn't help the process and I thought (from the video at least) some empathy in communication is warranted. It's ridiculous to expect clarity when no such thing exists in the language used to describe an idea in the first place. The OP went to the trouble of making such a post. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it gets the ball rolling. Whatever inadequacies can be corrected with feedback and I for one would like to see more people engage in humane explanations for things pertaining to their expertise. Big-O is "technical". Understanding of it comes with clear explanations. No where did I claim anything contrary to : "The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises." What I claimed was that language can soften the barrier to learning these as I imagine it did for you.
  - Ixiaus 13y ago
    Well, I must still be misunderstanding you because I spent 30 minutes writing a whole comment explaining why Math is important then got to the bottom of your comment and realized we both believe the same thing (that these subjects are important). What I will contend is that pity parties about scary topics are unhelpful and rigor is important - more so for self-taught people. Like you, I advocate humane teaching. Humane teaching, to me however, is more about adapting to learning styles while maintaining the rigor and difficulty of the material (without watering it down) - this article watered it down. Clear and humane explanations are out there; this article was not one of them. The intention was noble and I respect them for that but I agree with the top commenter in that the pity party needs to end and more self-educated individuals need to be role models for those that do find it scary so that we can all (as in self-educated people) strive to understand difficult concepts instead of "being okay" with not fully understanding it or the language it was meant to be understood in. Much as autodidactic scholars hold themselves up to very high standards when reading about an author, they read the author's works in the original language they were written in - not in its translations (this is slight speculation because I don't know any autodidactic scholars personally, but I have read some of their articles).
    - eksith 13y ago
      Then it seems, we're basically on the same page. Watering down is unacceptable. No argument here. What I do appreciate though is that advanced topics can be made reachable with a step stool, at least at first, before the full rung up the ladder. That "being okay" with not fully understanding a concept grates me to no end too. It's honestly incredibly condescending. That said, there are ways to be more clear without being condescending and without accepting that "okay" is good enough. Take that math, for example. I've lost count of how many people I've run into who hate Calculus and the like because "it's so hard!" This tells me that the approach to teaching it was all wrong. I hated math too, cause it was big and scary, until I came across and awesome teacher who actually sat down with me and went over the basics with very careful attention to the language she used. There are approaches to teaching like this online I'm sure, but they're very few and far between.
- ceol 13y ago
  As an aside, you can't be self-taught in psychology. It's like being a self-taught doctor: Being educated in psychology is predicated upon you having a degree in psychology, because it's a very certification-heavy field. I would actually advise you to not brag about being "self-taught in psychology" because it's a very strong indicator that you don't know what you're talking about.
  - Ixiaus 13y ago
    So...you're claiming that because something is certification heavy I can't be self-taught!?!?!?! Jungian psychology, freudian psychology, alchemical symbolism; ALL disciplines of personal understanding and understanding inter-personal relationships that have spanned hundreds of books on my bookshelf and years worth of self-application to become a happier more effective human being. I guess none of that was worth it because I don't know what I'm talking about! Oy I might as well stop reading books then because claiming I'm self-taught in anything will make me look bad! No offense, but your comment made you look like you don't know what you are talking about. How can you seriously say to someone they shouldn't call themselves self-taught/educated in anything based on your criteria? What the fuck would you call self-education then if reading books, becoming more intelligent, applying it to your life, and improving quality of said life isn't self-education? Self-education is something everyone does, even people that have been through a formal education. The difference is that they are choosing their subjects of study instead of having them chosen. By the way, your analogy would be stronger if I laid claim to "psychiatry" rather than "psychology" - psychiatry is more akin to being a doctor; I do not ever claim to practice what I know on other people just as people that love studying physiology and medical text-books don't practice on people! Oh, also, I was not bragging, I was qualifying myself for the commenter as someone who is self-taught so I wouldn't appear to be someone that doesn't know what they are talking about.

by eksith 13y ago

Ixiaus 13y ago

I'm as autodidactic as they come (high school drop out, self-taught in math, comp sci, psychology) and I to think this is elementary stuff. The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises. Would you take a scientist seriously if they didn't understand what the scientific method was? You're right. English is not the tool to use here in explaining theory, it's not capable of it. Mathematics and programming languages are!

eksith 13y ago
It's unfortunate you've read my post as a claim to avoid actually learning these. I was pointing out that the "x is elementary" attitude doesn't help the process and I thought (from the video at least) some empathy in communication is warranted. It's ridiculous to expect clarity when no such thing exists in the language used to describe an idea in the first place. The OP went to the trouble of making such a post. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it gets the ball rolling. Whatever inadequacies can be corrected with feedback and I for one would like to see more people engage in humane explanations for things pertaining to their expertise. Big-O is "technical". Understanding of it comes with clear explanations. No where did I claim anything contrary to : "The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises." What I claimed was that language can soften the barrier to learning these as I imagine it did for you.
- Ixiaus 13y ago
  Well, I must still be misunderstanding you because I spent 30 minutes writing a whole comment explaining why Math is important then got to the bottom of your comment and realized we both believe the same thing (that these subjects are important). What I will contend is that pity parties about scary topics are unhelpful and rigor is important - more so for self-taught people. Like you, I advocate humane teaching. Humane teaching, to me however, is more about adapting to learning styles while maintaining the rigor and difficulty of the material (without watering it down) - this article watered it down. Clear and humane explanations are out there; this article was not one of them. The intention was noble and I respect them for that but I agree with the top commenter in that the pity party needs to end and more self-educated individuals need to be role models for those that do find it scary so that we can all (as in self-educated people) strive to understand difficult concepts instead of "being okay" with not fully understanding it or the language it was meant to be understood in. Much as autodidactic scholars hold themselves up to very high standards when reading about an author, they read the author's works in the original language they were written in - not in its translations (this is slight speculation because I don't know any autodidactic scholars personally, but I have read some of their articles).
  - eksith 13y ago
    Then it seems, we're basically on the same page. Watering down is unacceptable. No argument here. What I do appreciate though is that advanced topics can be made reachable with a step stool, at least at first, before the full rung up the ladder. That "being okay" with not fully understanding a concept grates me to no end too. It's honestly incredibly condescending. That said, there are ways to be more clear without being condescending and without accepting that "okay" is good enough. Take that math, for example. I've lost count of how many people I've run into who hate Calculus and the like because "it's so hard!" This tells me that the approach to teaching it was all wrong. I hated math too, cause it was big and scary, until I came across and awesome teacher who actually sat down with me and went over the basics with very careful attention to the language she used. There are approaches to teaching like this online I'm sure, but they're very few and far between.
ceol 13y ago
As an aside, you can't be self-taught in psychology. It's like being a self-taught doctor: Being educated in psychology is predicated upon you having a degree in psychology, because it's a very certification-heavy field. I would actually advise you to not brag about being "self-taught in psychology" because it's a very strong indicator that you don't know what you're talking about.
- Ixiaus 13y ago
  So...you're claiming that because something is certification heavy I can't be self-taught!?!?!?! Jungian psychology, freudian psychology, alchemical symbolism; ALL disciplines of personal understanding and understanding inter-personal relationships that have spanned hundreds of books on my bookshelf and years worth of self-application to become a happier more effective human being. I guess none of that was worth it because I don't know what I'm talking about! Oy I might as well stop reading books then because claiming I'm self-taught in anything will make me look bad! No offense, but your comment made you look like you don't know what you are talking about. How can you seriously say to someone they shouldn't call themselves self-taught/educated in anything based on your criteria? What the fuck would you call self-education then if reading books, becoming more intelligent, applying it to your life, and improving quality of said life isn't self-education? Self-education is something everyone does, even people that have been through a formal education. The difference is that they are choosing their subjects of study instead of having them chosen. By the way, your analogy would be stronger if I laid claim to "psychiatry" rather than "psychology" - psychiatry is more akin to being a doctor; I do not ever claim to practice what I know on other people just as people that love studying physiology and medical text-books don't practice on people! Oh, also, I was not bragging, I was qualifying myself for the commenter as someone who is self-taught so I wouldn't appear to be someone that doesn't know what they are talking about.