On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Sam Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello all, > As a student and mathematician, I am particularly interested in the > complex process of accumulating, understanding, and remembering difficult > information. In regards to the most recent posting by Don, while I agree > that there is initially some "low hanging fruit" in most areas, these > options quickly disappear as we become better. Breaking the barrier between > amateur and expert is particularly difficult and is rarely achievable > through "quick tricks". > There is nothing here I disagree with. The sophistication of the "tricks" increases but probably calling them "shortcuts" and "tricks" was not the right terminology. Some of them seem like cheap tricks but really they are just mental reorganizations and the recognition of patterns which already have a solution or partial solution. I know in chess almost any position seems reasonable and suggests moves to my mind - but when I first learned the game it was just a random configuration without any clue of what move to play. The *hard and deliberate* practice I simply called focus - I do not believe it necessarily has to be unpleasant but it is hard work. Sometimes you can enjoy hard work but without doubt you have to push yourself against being lazy. > > Instead, we improve in proportion to the amount of *deliberate and > strenuous *practice we invest. As Mark described, he knew the steps > needed to improve drastically, but opted for the easier route. Why? Because > deliberate practice is often grueling, repetitive, and exhausting; we > prefer tasks which are within our purview. > > Having programmed since age ten, and then up into my college years, I can > say from personal experience the largest jumps in ability occurred when I > concentrated on my weakest areas. For example, while initially doing web > programming, I decided to learn the iOS SDK. Of course, this required > studying Objective-C (really just C and some compiler macros) which does > not use automatic memory management. Needless to say, as a fifteen year old > coming from Python, Java, and PHP, this was a hurdle. I spent hours finding > obvious memory leaks before I could even display something onscreen. The > process was laborious but I finally gained competence *over a three year > period*. I emphasize this statement because there was no shortcut. > Although the authors on this list hold no such misconceptions, I cannot > count the number of times people have approached me asking how to write > iPhone apps. I always answer, "you'll need lots of time, patience, and > diligence….then start practicing". > > The mental jump from managed languages to manually managed languages shed > light on the "low level" details of programming which I had missed > previously. The *deliberate *practice in an area of weakness enabled me > to "level up" in the end. > > On the other hand, I have also played jazz piano for about five years. > Like Mark, I have taken the lazy route, even though I have played through > hundreds of songs. As with most classically trained musicians, I found > sight-reading and memorizing an explicit transcription of a standard far > easier than practicing the numerous chords and modes required for free-form > improvisation. Only now, am I painfully practicing the many chord voicings > I glossed over years ago. In sight-reading the music, I allowed my skill to > plateau by sticking to the "stuff I knew". > > Similarly, I am a better programmer than mathematician. While varying > across individuals, I find programming intuitive, or as Mark said "Learning > to program never felt like work". On the other hand, many concepts in > mathematics require abstract and flexible thought. Hence, since I find math > more challenging than CS, I purposely fill my schedule with math courses. > Pushing myself in a weaker area will ultimately render me a better computer > scientist. > > In summary, the *key *difference between amateurs and experts is *hard > and deliberate *practice. In order to move from novice to professional, > you must not only practice, but you must focus on honing your "pain > points". While I wish there were other options available, my own experience > has lead me to this conclusion. > > However, I'm not the only one who holds this opinion. I'd like to offer > this paper I read a few years ago which speaks to this issue precisely. > I've also pasted some relevant sections below: > http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/100/3/363.pdf > > Our review has also shown that the maximal level of performance for > individuals in a given domain is not attained automatically as function of > extended experience, but the level of performance can be increased even by > highly experienced individuals as a result of deliberate efforts to > improve. > > There is a relatively widespread conception that if individuals > are innately talented, they can easily and rapidly achieve an > exceptional level of performance once they have acquired basic > skills and knowledge. Biographical material disproves this notion. In > their classic study of expertise in chess, Simon and > Chase (1973) observed that nobody had attained the level of an > international chess master (grandmaster) "with less than about > a decade's intense preparation with the game" (p. 402). > > > This discussion has been quite entertaining and I look forward to any > comments or further thoughts, > Sam Stewart > Lewis & Clark College > > > On Friday, August 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Don Dailey wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Mark Boon <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Don Dailey <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not real big on natural talent either. I know it exists but it is > > somewhat over-rated. The people who are really good at anything > invariably > > worked pretty hard to get there - and the natural talent aspect may > simply > > be internal drive - the ability to focus on what needs to be done. So > I > > do believe that some people have more talent than others but maybe it's a > > bit over-hyped. Bobby Fischer is said to have been absolutely > obsessed > > with chess as a boy - an obsession you don't usually see in an old man or > > woman. Was he talented? I'm sure he was, but this insane obsession > > was probably more important to his success than his natural talent. > > Erik Puyt (Dutch 5-dan) once summed it up nicely: "when people say > you've got talent, what they mean is you're (still) young". > I do think talent exists. The same way some people are more > intelligent than others. But starting young and working hard at it is > needed by everyone to become good at anything. Nobody gets it for > free. > > > And even just putting in a lot of time is not the same as working hard > at it. > > I'm a bit of a lazy type. As a teenager I spent a lot of time studying > Go. But I found that some types of study felt harder on my brain than > others. Replaying professional games, while certainly helpful, was a > lot 'easier' than doing life-and-death problems, which I hated doing. > Later I heard some successful professional players claim that the only > way of studying really worth anything was life-and-death. All the rest > comes relatively easy through just playing. I would characterize > replaying pro games as 'putting in time' while life-and-death was > 'working at it'. > > I started computer programming when I was 18-19 years old. I knew > straight away this was my future as all the studying felt easy > compared to studying Go, even though I was a little afraid I had > started too late. But it turned out child prodigies in programming, or > whizz-kids as they were called, only existed in movies at that day and > age. Learning to program never felt like work. > > > Being lazy could be a good thing - it is in programming! How many > times have I started to code something up, realized how much work it was > going to be, then stopped myself and said, "there must be an easier way!" > And lo and behold, there usually is. > > I think this works with everything. In Chess my master friend was big > into organizing your thinking and making things easier - usually with > clever rules. Very often just one tiny piece of knowledge can save you > years of figuring it out for yourself. In one opening I played he said, > "it's all about the black squares - if you control them you win." An > aha moment for me as I was busy computing variations and doing things the > hard way. > > So I believe than in many ways being "lazy" can be an asset - if you are > always trying to figure out an "easier way" to do it you will do much > better. > > Have you ever heard of "square of the pawn?" Or when being checked by > the knight in the endings when there is very little time on the clock there > are certain squares you can move the king to which guarantee you cannot be > checked for 2, 3 or 4 moves - depending on where you move and these are > trivial patterns. Also, the say really intelligent people are > internally taking shortcuts, they get way more accomplished with very > little effort. > > And I did a simple thing when I was improving in tournament chess. I > just happened to notice that 90% of my losses were due to trivial blunders. > I went up something like 400 ELO just realizing that. It was a lazy > way to get 400 ELO without studying hard or anything else, I just made it > my determination and goal not to blunder and before every move I did a > quick superficial check, nothing fancy and yet 400 ELO! Everyone > thought that I had been studying and learning and getting much better. > > This is actually a general principle of almost any endeavor: "stop > screwing up!" If you play tennis you know that at the club level you > don't win games, you lose them. Get the ball back with any > consistency and you are suddenly a half way decent club player - even if > you don't do it with much style or grace. > > So I don't think study has to be painful and hard - in fact true "hard > work" can be very pleasurable. But it does have to be productive and > focused. > > > > Don > > > > > > > > > > > Mark > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
