 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...well, I end up drafting and re-drafting in an endless cycle which
>> never produces a document of more than a few dozen pages. :-(
>
> Surprise, this is the process of writing.
No, a successful writing process eventually involves *solving* the
ordering problem. I never seem to reach that point. I either spend
forever writing and rewriting the outline, or I eventually give up and
try to write the text, and spend forever rewriting that instead. Either
way, I never get to actually produce a large document.
> It's been my experience, though, that with practice one can learn how to
> properly organise things so they can be presented effectively. I have
> created training materials on highly complex technical topics, and my
> classes always got good feedback and people would walk away understanding
> what they were taught.
You're obviously way better at this than I am.
> Hyperbole really doesn't help you make your case, though. It's not NP-
> complete, it's a matter of breaking the topics down into digestible
> units, and then organising the units in the most effective manner
> possible.
There are plenty of problems which *actually are* NP-complete, but it
doesn't stop people solving them on a regular basis. (Travelling
salesman, anyone?) To split hairs, most of these problems are only
NP-complete if you want the "perfect" solution. Sometimes nearly-perfect
is good enough.
> Give me an example topic and I'll walk you through it.
I'll have to have a think about that one.
>> Writing a page or two isn't too hard. (Parsec, anyone?) Writing
>> something that's 30 pages long is another matter.
>
> No, it's writing 30 pages one page at a time. You start with an outline
> to structure your topics and thoughts, and then you write.
>
> In recent times, I've found that a mindmap is a very useful tool for
> organising thoughts.
I tried drawing a mindmap for Haskell. (When I eventually found a tool
that can actually draw them!) What I discovered is that everything is a
prerequisite for everything else! >_< Looking at the dense tangle of
intimately related topics, it's difficult to see where to start.
>> I don't know anybody who is this patient.
>
> We're right here.
Most people will only read something once - if you're lucky.
> There's a lot more free information out there if you just search for it.
Not if you suck at research...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:57:53 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> ...well, I end up drafting and re-drafting in an endless cycle which
>>> never produces a document of more than a few dozen pages. :-(
>>
>> Surprise, this is the process of writing.
>
> No, a successful writing process eventually involves *solving* the
> ordering problem. I never seem to reach that point. I either spend
> forever writing and rewriting the outline, or I eventually give up and
> try to write the text, and spend forever rewriting that instead. Either
> way, I never get to actually produce a large document.
Then you need practice, with people to help you. With a little practice
and guidance, even YOU could learn how to do this. ;-)
>> It's been my experience, though, that with practice one can learn how
>> to properly organise things so they can be presented effectively. I
>> have created training materials on highly complex technical topics, and
>> my classes always got good feedback and people would walk away
>> understanding what they were taught.
>
> You're obviously way better at this than I am.
I've had practice. Lots of it. And I used to completely suck at it.
>> Hyperbole really doesn't help you make your case, though. It's not NP-
>> complete, it's a matter of breaking the topics down into digestible
>> units, and then organising the units in the most effective manner
>> possible.
>
> There are plenty of problems which *actually are* NP-complete, but it
> doesn't stop people solving them on a regular basis. (Travelling
> salesman, anyone?) To split hairs, most of these problems are only
> NP-complete if you want the "perfect" solution. Sometimes nearly-perfect
> is good enough.
Now you're getting the idea. You don't *have* to be perfect, you don't
even really *have* to be nearly perfect. You have to get to "good
enough" to meet the requirements.
>> Give me an example topic and I'll walk you through it.
>
> I'll have to have a think about that one.
OK, well, I'm not going anywhere.
> I tried drawing a mindmap for Haskell. (When I eventually found a tool
> that can actually draw them!) What I discovered is that everything is a
> prerequisite for everything else! >_< Looking at the dense tangle of
> intimately related topics, it's difficult to see where to start.
Then that's not actually a mindmap. I use View Your Mind (vym), and it
works very well. You don't have to completely map all the
interdependencies. You have to just categorize each item once into the
most logical bucket you've created.
So, for example, I'm working on a project to justify the integration of
an internal system with an external system. In the mindmap I created for
this project, I created 3 top-level "buckets" - Phase 1, Phase 2, and
General. The project is anticipated to be a 2-phase project, so that's
what those two buckets are for. The third bucket is a bucket for things
I need to remember that aren't actually part of either phase - things to
watch out for, that sort of thing.
Then under General (for example), I created buckets for things like
"Customer" and "Partner", and listed the things that would be benefits to
each of those. Is there overlap? Sure, and some of those benefits fall
under specific phases - but in this case, if it fell under Phase 1 or
Phase 2, then it didn't go under General because it was already
classified as an action to be done as part of implementation.
>>> I don't know anybody who is this patient.
>>
>> We're right here.
>
> Most people will only read something once - if you're lucky.
Well, I'm offering. How many iterations of your CV did we look at here
and provide feedback on? But even then, one review with feedback is
nothing to sneeze at.
>> There's a lot more free information out there if you just search for
>> it.
>
> Not if you suck at research...
Then you need to learn to ask for help. Nobody is born knowing how to do
research - everyone has to learn it. It can be learned, and even those
who are experts at it learn more each time they research a topic.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:27:29 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Yes, well, given that 98% of everything I write will never be seen by
>>> another pair of eyes, that's not likely to change.
>>
>> It certainly won't be if you don't share it. Another tip from this
>> book I'm reading is to weekly take some time to create a presentation
>> on a topic - any topic - and share it with someone to get some
>> feedback.
>
> I can't think of anybody who would be interested in reading something I
> wrote, much less sitting through a presentation. (Besides, I'm much
> better at writing than talking.)
Again, the offer is on the table. Presentations can be done online as
well as in person.
>> You can't get the benefit from practicing something if you don't
>> actually practice it.
>
> No kidding. ;-)
Here's the thing, though - you seem to think that you should be an
instant expert at this and not need to practice (otherwise you'd not just
say "I suck at this" and not work to improve it).
One has to look for opportunities to present and to write, and take
advantage of them. That's how you improve - by doing, and then by
evaluating the experience.
>>> Usually the answer is "for ****'s sake, we don't /care/ about
>>> Haskell!"
>>
>> Then you've not done a proper audience analysis.
>
> Fair enough.
So then what would your next step be?
>>> I'm loving the "warning - sound engineers earn peanuts" bit. Nice to
>>> know!
>>
>> Some people do a job for reasons other than money. :-)
>
> Yes, well, I have no intention of becoming a professional sound
> engineer. I just want to know the techniques so I can use them for my
> hobby projects. ;-)
Which is why you would use something like Google (remember Google? ;-) )
to learn more about a topic.
Perhaps you've forgotten, but I used to work in IT but now I'm in
technical education. What you may not know is that I've been involved in
doing some research (at a high level) on how people acquire new skills
and knowledge. My boss and I had an interesting discussion a few months
ago - today's students (and that's not an age group, but rather defined
as "people who are looking to learn something") tend to go online and
search. If they find something that almost meets their needs, but it's
free, that tends to be what they use, unless they can quickly find
something that meets their needs better and their budget (which again is
usually free).
But it also tends to be done at the time the knowledge is needed, rather
than in advance. In technical education across the board, fewer and
fewer students are attending classes to learn things, but are interested
only in "I need to create a user - how do I do that" type tutorials. JIT-
learning is really big these days.
So, for example, my boss needed to fix a hole in his roof. He didn't
take a class on roofing, and he didn't want to pay a roofer to come out
and fix it for him (it wasn't that big of a hole, he says). So he went
online and searched for "roof repair". First hit was a paid online
course. Second hit was a Youtube video. He got most of what he needed
from the video, and got his roof fixed for the cost of a couple hours of
his own time + materials.
For more technical topics (not IT specific, but more detailed topics),
learning is an iterative process. You find a resource, read it, and then
evaluate "did I get what I needed?" - and if you didn't, then you find
the next resource.
You need to learn to do this iteration rather than giving up after round
1 so frequently. You did it with your dancing classes, so apply that to
other areas in your life. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Surprise, this is the process of writing.
>>
>> No, a successful writing process eventually involves *solving* the
>> ordering problem.
>
> Then you need practice, with people to help you. With a little practice
> and guidance, even YOU could learn how to do this. ;-)
Well, here's to hoping.
>> You're obviously way better at this than I am.
>
> I've had practice. Lots of it. And I used to completely suck at it.
OK.
>> There are plenty of problems which *actually are* NP-complete, but it
>> doesn't stop people solving them on a regular basis.
>
> Now you're getting the idea. You don't *have* to be perfect, you don't
> even really *have* to be nearly perfect. You have to get to "good
> enough" to meet the requirements.
Perhaps I'm just too much of a perfectionist then.
>> I tried drawing a mindmap for Haskell. (When I eventually found a tool
>> that can actually draw them!) What I discovered is that everything is a
>> prerequisite for everything else!>_< Looking at the dense tangle of
>> intimately related topics, it's difficult to see where to start.
>
> Then that's not actually a mindmap.
Well, OK, I don't know what the precise term is, but I drew a chart of
all the topics I wanted to talk about and which ones are interrelated.
You know what? *EVERYTHING* is interrelated! >_<
> I use View Your Mind (vym), and it
> works very well. You don't have to completely map all the
> interdependencies. You have to just categorize each item once into the
> most logical bucket you've created.
>
> So, for example, I'm working on a project to justify the integration of
> an internal system with an external system. In the mindmap I created for
> this project, I created 3 top-level "buckets" - Phase 1, Phase 2, and
> General. The project is anticipated to be a 2-phase project, so that's
> what those two buckets are for. The third bucket is a bucket for things
> I need to remember that aren't actually part of either phase - things to
> watch out for, that sort of thing.
>
> Then under General (for example), I created buckets for things like
> "Customer" and "Partner", and listed the things that would be benefits to
> each of those. Is there overlap? Sure, and some of those benefits fall
> under specific phases - but in this case, if it fell under Phase 1 or
> Phase 2, then it didn't go under General because it was already
> classified as an action to be done as part of implementation.
OK. Well maybe I'll try again with something slightly less insane...
>>>> I don't know anybody who is this patient.
>>>
>>> We're right here.
>>
>> Most people will only read something once - if you're lucky.
>
> Well, I'm offering. How many iterations of your CV did we look at here
> and provide feedback on? But even then, one review with feedback is
> nothing to sneeze at.
True enough I guess.
>> Not if you suck at research...
>
> Then you need to learn to ask for help. Nobody is born knowing how to do
> research - everyone has to learn it. It can be learned, and even those
> who are experts at it learn more each time they research a topic.
I still remember the "research training" we did at university. This
consisted of knowing where the library keep the various documents they
hold. No indication of how you figure out what documents exist or which
ones might be useful or...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/01/2011 4:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Then you need practice, with people to help you. With a little practice
> and guidance, even YOU could learn how to do this.;-)
Send only $9.99 for the Jim Henderson "How to improve your life skills"
tutorial. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Here's the thing, though - you seem to think that you should be an
> instant expert at this and not need to practice (otherwise you'd not just
> say "I suck at this" and not work to improve it).
>
> One has to look for opportunities to present and to write, and take
> advantage of them. That's how you improve - by doing, and then by
> evaluating the experience.
For the most part, it's a case of not having the time or money to
improve things. For example, I'd like to be able to sing. But I have
literally no idea how you'd go about that, and I can't afford it anyway.
You say that writing is all about getting good feedback, but I can't
think of any way to do that. And so forth.
> So then what would your next step be?
Beats me!
>> Yes, well, I have no intention of becoming a professional sound
>> engineer. I just want to know the techniques so I can use them for my
>> hobby projects. ;-)
>
> Which is why you would use something like Google (remember Google? ;-) )
> to learn more about a topic.
I guess it's a case of not bothering to even search for it under the
assumption that I won't find anything of use. Usually when I search I
find nothing useful, so over the years I've gradually given up.
> For more technical topics (not IT specific, but more detailed topics),
> learning is an iterative process. You find a resource, read it, and then
> evaluate "did I get what I needed?" - and if you didn't, then you find
> the next resource.
I spent quite a long time doing that with digital filter design.
Eventually I gave up due to the sheer intractability of finding anything
remotely useful. (Fortunately, many years later I finally stumbled upon
a very good resource by accident...)
> You need to learn to do this iteration rather than giving up after round
> 1 so frequently. You did it with your dancing classes, so apply that to
> other areas in your life. :)
Uh, I went to *one* dance school, and I'm still there. Not a great
analogy. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/01/2011 04:45 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 4:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Then you need practice, with people to help you. With a little practice
>> and guidance, even YOU could learn how to do this.;-)
>
> Send only $9.99 for the Jim Henderson "How to improve your life skills"
> tutorial. :-P
Don't even joke about that crap - there's serious money to be made here!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/01/2011 4:51 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 04:45 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 31/01/2011 4:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Then you need practice, with people to help you. With a little practice
>>> and guidance, even YOU could learn how to do this.;-)
>>
>> Send only $9.99 for the Jim Henderson "How to improve your life skills"
>> tutorial. :-P
>
> Don't even joke about that crap - there's serious money to be made here!
Not by me! :-(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Trouble is, I write the outline, start writing the body text, and then
> discover that this is actually a bad order, due to some dependency I
> hadn't thought of.
Then you stop writing and you go back and fix the outline. It means your
outline wasn't detailed enough to start with.
>>> Writing a page or two isn't too hard. (Parsec, anyone?) Writing
>>> something that's 30 pages long is another matter.
>>
>> It's the same process.
>
> Not really. I mean, if you write something that doesn't completely make
> sense until two paragraphs later, most people will accept that. If you
> write something in chapter 2 that doesn't really make sense until
> chapter 17... not good.
Memento. Inception. Any suspense movie you care to name. ;-)
I know what you mean, tho. I'm just teasing.
What you need to learn is what's called "lies to children." You give just
enough information to make chapter 2 make sense, even if that's wrong
information. Then in chapter 17, you say "remember what I told you back in
chapter 2? Well, you have to adjust it to account for this."
>>> I don't know anybody who is this patient.
>>
>> I'm happy to do it for a while, *if* you are actually interested in
>> learning and will try it the way I ask you to.
>
> OK, well we'll see...
I look forward to it. Heck, I can give you assignments, too. ;-0
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> There are plenty of problems which *actually are* NP-complete, but it
> doesn't stop people solving them on a regular basis. (Travelling
> salesman, anyone?)
Traveling Salesman Problem: n. A complex problem that has befuddled
computers for decades, but which traveling salesmen solve on a daily basis.
:-)
> I tried drawing a mindmap for Haskell. (When I eventually found a tool
> that can actually draw them!) What I discovered is that everything is a
> prerequisite for everything else! >_< Looking at the dense tangle of
> intimately related topics, it's difficult to see where to start.
Start with falsehoods.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
