Kirby Urner posted Sep 30, 2011 11:55 PM: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Robert Hansen > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Kirby wrote... > > > >> "No, our students are eager to get through on > their own, knowing the > >> projects are "open book" in the sense that the > documentation is > >> always available. Programming is not about > memorizing ungodly amounts > >> of pure trivia. That's what Google is for. Learn > the concepts, the > >> heuristics, and then be prepared to slog your way > through unfamiliar > >> APIs for the rest of your life." > > > > And many a hopeful programmer did not become a > programmer, or anything else, because of that idea. > > I would hazard that far more become unhappy in their > work > because they were counting on some API to carry them > forward to retirement, and then all of a sudden > their > language dies or is no longer in demand and they can > no longer stomach feeling like a rank beginner > again. > > The sense of seniority that comes with being some > insider > with respect to a technology, can lead to a dead > end. > Best to learn from the beginning that it's best to > keep that "beginner mind" in good shape. Always be > tackling something new you're not good at and others are > better at, for the sense of humility this will instill > (you'll be needing it later, if not now). > <SNIP> The crucial "beginner mind" (or "learner mind") that Kirby Under has usefully identified is very powerfully enabled and strengthened if the mind is encouraged to set a 'Mission' about whatever it is that is desired (to be done or learned) and if it is asked simple 'beginner questions' such as:
"What, in your opinion, are the THINGS TO DO to accomplish the Mission?" (and other questions about Barriers/Difficulties that may hinder accomplishment; Strengths that could help accomplishment of the Mission; etc, etc. - see attachment "OPMS - Major Steps", attached herewith.
Of course, as those ideas are elicited (in the simplest possible 'element' format - no long essays needed), they should necessary be 'integrated' into models showing how they may "contribute to" or "hinder" accomplishment of the Mission - see 'OPMS - in outline", also attached.
A couple of people at this forum have gotten themselves rather severely hung up at this very preliminary stage of asking questions and creating/gathering the 'elements' of answers to those questions; then in their infinite 'wisdom' judging that the OPMS is trivial rubbish of writing 'elements' and nothing more.
They have evidently failed to understand the crucial import of the relations "contributes to" and "hinders" vis-a-vis the systemic accomplishment or understanding of the things we wish to accomplish or learn.
[This is rather like judging that ALL of math is just the addition of numbers, failing to understand that there is a fair bit in math beyond the operation, useful as it is, of "2+2 = 4" - and thereby arriving at the somewhat mistaken conclusion that all of mathematics can be accomplished by working with the fingers of one hand].