The importance of handwriting is now better understood

Yeah but he is still right when you go under surface level : learning to write is basically learning to draw specific shape that have specific meanings.

It is not surprising that peoples learn to recognise those shape faster when they actually had to learn to draw them instead of just pointing (typing) to use them.

But I don't think it makes any kind of real difference to achieving proficiency level for reading/thinking/writing the language. Recognising the glyphs is a small part of learning a language, you learn grammar, vocabulary, sentence construction, idioms, mostly by repeated exposure and chances are the vast majority of it is from reading ; it wouldn't be very efficient to learn by hand writing everything...

By vouch do you mean upvote?

I understand where you're coming from, you appear to have the ability to relate to images on your own terms, nearly completely. I do not.

I have at all times, "two sets of books" or "two maps". Unified by a singular Duty that limits what I can and can't do. My imagination is tied to imaging the next step in my 'journey'.

(something like that anyway, it has subjectivity built into it).

I cannot dump relations to random ideas, I have to understand the 'background'/'whole scene' to clear out the clutter of my imagination and keep my two frames of reference, clear.

The actual dutiful work of computer use is not that terribly difficult intellectually, it is often the kind of flower-arranging drudgery that I used to enjoy a lot in my 'youth' (lol im not that old).

I can understand one set of technologies C/C++ buut the bugs and face-slapping error chasing in programming really begins to wear quite badly.

The only way I can really program is to submit to 'someone else's ruleset' that I don't like or agree with and then endure grinding my way to how I mean it to be, based on my sense of subjective expectation and structure, hand-tied to my categorical imperative. It is possible to make elegant and powerful code like this, inside a company structure.. with uninspiring code architecture, set from the top down.

Buuuut whenever I imagine some novel technology that gets me excited, I can make shallow prototypes of the idea in existing tools and inevitably find that I need to rejig/rework the tooling to get my idea out there. And often that means editing a second set of tooling.

And every single time I have started and attempted this project, it starts off rocky-and-okay, the middle part is absolute hellish grind fighting the system and then the end is a complete drain of all my emotions and an inability to finish, leading to an internal frustation with wasted time.

Then the technology tooling all changes and I have to re-process my understanding because the semantics in the new tech stack are different to the last.

The reationships between ideas are the biggest, slowest chore that wears the most. The concepts in new languages are not terribly interesting, as most are re-arrangments of the same old music...

Every single programming language is set up in such a way that the "glue" between all the concepts, is held by an insider 'brotherhood' of experts. The documentation for plebs tells you one specific way and if you fall off the documentation's instructions, then all other ways are pain and time-wasting death. A simple map of relationships between concepts would save so many man-hours globally, it is insane (but I digress).

The devil-in-the-detail level bugs and jankiness is something only an American man with infinite pleasure - to keep his head cool and his fingers typing - could tolerate.

I'm honestly getting to the stage where I think the only reliable way to make new code, is to control the hardware from the bottom up, and do the software from the bottom up.

Every single middleware provider is another layer of shifting maps, that I have to war with, to make some new tech that works from top to bottom.

And then I'd have to release that code into an environment where my competitors can open up my assets and copy-paste out the novel bits into their own products (or minds) and jiggle the appearance of the code enough for it to look like they made it. I simply cannot do that. It is not allowed under my rules and I have the scar tissue to prove that I can't overcome my own 'programming', my own Duty.. in that regard.

Programming.. I don't think itma for me, even though my novel concepts would make a difference. The industry is just hostile for people who 'think differently' as it is colloquially said to be, but I really mean, the industry is not for people who have a subjective structure they wish to provide as a gift for organizing knowledge.

The "shape" of programming is to be that Shelf on the factory floor that everybody wars over the ever-changing maps on the Shelves. The maps fail to provide coverage of the entire, ever-changing factory itself, and are constantly updated and their meaning constantly changes.

I can not.

Yes, see, this is an example of varied humanity. I found notes didn’t help me understand, and my memory for spoken words and visualized concepts is exceptional. Reading the notes I took brought no understanding and while I could find rote concepts there I didn’t understand the material. Once I stopped taking notes and learning the way I learn best I remembered the concepts and details - to this very day decades later.

What you list is what works for you - and if objectively didn’t work for me. That’s why the outliers like me get ground under. People say “clearly by my experience your experience can’t work, you must do things my way.” (Not saying you’re meaning this so directly but that’s how it gets applied at school)

I would say it’s not a preference specifically but different humans have different facility with their innate abilities. Why would we consider learning by note taking to be an undifferentiated ability but athletic abilities are differentiated? The reality is some people learn better in different ways because our brains are differentiated in their ability. Yes I learn from note taking, but not as well as through different modes because my faculties in those modes are exceptional relative to the mean. But statistical analyses of learning say I must learn better by the statistical mode, despite the fact outlier can and do exist on all the dimensions of learning modalities.

Obviously from a policy point of view they should try to teach everyone the most common ways of learning. But we also need to be able to teach to the outliers as well and how to identify who to differentiate. My daughter is different like me, so I send her to a private school that focuses on differentiated learning - and she thrives where she would have suffered like I did in public school. “No child left behind” means “no average child left behind, the outliers are ground down to be average”

I agree on his choice, I took the time to test all pencils in several stationary stores in Japan. (albeit in 2008)