What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming • Hacker News Board

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#21

Post by invisible_dust » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:22 PM UTC

paulojreis wrote: post #12

I'm going to deliberately try to be controversial, but in order to spur discussion. What the next generation needs is more soft/social sciences, not STEM. tl;dr of my point: we know dangerously more about technology than about people, their needs as individuals and their needs as a society. Somewhere along the line we should stop throwing technology at people just because we can, and start to focus on the right solut…

I honestly think the last thing anyone needs is more sociologists. I would prefer studies oriented around the humanities.

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#22

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:23 PM UTC

haphazardeous wrote: post #7

This depends on how people learn and perceive information. If I hadn't learnt programming before I was taught Maths and Calculus, I probably wouldn't have understood some of the basics like Functions, Matrixes and Series etc or it would have taken me quite a while to grasp the idea. For me Maths is boring. It's abstract and you don't have any interaction whereas programming is more fun for me. I never truly understoo…

It is a very personal thing how each one learns, of course.

On my case, the tools provided by abstract math and CS (algorithms, data structures, calculus) allow me to think outside of the box and quickly adapt to any programming language.

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#23

Post by Shorel » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:24 PM UTC

paulojreis wrote: post #12

I'm going to deliberately try to be controversial, but in order to spur discussion. What the next generation needs is more soft/social sciences, not STEM. tl;dr of my point: we know dangerously more about technology than about people, their needs as individuals and their needs as a society. Somewhere along the line we should stop throwing technology at people just because we can, and start to focus on the right solut…

We don't know about social sciences because it is a heavily politically charged subject.

The most interesting and potentially enlightening experiments are also probably illegal.

That's why it's hard.

And you ALSO need a branch of mathematics, called statistics, and probably many more. You can't simply pour lots of money into it without any hard science and expect useful results.

tl;dr: it's not about quantity, it's about quality and the political landmine of social sciences.

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#24

Post by paulojreis » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:25 PM UTC

fsiefken wrote: post #17

paulojreis wrote: post #12

I'm going to deliberately try to be controversial, but in order to spur discussion. What the next generation needs is more soft/social sciences, not STEM. tl;dr of my point: we know dangerously more about technology than about people, their needs as individuals and their needs as a society. Somewhere along the line we should stop throwing technology at people just because we can, and start to focus on the right solut…

True, but also in the social sciences you need a firm grasp of statistics, science and a keen mind. Perhaps even more so as people, culture are often more complex then designing user interfaces, self-driving cars or facial, voice and gesture recognition apps. How to filter out factors, describe patterns? Statistical methodologies (and the psychological/sociological theories they test or are based on) are crucial tool…

I think the need already exists. But companies are used to getting by (with huge profits) with engineer-driven products and decisions. The extent to which our technological products and services are engineer-oriented is mesmerizing. Steve Jobs once said something about Apple working at the intersection of technology and liberal arts. It was marketing, of course, but I can't even express how much I agree with this.

Regarding the need for a good grasp of statistics in social scientists, I fully agree. But I think it's something that already exists, up to a point at least. I work in software development with many software engineers around, but I also did a PhD with a strong social sciences background. You would be amazed with how much the guys with psychology backgrounds know about stats and methodology (and how much the common STEM guy doesn't).

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#25

Post by kazinator » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

Misleading title: the actual message:

> [I]ntelligent analysis of large scale data is the future. And for that future, what you need is Math, not Programming.

I don't agree; intelligent analysis of data probably requires the combination of a large number of cases, stitched together with some hacks. And a principal Eigenvector or two buried in there in some supporting role.

:)

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#26

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #8

What students need is the ability to self-teach. They need to be able to recognize when there is a gap in their knowledge, know how to find instruction in those topics, and have the motivation to follow through on actually learning it. If children gain those skills by the time they are adults, they can correct any faults in their educational paths.

[deleted]

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#27

Post by paulojreis » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

invisible_dust wrote: post #21

paulojreis wrote: post #12

I'm going to deliberately try to be controversial, but in order to spur discussion. What the next generation needs is more soft/social sciences, not STEM. tl;dr of my point: we know dangerously more about technology than about people, their needs as individuals and their needs as a society. Somewhere along the line we should stop throwing technology at people just because we can, and start to focus on the right solut…

I honestly think the last thing anyone needs is more sociologists. I would prefer studies oriented around the humanities.

Social sciences don't exactly mean sociology. Economy is a social science, psychology too, anthropology might be considered humanities but it's also a social science...

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#28

Post by louden » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

Not everybody needs to know how to do math beyond arithmetic (though the opportunity should be provided).

The focus should be making sure everybody can understand the math, and especially statistics, they are presented with everyday.

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#29

Post by paulojreis » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:31 PM UTC

joeclark77 wrote: post #20

paulojreis wrote: post #12

I'm going to deliberately try to be controversial, but in order to spur discussion. What the next generation needs is more soft/social sciences, not STEM. tl;dr of my point: we know dangerously more about technology than about people, their needs as individuals and their needs as a society. Somewhere along the line we should stop throwing technology at people just because we can, and start to focus on the right solut…

If by "soft/social sciences" you mean real substantive disciplines like history, philosophy, civics, and the arts, I agree with you. Currently "social studies" in school is a bit of a trash bucket into which gets thrown every personal ideology and pet project that some teacher got her feminism or social work or grievance-studies BA in. It's the worst subject in most curricula, even worse than English. The problem is…

I meant psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, communication, among others.

Those are, despite the "social studies" stigma they might carry, real substantive disciplines which should not only contribute but predominantly shape the technological products and services we build.

Re: What the Next Generation Needs Is Math, Not Programming

#30

Post by rz2k » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

jhardcastle wrote: post #5

Is it not possible that students need both? In the same way that students were offered home-ec and shop in previous generations, to learn the real-world applications of their "cerebral" subjects, are we not teaching programming today as the real world application of mathematics? Eigenvectors, great. But what can I do with them? Now, software that uses those eigenvectors to control the motions of a robot, that's somet…

While I appreciate not everyone is the same, I am not fond of the idea that young students are always more interested in practical applications than they are intellectually curious. Making things blow up, or controlling something with a few lines of code is fun and exciting, but so is discovering something that previously seemed hidden about how the universe works at a fundamental level. For a lot of students math is exciting because they feel that they are imagining how reality itself is working, and even how reality might have functioned if some seemingly arbitrary rules had been decided differently.

I don't mean to say that practical applications are not inspiring, rather that the good intentions are misguided when they imply that very young students aren't capable of abstract thought or ever motivated by purely intellectual subjects. Becoming an engaging teacher of theory may not even be attainable to as many people as who are able to encourage a student through a practical demonstration, but that is different from children not being receptive to both.