Live data from Hacker News

How to do hard things

drmaciver.com

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: How to do hard things

#21
post #10

This is a very interesting philosophy. A few years ago, a former coworker and good friend of mine introduced me to an algorithm for solving problems. This is a slightly different purpose than doing something hard, but there are some interesting similarities. In my experience as an engineer in software and operations, this algorithm has never come in reach of failing me, and until I was introduced to it, my own system…

I'm partial to the Feynman Algorithm: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3. Write down the solution.

Ha, I like this one! Actually these algorithms may approximate one another when generalized. Pirsig explores the philosophy more deeply, though; for example, generating a hypothesis: where does it come from, and is it possible to run out of hypotheses? Pirsig argues no, you practically can’t.

Re: How to do hard things

#22
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How hard did you look for that evidence?

I looked for it before and reached the same conclusion -- it is just a made-up story.

These are the same pots they boil the frogs in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Re: How to do hard things

#23
post #10

This is a very interesting philosophy. A few years ago, a former coworker and good friend of mine introduced me to an algorithm for solving problems. This is a slightly different purpose than doing something hard, but there are some interesting similarities. In my experience as an engineer in software and operations, this algorithm has never come in reach of failing me, and until I was introduced to it, my own system…

I couldn’t agree more. That book changed the way I do my work and live my life.

Re: How to do hard things

#24

The most valuable thing I learned at university was how to tackle difficult problems. Taking advanced math and science courses where I had to really study, and still struggled, and having to write essays so frequently that I could no longer procrastinate or wait for the spark to hit me, was more valuable in the long run than any of the actual knowledge I gained. The advice to break a hard problem down into simpler pi…

A teacher who recognizes and corrects your subtle misunderstandings is ideal, but in >3 degrees, I've never had one. Though I have played that role with guitar and computer science students, so they do exist. I guess.

Breaking down problems is obvious and known advice, but very helpful, especially when you are lost in the weeds, can't see the forest for the trees, etc. Having it as "a system" helps self-management. Disagree about the importance of touch-typing.

Grammar snark (for an article about writing): "Sometimes it will be obvious what you need to improve, sometimes it won’t. When it doesn’t, ..."

when it doesn't obvious to you

Re: How to do hard things

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment reminds me of the exercise where a class was split into two cohorts, one was tasked with producing just one clay pot (I can't remember the thing now), while the other cohort was tasked with making one per day or something similar. Put simply, one group put all of its energy into producing just one, and the other group just turned out pot after pot after pot. At the end, so the story goes, the group that…

> (I can't remember the thing now) Don’t worry about the details; it was just a made-up story in the book Art & Fear ; I have never seen any evidence such a pottery class ever existed. https://kk.org/cooltools/art-fear/ > The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they p…

I think this rings true for learning. Early on in the learning process people need to focus on just doing a bunch of stuff and failing quick and then looping back to the beginning. Focusing on perfection with no foundation, in my experience is usually a surefire way to create things of lower quality

Re: How to do hard things

#26
This more or less matches my own system. Some additional notes:

* When creating great work as an expert, you will be working down the ladder of abstraction (e.g. for writing–coming up with a concise high-level vision and then progressively expanding it down to the level of characters on a page)–this is the most efficient way to make anything, since you can sanity check your work at higher levels to avoid expensive rewrites at lower levels. However, when learning, you should learn subskills in the exact inverse order (start from the lowest level–how to type keys–then work upwards). Mastering subskills in this order maximizes the feedback signal you get while learning–if you can't write a paragraph coherently, it is very difficult to determine how well you're doing at developing your authorial voice (or whatever).

* Time spent practicing a skill only makes you faster / more robust at the method you already know; it doesn't lead you to improve your methods. So spend half your time actually performing the skill, and half the time analyzing your work / comparing to known good examples / planning how to improve (and, really, half of that time should be for improving your tools for analysis and comparison...). If you fail to do this kind of meta-work, 10000 hours of practice or whatever will just get you a fast, robust system for producing garbage.

* Assuming you're following an intelligent process for learning the skill (see previous points), the most likely way in which you will fail to learn it is by getting disinterested or discouraged and giving up. It's essential that you try and structure your learning process in a way that yields intermediate feedback and some satisfaction for improvement, and pay attention to both 1) reducing the parts of the process you dislike and 2) figuring out ways to make it enjoyable (including figuring out how successful other people have managed to derive enjoyment from the activity).

Re: How to do hard things

#28
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment reminds me of the exercise where a class was split into two cohorts, one was tasked with producing just one clay pot (I can't remember the thing now), while the other cohort was tasked with making one per day or something similar. Put simply, one group put all of its energy into producing just one, and the other group just turned out pot after pot after pot. At the end, so the story goes, the group that…

I’ve heard this lil story before but honestly both strategies are really dependent on the situation. There might be situations where’d you want to continually churn out pots. In other situations, pressure is really high, and you have one shot to get it right. Both strategies depend on the context. If anything, the best approach is to figure out which strategy is needed for the given situation. I would imagine, strate…

Yea, sometimes if the stakes are high enough you may have to get it right without multiple attempts.

Depending on your time constraints, the tips given here seem to apply particularly well: find proxy problems that allows you to learn without as much hardship would be a good idea, as well as the other strategies of breaking it down, etc.

Sometimes time is not on your side though, and you have to get it right without time to practice on proxy problems (at least I believe this can occur).

Then you can use what I call it the 'Kitchen sink' approach: grab a bunch of tools, a bunch of approaches and start digesting your problem through as many viewpoints as possible. If your problem has safety implications and you can verify it, then well enough. Otherwise you make an attempt if you are sufficiently confident in your solution; and take some kind of NOP otherwise (if a guaranteed 0-return NOP even exists).

Also, if you're solving something while time constrained, you may need to reflect afterwards if you could have either prevented the time constraint or prepared better somehow.

In general though, there's hope in the sense that if something is verifiable or approximately-verifiable you can approach good solutions with time. At least I have high hopes of always finding a solution given enough time (i.e. "You're not good enough" does not exist).

That's only not applicable if your time is finite or in the same vein you need to improve a skill to apply a series of finite-time decisions. Eh who cares about finite time anyway? :P

(Yes, in reality everything is limited but there are plenty of tasks you can take your time with...)

Re: How to do hard things

#29
post #10

This is a very interesting philosophy. A few years ago, a former coworker and good friend of mine introduced me to an algorithm for solving problems. This is a slightly different purpose than doing something hard, but there are some interesting similarities. In my experience as an engineer in software and operations, this algorithm has never come in reach of failing me, and until I was introduced to it, my own system…

I'm partial to the Feynman Algorithm: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3. Write down the solution.

This works for people with Feynman's intellect, not for the rest of us.

Re: How to do hard things

#30
post #26

This more or less matches my own system. Some additional notes: * When creating great work as an expert, you will be working down the ladder of abstraction (e.g. for writing–coming up with a concise high-level vision and then progressively expanding it down to the level of characters on a page)–this is the most efficient way to make anything, since you can sanity check your work at higher levels to avoid expensive re…

“We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”
Post reply on HN