Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bother Me, I'm Thinking

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Bother Me, I'm Thinking

#41

Post by impendia »

Groxx wrote: post #39
impendia wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend this over Hartshorne: http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/ In particular note Ravi Vakil's 500+ page book-in-progress on algebraic geometry, as well as a blog -- he is constantly soliciting and incorporating advice from people who are reading the book. (Remind you of any advice you see often on HN?)

Wait, what? The TOC is hyperlinked to the headings in the document? I never knew you could do that in a textbook! Years and years and crappy PDF after crappy scanned PDF of technical books with zero linking (or only external urls!) and I find out someone actually does this ? There's no way they're a teacher. None. You cannot do this in the education system. There's a law against it, or something. Maybe they're on the…

Get tenure at Stanford and you can do as you damn well please.

Re: Bother Me, I'm Thinking

#42

Post by juiceandjuice »

Groxx wrote: post #39
impendia wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend this over Hartshorne: http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/ In particular note Ravi Vakil's 500+ page book-in-progress on algebraic geometry, as well as a blog -- he is constantly soliciting and incorporating advice from people who are reading the book. (Remind you of any advice you see often on HN?)

Wait, what? The TOC is hyperlinked to the headings in the document? I never knew you could do that in a textbook! Years and years and crappy PDF after crappy scanned PDF of technical books with zero linking (or only external urls!) and I find out someone actually does this ? There's no way they're a teacher. None. You cannot do this in the education system. There's a law against it, or something. Maybe they're on the…

I'm confused... are you being sarcastic, or have you never heard of LaTeX?

Re: Bother Me, I'm Thinking

#43

Post by Groxx »

juiceandjuice wrote: post #42
Groxx wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? The TOC is hyperlinked to the headings in the document? I never knew you could do that in a textbook! Years and years and crappy PDF after crappy scanned PDF of technical books with zero linking (or only external urls!) and I find out someone actually does this ? There's no way they're a teacher. None. You cannot do this in the education system. There's a law against it, or something. Maybe they're on the…

I'm confused... are you being sarcastic, or have you never heard of LaTeX?

Fully aware of LaTeX. Also fully aware a lot of book creators use things like LaTeX and Adobe to build their books and form their footnotes and keep their TOC / index / internal page references accurate.

I'm also painfully aware that tons of books, textbooks particularly frequently, don't use the information they built the book with to build the digital version, so it becomes a glorified scan that you can download and read, and nothing more.

Re: Bother Me, I'm Thinking

#45

Post by juiceandjuice »

Groxx wrote: post #43
juiceandjuice wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused... are you being sarcastic, or have you never heard of LaTeX?

Fully aware of LaTeX. Also fully aware a lot of book creators use things like LaTeX and Adobe to build their books and form their footnotes and keep their TOC / index / internal page references accurate. I'm also painfully aware that tons of books, textbooks particularly frequently, don't use the information they built the book with to build the digital version, so it becomes a glorified scan that you can download an…

gotcha, your post was filled with so much genuine enthusiasm that I was confused :)

Re: Bother Me, I'm Thinking

#46

Post by Loginid »

ardit33 wrote: post #11
sriram_sun wrote: post #8

Doesn't this go against the concept of flow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) ?

no it doesn't. 'Flow' works well when you already know what are you going to do, and that particular task is not too easy, but not too hard (something that doesn't require your maximum cognitive effort). The article is talking about on how to start tacking solving problems. People that are easily distracted seem to come up with more creative solutions. Which makes sense. Also, the studies cited have a selection bias.…

>>ADD/ADHD can be crippling, but for very smart people that manage it (or find way to become productive), it might be actually be beneficial to their creativity and give them and edge.

I am adult that has been recently diagnosed with ADD, and have to say that the comparative problem solving and creativity advantage has been apparent all of my life (not just to me :) ).

>>One comment that you hear from people that start taking Ritalin due to adult ADD, is that while they are a lot less distract-able and are able to perform and complete a lot more tasks, they feel less creative, and more a bit like robots.

I was afraid that this would happen to me, but thankfully that hasn't been my experience. I'm hardly a robot, and really just as prone to distraction. I am, however, better able to modulate my attention. On the drugs, I can choose what I pay attention to so that distractions are less of a problem.

Re: Bother Me, I'm Thinking

#47

Post by tgflynn »

Maybe we have something like a consciousness filter. We are only consciously aware of ideas or perceptions that are strong enough to pass the filter threshold.

It would make sense that people with a low threshold would be more easily distracted by weak environmental stimuli but they would also be more likely to be aware of their own ideas and hence would be better at generating ideas.

People with a high threshold would not be easily distracted and would have an easy time remaining focused on tasks which are "not too hard" in that the next step is strongly suggested by the current step. I think much programming is like this.

To be successful at solving hard problems we need to vary our consciousness threshold, as others have said in different words.

Re: Bother Me, I'm Thinking

#48

Post by slackenerny »

robertk wrote: post #34
impendia wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend this over Hartshorne: http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/ In particular note Ravi Vakil's 500+ page book-in-progress on algebraic geometry, as well as a blog -- he is constantly soliciting and incorporating advice from people who are reading the book. (Remind you of any advice you see often on HN?)

I just had a nerdgasm. This is gold. I can be reading one book in one place, instead of having Dummit and Foote, Atiyah and MacDonald, and the more example-laden Geometry of Schemes lying next to me. Thank you.

Also, it is prof. Vakil who hosts the MathOverflow site you surely heard of. Literature recommendations are sometimes also discussed.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/2446/best-algebraic-geomet... http://mathoverflow.net/questions/3041/the-importance-of-ega...

Re: Bother Me, I'm Thinking

#49

Post by Hast »

zeynel1 wrote: post #18

I think the title is misleading. "Distract me, i am working" reflects the idea of the article better. Distraction may not be irritating but bothering someone is always irritating and annoying and leads to stress. But creativity comes from relaxed state (daydreaming etc).

I think "If you can distract me, I'm creative." would be a better title.

Being easily distracted means you have a harder time to get stuff done. To bring it back to another commenter it also means you have a harder time to achieve and maintain Flow.

So in a typical pop-scientist way the writer of the article got the headline completely wrong. You can't make me more creative by distracting me. If I'm creative I'll have a harder time to maintain focus.

Post reply on HN