08:34 am, 11 Aug 06
obviousness
When I was in college I sometimes helped people (friends of friends, etc.) with their programming homework. I remember J was in an intro class and needed to find an element in an array. I tried to explain to him how linear search works: first you look at the first element, then then the next, and you stop the loop if you find what you're looking for. No matter how I phrased it, it seemed he didn't get it. It was like there was a floor of complexity, a minimum level of understanding and I couldn't express ideas any simpler.
(Yes, I've seen that paper that argues that programming is simply "beyond" some people. I think it's bunk: their testing methodology measures something that correlates with a bunch of other explanatory but unmentioned skills.)
Sometimes Meena will see me programming and say "I can't believe you think this way", but to me it's so natural I can't imagine thinking another way. I remember taking a logic class in college (part of the philosophy department) and wondering why other people couldn't do the proofs.
I almost feel the same way about types now, except that I can still vaguely remember before. If I look at the official Haskell tutorial on IO, I remember that it was confusing but the memory is strongly overridden by how straightforward and sensible it seems now. If I were to try to explain IO to myself I'd just say that the => operator from my previous post had type
So since I can't remember what about typing was confusing, I made a point in my previous post of not talking about types at all and instead phrasing it in runtime terms ("if this produces a value, then next ..."). This is not at all how I really think about it. It is a stretch of my imagination, which is part of why I tried to write it.
(Yes, I've seen that paper that argues that programming is simply "beyond" some people. I think it's bunk: their testing methodology measures something that correlates with a bunch of other explanatory but unmentioned skills.)
Sometimes Meena will see me programming and say "I can't believe you think this way", but to me it's so natural I can't imagine thinking another way. I remember taking a logic class in college (part of the philosophy department) and wondering why other people couldn't do the proofs.
I almost feel the same way about types now, except that I can still vaguely remember before. If I look at the official Haskell tutorial on IO, I remember that it was confusing but the memory is strongly overridden by how straightforward and sensible it seems now. If I were to try to explain IO to myself I'd just say that the => operator from my previous post had type
IO a → (a → IO b) → IO b and I'd be mostly done.So since I can't remember what about typing was confusing, I made a point in my previous post of not talking about types at all and instead phrasing it in runtime terms ("if this produces a value, then next ..."). This is not at all how I really think about it. It is a stretch of my imagination, which is part of why I tried to write it.
There ought to be a technology for empathy. Right now we just use heuristics like humbleness and politeness.
I don't know if it's such a crazy idea. Once upon a time I was hypnotized into temporarily forgetting the existence of the number 9. I counted on my fingers and got to 11.
While it's probably some sort of trick -- in some ways I must be just playing along -- the befuddlement *felt* real. Maybe that shock could be used for other purposes.
I remember trying to read this paper a month ago and being utterly confused, though. So I guess I'm through that irreversible process too now.
BTW, if you enter the ICFP again with a Haskell team, I propose it be called "The Awkward Squad".
Thanks for the link!
In the first section on the second day of class I sat next to a girl who couldn't understand conjunctions. She had spent over 3 hours the night before on the homework (that took me about 5 minutes, that was mainly typing) and she still didn't understand. I tried to explain it to her, and I think I did slightly better than the book, but she certainly didn't come away with a clear understanding.
Now I would agree that given the right background and training, anyone can learn anything to at least a fundamental level. This girl could have understood conjunctions eventually, but I think there is a level of knowledge that is just beyond certain people. I know I started to hit my limit in some of the graduate level logic courses, and I had the optimal background courses. Certainly most people will fall on a spectrum between the girl and myself, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion to think that there are some people who would be unable to understand certain subjects. They hit the wall in logic in the same way I did, but for them it happens at conditionals, or double negatives.
-Toby