

Experts often end up where they started as beginners - aycangulez
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/01/25/coming-full-circle/

======
egypturnash
Beginning artists just draw stuff without thinking about it.

In art school, they get taught how to do what we call "construction" - how to
think of things as three-dimensional objects rendered onto a flat plane. Their
process becomes full of boxes and cylinders and perspective guides.

Grizzled pros just draw stuff without thinking. Because they've done the
construction so damn much it happens beneath the level of consciousness. I
only need to construct every now and then, for tough, rare angles. Someday I
won't have to do that any more either.

I'm not really sure I'd call it "the same place". It looks like it from the
outside, but I'd describe it as more like a full turn around a spiral
staircase.

------
impendia
I studied the martial arts (Cha Yon Ryu = "natural way") for many years. Our
instructor quoted T.S. Eliot to us:

"And the end of all our exploring - Will be to arrive where we started - And
know the place for the first time."

~~~
chubot
That's interesting, because last night I just watched the "Fog of War", the
documentary about Robert McNamara, and he makes that exact quote. Apparently
this idea applies to war as well. When I read this article I was surprised by
the coincidence.

BTW I strongly recommend that film -- it was fascinating in so many ways.

------
hmigneron
To me, this is mostly about the way we learn as beginners.

You start as a beginner by reading books, watching experts, taking a class.
Even if you start by jumping in and figuring it out, you still get the notion
of how you should do it from somewhere. Because there is too much theory to
understand at first (be it music, computing or math), you accept dogmas, or
theorems or theories and work with them.

Eventually you gain enough confidence to reconsider what you have been taught.
When you do come full circle, I think it's mostly because you understand why
something is taught the way it is, not necessarily because you were
instinctively doing it right at first.

~~~
rquantz
I think the process of becoming an expert at something has a lot to do with
building your own model for how it works -- producing your own set of
assumptions. This certainly can take the form of eventually returning to the
assumptions you were initially taught, but that middle stage of questioning
and disassembling can just as easily lead to different assumptions altogether.

------
chriseidhof
Very true for me. Computers were a tool to build programs. Then I spent time
researching programming languages and making frameworks (in summary: building
abstractions). Now I'm back to building non-abstract things again. I wonder if
it's going to repeat itself or if it'll stay this way.

~~~
rjd
I remember years ago having a senior developer say to me "don't use software
patterns they will only make things complicated, you'll regret it in the long
run." I scoffed at him, sat down with my books and learned al sorts of things.

After say 5 years I understand what he was saying to me know. Patterns are
patterns, they implement themselves when you need them. All you need to know
is how not to do it badly. You shouldn't be trying to implement patterns if
you don't need them.

I know its a high horse position, because you need to go through a phase of
using them to understand why they aren't a miracle cure. o I find the the
growth/education of a programmer some what similar to the articles notion.

For reference any younger dev out there that looks at the work senior devs and
thinks to themselves "why are they senior? there work is obviously rubbish",
you'll probably end up that senior dev one day.

In my experience most senior devs have been like you... perfectionists,
aborbsed with the latest greatest etc... and you learn over time all that
really matters is delivering on time, code management, and getting burnt by
the latest and greatest really sucks.

So you slowly stop writing over engineered code. That often means doing things
a basic way, so people in the team aren't left behind that don't understand,
understanding your code isn't that critical... whats critical is finishing on
time, that optimisation is the last thing you do because it takes to long and
you really don't know if what you are writing deserves so much attention (i.e.
if it takes off revisit the code, if a choke point starts appearing then
optimise). Basically don't waste time on problems which don't exist, don't
create stress for yourself/team/management by over engineering solutions.

Next time you wonder why a senior dev seems to be hopeless ask them why they
choose to deliver a solution like a beginner and maybe you'll learn something
invaluable ;)

~~~
pnathan
_Patterns are patterns, they implement themselves when you need them._

That has been my understanding. I consider that the only practical reason to
review design patterns is so you can communicate the style of code to another.

After a while as you program you look through the code and see the needed
meaning, shaping the code to conform to the meaning better.

~~~
rjd
Yep I know exactly what you mean. What I find kind of interesting is I would
feel nervous having myself from 5 years ago in my team today.

That guy was pretty damned sharp, worked long hours, researched implemented
push boundaries, and delivered some stuff I'm still proud of. But he had
something to prove, he put meaning into things that didn't want or need
meaning. Over engineered everything.

But a calmer/mature more strategic me says I don't need mavericks on business
automation software. I'd be watching me like a hawk, because I made mistakes,
big ones from time to time (my favourite was a system failure costing €50,000
in lost revenue... all my fault, I was literally told to clear my desk and was
marched out the door).

You need those mavericks to push boundaries, its fun to be one, but boy its
disconcerting when you have one in your team and all you need t do is deliver
is a CRUD application.

~~~
georgieporgie
_I made mistakes, big ones from time to time (my favourite was a system
failure costing €50,000 in lost revenue... all my fault, I was literally told
to clear my desk and was marched out the door)._

I wish we shared more of these tales of mistakes. It seems to me that the
current software development environment involves an attitude of shame over
mistakes or simple ignorance, to the point that it becomes a political battle
simply to get a developer to admit fault. The only place I know that discusses
mistakes would be something like the Daily WTF, where snark and condescension
are the name of the game (not that I don't enjoy reading it...).

~~~
rjd
I definitely agree. That particular incident destroyed my confidence for a
short while. If it was for a chain of events mainly already having another
position lined up it could of had significant impact on my long term
confidence.

I become a fan of agile for that reason. I found agile created "chummier"
teams. I don't think it made for better project delivery, but I did find
having a morning meeting made risks apparent and made people more confident to
raise issues before they snow balled, and people didn't blame each other the
same way. Discussion/communication is basically everything to successful
delivery in my books.

I picked up a neat pseudo meeting trick I use every day now (even in big water
fall projects). I go for coffee down the road. It takes like 15 minutes and
the benefit well outweighs the negative.

The benefits being a casual discussion abut whats going on where people say
things they probably wouldn't normally. Its best to weight till after everyone
has done there morning emails, so maybe 30-60 minutes in then the gossip gets
going. The amount of spite I have heard spewed about
clients/vendors/colleagues you wouldn't hear otherwise is astounding. Its the
casualness of the walk and cafe that lets people vent. But you have to get out
of the office, you have to get away fro the structure, and away from people
that may over hear the criticisms.

Also its not about a team meeting, people won't come and blurt out whats
really on there mind if they think its going to get recorded and itemised.
Remembering if they have read/replied to there emails before you head out.
Then thats mainly whats going to be no there mind, they will bring up the
problems because they are at forefront of there thinking. Its all about
keeping things casual.

On the other days when things are running smoothly you get to know them more
on a personal level, talk about there kids, cats, skiing, what ever. Just
casual gossip and of course its team bonding. When you get to know people a
little better it makes interacting with them easier, raises issues/problems
etc.. isn't going to be such an assault on someone. Even just the effort of
inviting someone that doesn't drink coffee goes along way.

Can't recommend it enough.

------
espeed
Luke: Obi-Wan? Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered
my father.

Obi-Wan: Your father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to
be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man
who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain
point of view.

Luke: "A certain point of view"?

Obi-Wan: Luke, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend
greatly on our own point of view.

\--

Perspective is infinite -- only the omniscient see its entirety. But we often
believe that our perspective is the way things are. The whole truth.

Humility is the key to not being limited by what we think we know. "We can't
learn to see until we realize we are blind." -- Alan Kay.

------
ByteMuse
This reminds me of one of my favorite philosophies on learning, the four
stages of competence:

Unconscious incompetence -> Conscious incompetence -> Conscious competence ->
Unconscious competence

 _<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence> _

------
Whippet
Note one of the comments to the article at the bottom quotes Kurt Vonnegut:

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds
himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who
are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
<http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/3786>

------
cypherpunks01
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there
are few.

------
seagaia
I liked the quote on music. Sheet music is good, but as any video can tell
you, you can't just _play_ it and expect it to sound good...

"Beginning musicians play by ear, to the extent that they can play at all.
Then they learn to read music. Eventually, maybe years later, they realize
that music really is about what you hear and not what you see."

~~~
eldina
I did not like that quote. For the first part: Beginners absolutely do not
play be ear unless he by playing by ear means: Make instrument produce note.
Continue by trial and error until complete string of notes resembles desired
tune. There is a difference between "doodling" on your instrument and playing
by ear. The last part: "they realize that music really is about what you hear
and not what you see" is just fluff. And sheet music can just be _played_ and
sound good, this is dependent on the skill level of who is playing it. It is
like saying code can only be well written after it has been refactored.

~~~
rquantz
Howdy, professional musician here. I both agree and disagree with you, but I
definitely disagree with the OP. "Playing by ear" is a way of learning new
music, and it is a skill. Beginners do use the trial and error method you
describe, and as you get better at it, you can rely more on your knowledge of
what an interval sounds like, getting closer to what you hear on the first
try.

Reading music is also a way of learning a piece, and for complex music (i.e.,
most classical music) it is the most effective way of learning music quickly,
even if you're the most advanced player in the world.

I would contend, however, that "they realize that music really is about what
you hear and not what you see" is not just fluff. Intermediate to advanced
players are frequently very tied to the page. They tend to think in notes and
barlines, which is a reflection of intermediate level training that usually
focuses on rendering literally what is on the page. One of the big
advancements that musicians tend to make at conservatory is to learn how to
think in audible units -- phrases and gestures -- rather than the visual units
they see on the page. So yes, expert musicians do rely on their ear in a way
that they usually do not at intermediate level. However, it also has nothing
to do with the way untrained beginners use their ear, as a way of learning
music.

EDIT: A more useful analogy for musicians would be to look at how they
approach the physical aspects of playing. In the beginning, a string player is
taught to move the bow by moving their arm back and forth. Once they get the
hang of this, they spend a decade or so dissecting the fine details of that
movement: fingers, wrist, elbow, shoulder. Making the bow change directions
becomes a complex dance of many choreographed movements. Eventually, though,
it all becomes second nature. When an expert thinks of moving their arm back
and forth, it is a shorthand for all the things they've internalized about how
to use the bow.

This is similar to the martial arts idea of learning technique and then
forgetting it. It is most emphatically not, however, coming around to realize
that your original conception of how to play was more right than what you were
doing as a journeyman.

------
glen
There is simplicity on the other side of complexity. Not sure who said that,
but that is another way I've heard this idea expressed.

~~~
stan_rogers
"First there is a mountain. Then there is no mountain. Then there is." Not
just a Donovan lyric, it is also part of Buddhist and Taoist literature going
back more than 2500 years. (I assumed, after reading the Tao Te Ching, that
the concept for the lyric had been lifted from there, but later found out it
came from Qingyuan Weixin through D.T. Suzuki.)

------
psawaya
I've also noticed this. I don't know if there's a name for this tendency, but
I've called it the "spiral staircase" of knowledge.

------
alexandros
How do three anecdotes strung together justify the 'often' in the title?

~~~
sixtofour
There's an assumption that those anecdotes would trigger memory of your own
experience, and that you'd come to a similar conclusion (or assumption) as the
author.

I think.

------
gajomi
This link seems to be littered already throughout HN comments, but this
article really reminded me of it:
<http://www.willamette.edu/~fruehr/haskell/evolution.html>

The remark on Dirac delta functions resonated with me, although I feel as if I
have actually go through several cycles of enlightenment and ignorance.
Actually, I get this feeling for most topics in analysis in general.

------
VMG
Relevant:
[http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/The_Evolution_of_a_Programmer....](http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/The_Evolution_of_a_Programmer.html)

------
olliesaunders
This seems to relate quite closely with the Hype Cycle:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle>

~~~
olliesaunders
No idea why I’m being downvoted. I’m not saying this is hype. Look at the
chart on that page.

------
sp332
Illustrated: <http://www.wastedtalent.ca/comic/simplifyd>

------
natch
Another example for your list, John: Born atheist, indoctrinated into the
church, learned more about it, reverted to atheist.

~~~
hello_moto
What a coincidence. Mine is the other way around: born in a liberal Christian
family, went away, and now I'm back with more appreciation.

------
known
In any hierarchy, an individual will rise to his or her own level of
incompetence, then remain there.
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Peter_Princip...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Peter_Principle)

~~~
chwahoo
The connection between the "Peter Principle" and this article isn't obvious to
me. Can you say what you mean?

