
How to teach yourself hard things - clovis
https://jvns.ca/blog/2018/09/01/learning-skills-you-can-practice/
======
nisa
The problem with these guides is that if you are able to follow the advice
through you probably didn't need the guide in the first place.

Lack of stress and plenty quality time for learning and the discipline and
motivation to follow through and the ability to focus on a single topic for a
long period are the unspoken basic requirements to do this succesfully.

~~~
dorchadas
I've always found the last two harder to maintain when I've got the first two.
The opposite is true as well; when I've got the last two, the first two never
work out.

------
charlysl
If your are interested in learning hard subjects, I highly recommend Richard
Hamming's wonderful course The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning
to Learn [1], and the related book [2]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD4b-52jtos&list=PL2FF649D0C...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD4b-52jtos&list=PL2FF649D0C4407B30)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Art-Doing-Science-Engineering-
Learnin...](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Doing-Science-Engineering-
Learning/dp/9056995006)

------
randomsearch
Also: high quality sleep makes a huge difference to retention (fact) and makes
it easier to tackle new material (personal experience).

------
mooreds
This is a fundamental skill for modern jobs. If you don't want your labor to
be commoditized or be out on the other end of an API, you need to be able to
do hard, creative things.

Unfortunately what is "hard" changes every year, so you need to be a
continuous learner.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You also need to maximize your earnings, minimize your spending, and ensure
you have enough runway between jobs (6-12 months) or enough cushion to take
some time off when you're burned out. Because you will burn out. Humans are
not machinery meant to be run at 110% constantly.

~~~
rectang
Yeah, taking on this kind of challenging, continuous-learning work is fun...
but it's generally only sustainable as long as the total time you put in to
both "education" _and_ "work" doesn't exceed full-time.

Trying to negotiate that up-front, though, is hard. Most employers don't like
paying much for education and research, and they don't like people who want to
work less than full-time, either.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's tricky. If you have an intelligent employer, they will understand that as
a professional, learning is as much part of your job as fixing bugs. If your
employer is not intelligent like that, but the company isn't a sweatshop, you
probably might be able to "slow down" your ticket crunching a little bit in
order to get some _directly relevant_ learning in[0] (that, over time, will
actually improve your work results). If your job is a sweatshop, be happy that
in this industry it's still relatively easy to change jobs.

\--

[0] - not saying use your job time to learn CV-padding stuff; just if you
suddenly need to work on a codebase in a language you don't know, don't be
afraid to _read an actual book_ instead of minimal amount of StackOverflow
answers needed to kill your fist ticket.

------
atemerev
Currently trying to learn quantum physics on my own (with no previous
education in physics, only a CS degree). Very hard, but surprisingly, some
analogies from machine learning can be helpful (a ket vector is like the
sample, a bra vector is the set of coefficients, multiplying both gives you a
measurement... this kind of thing). It can be wrong, but similarities in
mathematical structures help immensely.

~~~
zatkin
If you're ever interested in digging into other areas of physics, take a look
at this blog post by Susan J Fowler which gives a comprehensive overview with
references to various topics: [https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/13/so-
you-want-to-l...](https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/13/so-you-want-to-
learn-physics)

~~~
atemerev
Thank you so much!

~~~
jacobolus
Try starting with Townsend’s book.
[https://amzn.com/1891389785/](https://amzn.com/1891389785/)

------
ssivark
I strongly recommend watching Edward Kmett’s talk — Stop treading water:
learning to learn
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8KcCU-p8QA](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8KcCU-p8QA)

------
pacuna
In my experience, learning something hard without applying it to a real
problem during several weeks or months, spending hours trying to solve weird
errors is impossible.

Keep in mind that learn something is very different to understand something.
Maybe I understand functional programming, but if I haven't worked on a real
project that uses a functional programming language, I probably suck at it.

~~~
gawkface
Exactly, the difference in retention that comes from theory vs it's
application is too wide

------
Sapph
I feel while a learning methodology may make it go faster, what matters more
is having the intrinsic motivation to actually get started and keep going
(especially when you hit roadblocks).

What works for me is having a project or goal I'm excited about. That
motivates me to learn the skills and knowledge to achieve it. Back in my
teens, I really wanted to customize a Neopets guild (remember those? ;) ) so I
started learning HTML to be able to. After, it was "I really want my own site"
so I learned PHP to customize Wordpress and so on.

When I was in school and some of the information I had to learn wasn't
directly applicable, I made a game out of testing study techniques. Such as
taking annotated screenshots out of Youtube videos (10x better than textbook
diagrams and walls of text). This game (which was really about changing my own
perception from "ugh, rote memorization" to "let's test study techniques")
helped me through the denser materials.

~~~
yesenadam
(Sorry to nitpick, but) I think you mean "learning method"? A _method_ is a
method; a _methodology_ is the reasons, rationale, explanation for why you've
used that particular method. I see this error everywhere, although it's much
longer _and_ incorrect. I guess it sounds/looks impressive, kinda scientific.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Is it really an error if everything from Google to Merriam-Webster apparently
makes it?

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/methodology)

> _a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline : a
> particular procedure or set of procedures_

I.e. methodology is a set of methods.

~~~
yesenadam
I didn't quite understand your question, but yes it's really an error. No,
that's not what _methodology_ means. Although if everyone uses it to mean the
same as _method_ , as seems increasingly the case, then that will be what it
means and be printed in dictionaries. Personally, I like short words and think
they should be preferred, besides the two concepts being entirely different.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Although if everyone uses it to mean the same as method, as seems
> increasingly the case, then that will be what it means and be printed in
> dictionaries._

As far as I've _ever_ heard or seen this word used, "methodology" is used to
mean "a set of methods". Maybe you're a bit confused by the fact that a method
can be usually destructured into sub-methods - or conversely, a "methodology"
is just a single method in the set of methods one meta-level up.

------
DrNuke
If it is science what you are looking for, on one side you need extreme
discipline to force yourself on hard, alien subjects that you will mostly not
understand at a glance. On the other side, you much probably need a mentor to
discuss things in a sequential or progressive manner, assimilate the
underlying theory with its nuances for real and test yourself against a rock
solid reference. I acted as an informal tutor for a number of fellow students
at uni and both circumstances were needed to get them results (and pass their
exams).

------
joewee
The approach I’m trying now is to start at the destination and work my way
backwards. It’s similar to how some people prep for test by starting with a
test and then focusing on the weak areas.

It feels similar to how I learn in the course of working in a professional
environment. Try to do something, get stuck and then go understand the thing
you’re stuck on. The idea is that if I start at the destination the necessity
for and application of the missing knowledge is much clearer to me. Of course
you can go back multiple levels to gain a understanding of something, I tend
to stop at the point where I have a practical understanding but I find as I
progress the areas I get stuck on tend to have some root base of knowledge
that’s further back, perhaps theoretical in nature, learning that makes
everything just “click.” (I’m currently doing this to understand deep learning
and music composition).

~~~
gawkface
Kind of test-driver development :) If u make some notes of ur foray into these
two topics (I am a noob in both, and just "interested" in both atm, and in
music theory more than composition), it might be helpful for others so if you
do plan to make a blog of your journey, pls email the link to me at
gawkface@gmail.com, thanks!

------
gerdesj
_I like learning! It’s fun!_

That's the take away here.

------
roesel
It would be useful to have a guide like this for a scientific field, since a
lot of things coders take for granted like SO etc does not exist and a lot of
knowledge in the field is hidden behind complicate democracy language or
secretive authors.

------
dakshgautam6
Can anyone please suggest how go about learning subjects like Analysis of
Algorithms which is quite a math heavy subject?

~~~
machiaweliczny
I don't think it's that math heavy.

AFAIK there are 3 kinds of analysis:

1) execution counting: loops count (n, n^2) etc., with sorting: nlogn,
recursion (c^n) - used to prove worst case. You have to be familiar with big O
notation.

2) amortised analysis - proves average case

3) proving lower bounds (usually based on tree of possibilites) - proves that
something can't be done more efficiently (this might be math heavy)

Just grab some book on algorithms - they usually start with algorithm analysis
intro.

------
madeuptempacct
I think good quality materials or teachers are key, and will always be key. I
taught myself most things I know, and I am an idiot for it (though sometimes I
had no other option).

There is no substitute for knowing CS50 exists for learning to program. There
is no substitute to "Speed Secrets" (the book) for learning to drive fast,
etc, etc.

The problem is that, as a beginner, you don't know what's good. As a beginner,
you don't know that this really will prevent any knee instability:

[http://www.moveforwardpt.com/assets/cbe46e14-86d6-4ed1-8d53-...](http://www.moveforwardpt.com/assets/cbe46e14-86d6-4ed1-8d53-83044d0e2302/635314216498400000/kneeaclexercises-
pdf) (PDF warning)

or these really are ALL great exercises:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA8GzhFh_CQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA8GzhFh_CQ)

Etc.

I wish I had someone give me these things as a kid. I would have wasted much
less time.

~~~
charlysl
For learning how to program, How To Code [1] (based on How to Design Programs
[2]) is tragically underrated given that it's hands down the best approach to
learn how to program (actually, more importantly, how to think about
programming) of the many I have looked at. Wish I had known this years ago.
Rarely the best learning resources are widely know, so sad.

I decided to give this course a go after reading the eye-opening paper The
Structure and Interpretation of the Computer Science Curriculum [3], and then
discovered the edx course in HN [4] [5].

Although having programmed for many years it totally changed the way I look at
programming; I followed this with the sadly unfinished but still excellent How
to Design Classes [6], which consistently extends this initially FP approach
to OO. To check how this approach is language neutral, have a look at Design
Recipes in C [7].

Another neglected but wonderful resource is MIT OCW Elements of Software
Construction (the 2008 version) [8], which, like the above, is centered around
design rather than coding.

What did I get out of all this? A systematic approach to programming.

[1] [https://www.edx.org/course/how-code-simple-data-ubcx-
htc1x](https://www.edx.org/course/how-code-simple-data-ubcx-htc1x)

[2] [https://htdp.org/](https://htdp.org/)

[3]
[https://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/fffk-...](https://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/fffk-
htdp-vs-sicp/paper.pdf)

[4]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9810542](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9810542)

[5]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455240](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455240)

[6]
[http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/htdc.html](http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/htdc.html)

[7] [https://hci.uni-
hannover.de/files/prog1script/script.html](https://hci.uni-
hannover.de/files/prog1script/script.html)

[8] [https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-
compu...](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-
science/6-005-elements-of-software-construction-fall-2008/)

~~~
joshcanhelp
Thank you for this. I've been programming for a while and always appreciate
another perspective on things. Starting with 3 now!

~~~
charlysl
It is great that I have helped you learn about 3, enjoy!

------
rcdwealth
Fundamentally there are few barriers to study and they were researched well by
L. Ron Hubbard, and are applied through Applied Scholastics
[http://www.appliedscholastics.org/](http://www.appliedscholastics.org/)

The technology to study is exact, and also involved clarification of any words
and symbols and meaning that one does not understand.

[http://www.appliedscholastics.org/study-
tech/a-breakthrough-...](http://www.appliedscholastics.org/study-
tech/a-breakthrough-in-learning.html)

Everybody can learn anything, there are no stupid kids or students, there are
students with misunderstoods and those may be clarified.

~~~
noonespecial
I always though that this "wisdom" from LRH was about as useful as the rest of
Scientology itself. All I have to do to learn is look up the words I don't
understand? You don't say.

Let me guess, all I have to do to walk from San Francisco to New York is take
steps. All I have to do to lose weight is eat less.

Its silly reductionism dressed up to sound profound in order to sell an
enormous fraud. File it under true but not especially useful.

~~~
jacobolus
What’s the point of “guessing” something uncharitable and then making a
dismissive hostile comment, instead of either examining the link or just
keeping quiet?

Remember, the other people posting here are humans with feelings, and they are
contributing because they want to be helpful. It’s quite unfortunate that the
previous poster was so heavily downvoted based on readers’ knee-jerk reaction
to Hubbard’s name.

The claim of the materials on the website is that 3 serious barriers to
learning are (1) studying objects or phenomena without ever interacting with
them personally, but only treating them abstractly/formally, (2) studying
skills/ideas beyond the student’s current level without first covering
prerequisite skills/ideas and building slowly, (3) misconceptions stemming
from misunderstood words. It does not suggest that fixing these 3 things is
easy, or will solve every problem in education.

Sure, this seems largely like common sense, and is by no means a revolutionary
insight (contrary to the site’s marketing message), but in practice schools
often do a terrible job at following this basic advice, and many students e.g.
_don’t_ really know how to use a dictionary. It seems this organization has
various materials and training for sale. It is at least plausible that these
are well produced and useful.

