This should be required reading for any developer, if only to hopefully instill the belief that you will eventually reach a problem that you cannot lean on pure ability alone to solve.
Fortunately, one frequently transitions to management and/or dies before this happens because one's career is finite.
Linux and other such runaway success stories are true Black Swans and Linus's subsequent embrace of source code control IMO demonstrates you can teach new tricks to old dogs.
I don't remember that Linus was against source control -- it's just that none of the solutions at the time really fit the methodology that the Kernel was developed under. That was his main argument.
And actually, there was source control all along. Every version of the kernel was a separate tarball sitting on many ftp servers, and there was a patch / set of patches to bring it to the next version. It just wasn't a database-backed automated version control system.
Linus wasn't against version control. He thought that CVS and SVN (the leaders at the time) were just not beneficial enough for his use case. The kernel developers worked with "patches" as their unit of work and neither of these could handle them well. More fundamentally they were centralized and Linus had experience from watching the BSDs and knew that a centralized version control was actually worse than none. He both explicitly didn't want to have anymore authority or convenience than any other developer and at the same time wanted absolute authority over his own version. Neither of these were possible with CVS/SVN.
>More fundamentally they were centralized and Linus had experience from watching the BSDs and knew that a centralized version control was actually worse than none
Watching another group from the outside is not experience. But what makes you say he even had that? He's pretty consistently suggested he has no time to pay any attention to any of the BSD projects going right back to 1993.
Larry McVoy was the BitKeeper guy. This was early in terms of distributed version control, but I have no idea if it was the first or just (for a while) the most popular. Linus wrote git using several lessons he learned from using BitKeeper. It's not just a copy, though.
Already pointed out by someone else further up in the thread but Linus is still sticking to his guns 14 years later: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/10/575
The best thing I ever did to preserve and improve my brain was find things, really hard things, about which I was passionate. It's not so much about studying as it is about finding subjects and venues of learning that just kick your ass. If you don't have the experience of getting your intellectual butt kicked, and if you don't have the ability to learn from the experience, you can only grow so much.
The easy stuff shouldn't be avoided; you should just expect yourself to pick it up as necessary. If you are not getting challenged, if you don't encounter people who are way ahead of you in some subjects, then you are doing it wrong. The feedback is key. Getting stopped in your tracks, just when you thought you were running along at a good clip is invaluable.
Not that I ever achieved greatness, and I do sometimes ask myself why, even in my private life, I always pick the really hard to study (and have for decades now). I'm sure masochism is involved, but the good stuff is just hard, and you have to be willing to be someone's idiot some of the time to learn.
Ah yes, I jumped into a PhD program after the college experience. That's a great butt-kicking too, because suddenly you are responsible for justifying anything and everything you might say or write about something.
At least I learned how to live on far less than 20K a year. I mean, it was the 90's, and it was in new Jersey, but that still wasn't a fortune (and I had a bad book buying habit).
Thanks for posting this. I've taken up studying statistics and machine learning lately after having never faced any challenging quantitative classes in college (I studied a liberal art). Lately I have been struggling with linear algebra and started to wonder if perhaps I'm just intellectually mediocre and not able to accomplish my dream of working in machine learning, even though I really enjoy learning about it. You've given me something to think about.
Also, stepping back and reflecting upon what I've learned even in just the past few months has helped put things in perspective; the stuff that I'm learning now would have been completely unintelligible to me then. Suffering from the "curse of the gifted" I never really learned how to study and often get easily discouraged, but I see now that I just need to keep focused and not give up so easily.
Has Linus ever really failed? It's pretty amazing how young he was to have developed the Linux kernel, in comparison to other open source authors (like creators of Perl/Python/Ruby/etc. who were at least a decade older).
I read his biography "Just For Fun" and it says he basically spent his entire childhood messing with computers. But it doesn't seem like he really failed as an adult. People like Andy Tanenbaum kept telling him he would fail -- i.e. the kernel would reach a point where complexity prevents further change, which is actually an extremely common failure mode for software. But with hindsight they were wrong.
I am miles away from Eric or Linus, but the "curse of the gifted" is very real.
Thankfully I wasn't smart or gifted enough that I could ride it for long, but when it comes to math and problem-solving I rode it well into my high school years. I never learned to do algebra "by the book," because I didn't need to. Or maybe because I wasn't smart enough to.
The math teacher would teach "3x + 6 = 9." Basic algebraic problem-solving says you subtract the 6 from both sides, then divide by 3. So "3x = 3" then "x = 1." Easy. But I learned pretty early on that I could do it in my head. It was a little bit challenging, but then I wouldn't have to waste the time of writing it out, and I wasn't handicapped like all of those suckers who had to go through the motions no matter how simple the problem was. If the teacher wrote "x + 1 = 6" I didn't have to subtract 1 from each side, I just thought about it logically and knew the answer. Of course, the math got more complex, but I was good enough at doing it in my head that, at least for a long time, it never really mattered.
I thought it was because I just "got" math, and the other kids were on a lower level. But as the math grew in complexity, I fell behind. By the time we reached Calculus I was still doing most of it in my head, as I had never really learned to write it out on paper. And the complexity of the math outgrew my capacity to visualize. I showed up to my AP calculus test without a calculator, partially because I was forgetful and partly for fun, and it wasn't until I got my score back (a failing 2 of 5) that it finally hit me: I was actually behind. In school. I was cocky enough that this was a slap in the face.
I had to start from scratch, and I'm still not sure if I've made up for a lot of that. I ended up in more creative fields, mostly because I felt inferior to those who had learned the rules and not been cocky douchebags like I had been in the beginning.
This really sucks to write. I frequently wonder what could have been.
I got burned by this too. Problem, unfortunately, goes deeper than just not learning how to do math. You skip learning ability to structurally learn new things at a young age, because you simply "get" how things work. So by the time you hit the wall you not only not know how to do math correctly, but also have no idea how to structurally learn correct way and must do both at the same time. Here most people give up and say they are bad at math.
My daughter has gotten burnt in a similar way. She's grown up in the teach to the test era. She has been a straight A student and sadly I did not see it but what she is gifted in is memorization. You tell her 300 answers to the upcoming test and she will be able to recall them. It is now becoming apparent that she is stunted when it comes to actually reasoning and learning, PSAT kicked her butt and as a HS Junior she is struggling to maintain a B. Not sure how to fix this...
Try and find something she's interested in. I was this way all throughout high school because nothing ever interested. When I got to college and started studying CS though, I was extremely interested and always wanted to know how things worked, I still knew most of the answers without trying, but I would dig in to see why the answer worked. This saved me my Junior year when we started getting into complex concept that I couldn't just "figure out".
Having something of interest (to the person) to study will almost always lead to better study habits.
I can tell you what worked for a friends daughter: Music. They steered her (somewhere around her sophmore year) into playing piano and eventually she found the guitar.
As she described it "I needed to rewire my brain and music was the way to do that". From her perspective learning to play music helped her begin to understand how things "fit" together in her head. Her ability to memorize things was incredibly helpful (so she was initially a step-up in confidence), but as she played more she began to see how chords build on each other to form songs. She went from rote memorization to actually building a mental model of music.
In the end she became not only a fantastic musician but a MUCH better student.
This. I managed to keep this up through even the reasonably prestigious STEM school I attended for undergrad. It was only when taking reasonably challenging graduate physics courses in grad school and having to do research that I finally was forced to break myself down and learn how to learn.
Yes, it's real. In my case, overconfidence in high school led me to not devote the effort -- to not know how to devote the effort -- to securing acceptance to a prestigious college. It ended up OK -- I graduated a year early at the college I did attend -- so I'm not complaining, but I still notice effects of the "curse" impacting my behavior every day, especially when faced with intimidating work or with looking the fool.
> I showed up to my AP calculus test without a calculator
In my Calculus class we weren't even allowed to use a calculator on the test. Actually, almost all my math classes through college wouldn't let us use calculators during tests.
Yes, but if a test is designed to be taken with a calculator, not bringing one is an invitation to disaster (especially if the test is timed), because the arithmetic is probably not designed to be easy. I once forgot a calculator in my discrete math class and ended up having to do long division in the test margins.
Believe me I've been there before. My point was rather that I think the person who was giving the test was wrong to offer that students use calculators.
That calculators are used on the AP calc test isn't exactly one teacher's decision, though.
(I actually did the same thing on mine, but fortunately extra calculators were provided, possibly because of their past experiences with students pulling this kind of stunt).
Since 1995, the AP Calculus exam has been designed to require a graphing calculator.
In my opinion, that's silly, as none of the 3 semesters of college calculus I took allowed the use of a calculator, but that's the test that was mentioned.
I believe the parent was referring to the AP Calculus exam, based off of his 2 out of 5 score[1]. For non-Americans, AP exams are standardized tests administered by the College Board (company behind the SAT university entrance exams)[2]. Most universities will accept passing AP exam scores as the equivalent college credit (e.g. a score of 3/5 is usually accepted as college credit for Calculus I).
AP Exams/Courses are offered in many subject areas and each have very strict guidelines (like which calculators to allow), which are dictated to the instructor by the College Board.
No problem! At many US high schools, you'll have up to three levels of a class offered: standard, honors (advanced), and Advanced Placement (college level). Some schools may only offer one or two AP classes (depending on student interest), while others may offer dozens[1]. Any AP class must have it's curriculum certified by the College Board to be called "AP" and for the students to be eligible to take the AP Exam for the subject area. A really good way to get college credit; I tested out of an entire semester of college classes via AP exams!
As was already pointed out, the AP Calculus test has been designed assuming that you have a calculator to handle the 'easy' number crunching portions for you.
The test is designed so that you still need to have a fairly high-level understanding of calculus and how the functions work. They aren't testing your ability to crunch out 56/7, but your ability to understand that the rate of flow of a liquid out of an irregular trough changes as the fluid level drops, and that you can model each portion of the equation correctly. A calculator isn't going to help you know that you need to account for a changing volume, and that the volume is directly correlated to the outflow.
It'll help you get the right formula for the area of a circle or volume of a cylinder, but not the higher-level reasoning that is really important.
It's bad in more ways than one. Not only do you eventually hit a wall in the subjects you are naturally gifted in and find yourself without the skills to keep going, you also probably avoided the subjects your weren't naturally gifted in. So for example, maybe you can't keep going in math because you can no longer do it in your head and never learned how to do it on paper, but you also never learned to write well, so moving over to some liberal arts major isn't going to be any walk in the park either. Even if you find something else that you are really good at, you are only keeping the house of cards standing a little longer.
Although this may be just deflecting the blame, I do think that the educational system in the US by and large poorly serves gifted children. The underlying notion seems to be that gifted children are already ahead of the game and so don't deserve any special attention. Another piece of the puzzle is grading-as-certification rather than grading-as-progress report or some other scheme. Straight As can mask a lot of problems.
I've got a room mate who was put ahead a grade in middle?late-elementary school and missed the whole foundation of algebra. They did so because he got straight A's so obviously he's smart enough; he could just skip that. (They promised to give him a text book so he could learn on his own that summer, but never got around to giving it to him.)
Of course, he started struggling in school the next year. Now math is one of his worst subjects. They completely screwed him over because they were distracted by his grades.
I have never, ever, ever met someone who was well-served by skipping a grade. Myself included. Ever.
Skipping a grade means giving up a full year of education. If that proposition doesn't give you pause, you probably don't have enough respect for the value of education. Even if you you get absolutely nothing out of that year aside from the soft skills you develop by sitting in a class with other kids and listening to lectures and grinding through homework (even stupid and boring homework), it's still vastly more valuable than the fleeting ego boost you get in exchange when you sacrifice it in order to skip a grade. Parents, please, this is one marshmallow test[1] you and your kids really don't want to fail.
It's not entirely a marshmallow test and I disagree with your blanket categorization of it as such.
During elementary school, a friend and I got a hold of a Math review book meant for college-age folks who didn't really grok Math in High School. We enjoyed competing with each other in learning math, but it resulted in us going into 6th grade knowing everything we would be learning for the next three years. In Math alone. We were falling asleep in class, waking up at the end, and getting perfect-score-plus-bonus on every daily quiz.
We made the choice (not our parents, mind you) to try and skip a grade in Math alone. The school fought against us in this, and we eventually broke through, skipping two grades in math. Because our middle and high schools were next door to each other, we could walk across the street to take more advanced classes. The only downside was that I ran out of Math classes to take after my Sophomore year.
This isn't a brag. Far from it. All that this did was bring us into the level of math we were already prepared for, and which some private schools or wealthier schools already teach at that age-level, without skipping grades. I am grateful for the opportunity to not sit on my hands for two additional years, and to not be artificially disadvantaged by a system that moves too slow for the current standards of college preparation.
I have bumped up against the "Curse of the Gifted" in several places in life. I suspect I am hitting one right now in some aspects of how I produce software. But skipping two grades in lower-level Math was not one of them. In fact, it is now standard at my middle and high school, among the top students, to simply skip ahead at least one year in math. You end up with either more free time, more time for arts/personal pursuits, or more time to load up on AP sciences.
It is not a failed marshmallow test. It is a sign the curriculum is inadequate for the student's needs.
You skipped two grades in one subject with a peer so you weren't by yourself among the older children. I can certainly believe that worked out fine.
Maybe even in the more extreme case of a child skipping several grades altogether by himself, that's the best of a bad set of choices. But we shouldn't be offering only bad choices. At least in/near any decent size city, there should be a large enough population to create classes of a reasonable size of same age students at roughly the same level.
The concept of being in one grade across the board is a bit broken to begin with. The system of classes and prerequisites used in college and sometimes in high school makes so much more sense: you can be a few terms ahead in one subject without being ahead across the board. So if you test out of a class, you can skip to the next one, while remaining at the same level in subjects you aren't ahead in.
>You skipped two grades in one subject with a peer so you weren't by yourself among the older children. I can certainly believe that worked out fine.
We actually ended up separated in our advanced math, and I was bullied heavily because I had to end up eating lunch with 8th graders while only being in 6th and 7th grade. It was socially sub-optimal and it sure wasn't rainbows and unicorns. However, I was already an outcast amongst my own grade level, so being an outcast amongst older kids wasn't much of a difference.
My point is that it was not intellectually hobbling, it did not set me up to feel a Curse of the Gifted in Math, nor did it teach me bad habits as the analogy with the marshmallow test would imply.
> At least in/near any decent size city, there should be a large enough population to create classes of a reasonable size of same age students at roughly the same level.
Why? There is great educational value in being in a class which has different levels.
If you are smarter: learning to help others, working together with people that are slower than you are, learning that usually intelligence is not one-dimensional and kids that are not very good at math might be great at writing…
If you are less smart the benefits are across the board. I remember reading a study about mixing kids from different incomes in the same school as opposed to wealth segregation (you might argue that smarts and wealth are not the same, but they are often highly correlated at least when starting out) and the conclusions were that there was no drawback for the rich kids, but huuuge advantages for the poorer.
i skipped a grade too in school, and i skipped through a year university, also helping higher semester students in classes i never had.
the problem ended up being that i lost all my peers to study and eventually lost interest in the university. the result was that all my peers now have a ph.d and i struggled to get back in many years later to now write a master thesis...
I skipped from the middle of second to the middle of third grade. The negative academic consequences for me were negligible. The social consequences were not great though. That messed me up for a while.
But I was one of the oldest in my grade (so I was still sorta in the right age band), and it was the second grade (so our social structures weren't all that well-developed).
I benefitted massively both from skipping a grade, and from skipping ahead in math, science, german and french. I was obscenely bored, and wouldn’t have learned a thing (except for how to goof off more effectively) and would have distracted my fellow students to boot. You develop the soft skills of sitting in class whether or not the other kids sitting there with you are a year or two older than you. I don’t think ego enters into it at all.
I skipped both 5th and 8th, and while I obviously don't have an external perspective, it still feels like it was the right thing to do.
Fewer years of "writing/literature" could have weakened my writing skills, but I think that was primarily from my non-application due the incestuous lit-crit regurgitate-the-themes-the-teacher-says educational approach, and more of this certainly wouldn't have helped. I applied myself just fine when I was in technical classes in college and therefore had something real to write about.
Socially, I actually did better when being placed with the older kids. There was less Idiocracy-style jockeying for social position, or at least I just wasn't involved.
In science/math, most school years involved spending half of the year "reviewing" the previous year's material. My recollection of elementary arithmetic class is that you learn multiplication tables up to 6 one year, up to 10 the next, and up to 12 the next. For someone who gets it, will remember it, and just wants to move on, I'd say being held in these doldrums is more harmful than simply letting them go closer to their own pace.
The hatred for the study of literature at school comes up again and again on hacker news, and grates. At my high school (independent school in australia), literature was one of the best things about the place. The teachers were driven by a love of good narrative, and cultivated students to develop their own essay writing techniques. My final year teacher scorned the exam system, and would give us tips on how to pass the exam at the beginning of the lesson, and then move onto the stuff he cared about for the rest. There was also a long-standing emphasis on public speaking, and the place developed a great history department while I was there.
Narratives are central to human identity. Particularly for young people who haven't yet developed the ability to reason in the abstract. If you want to create people who can follow, who can lead, who oppose tyranny, who oppose corruption, who believe in the ability to change the world, and who understand why they believe what they believe - narrative is the most powerful at your disposal.
Literature may be the only important subject at school. It teaches us about the use of the language we use in our every day interaction, and pushes the study of narratives about life. You guys who got bad literature teaching really missed out. You will have compensated for it somewhat through film and independent reading.
There are all sorts of valid reasons for skipping a grade. They can even be social! After fourth grade in the Virginia suburbs of DC, my father was high on stock options from Litton and Teledyne (not quite FU money) and got a wild hair to move our family to St. Thomas, the Virgin Islands (license plate motto: "Vacation Adventure"). The pubic schools were a disaster, so I ended up in a Lutheran school, where I was the only white kid in the class. I guess I was doing too well on the tests, because I was getting beat up everyday at lunch. Suddenly I'm in sixth grade, where the class had a handful of other white children, and generally a more enlightened, or at least less violent, outlook.
I skipped a grade and I haven't had any problems whatsoever. I was the youngest kid in my classes, but luckily I was relatively big, so I was never physically bullied. I was at the top of my class throughout high school, so in retrospect it worked out great for me because I probably would have been bored being held back by a year.
I don't think you can make such a strong, categorical statement. It's wholly dependent on the student's environment and largely, if they are mentored. Let me share with you a story of one of my good friends.
He started school a year ahead by being skipping Kindergarten. He progressively began testing out of math courses, and eventually took BC Calculus when he was in 9th grade. He then decided to skip tenth grade, but since he was already so far ahead in math, he really just had to test out of three courses -- English, Chemistry, and World History. He ended up graduating valedictorian, and he finished his undergrad in two years. He's now completing his masters in physics at Cambridge. He will likely do his Phd there as well.
Interestingly, he couldn't speak as a young child. But his father was able to teach him math, which he soaked up like a sponge. Most notably, his father instilled in him the importance of what my friend calls "the grind." He was taught that he couldn't be truly successful in mathematics unless he practiced hard, and this discipline has served him well to this day.
My dad was well-served by skipping a grade. He went to university when he was 16, and eventually got a PhD. I think I would have done better if I'd skipped a grade. By the time I got to university, I'd grown so lazy I couldn't deal with courses that required actual work. A bit more challenge a bit earlier would have served me well.
My son goes to a Montessori school that has two different grades in each class, so you hear not just the stuff for your grade, but also for the next (or previous) one. I think that's a perfect environment for skipping grades, because you get to condense two years into one.
Generally speaking, you don't want to skip grades because the stuff in each grade is supposedly valuable and you should take it. So, the solution is to take two grades at a time. Unfortunately, not many institutions are prepared for this.
In my case, I just studied at regular speed at school, and at home my older brother kept me up on what he learned about the topics that interested me (math & science). During regular school classes I enjoyed the ability to re-think about the stuff I already knew, and the extra time I didn't need to devote to them was time I did spend thinking and experimenting with other subjects like philosophy, writing, or computers and videogame development (I designed, drew, encoded and compressed the maps for our first two commercial games all by hand during class - but this was back in the 8 bit days).
I think the chance to experiment and pursue my interests without pressure or obligation was incredibly valuable.
I benefitted massively from skipping kindergarten (2 weeks I got bumped into first grade) and at the same skipping ahead a grade in math.
I think it hurt me socially a bit during high school, but I closed that gap very comfortably in college as well, so I really don't see any downside and think there was massive upside to completing my schooling 1 year early, essentially giving me one additional year of freedom as an adult.
In many ways, that's like getting an extra year of "life" (and specifically at age 21). What would you put as the fair value for that? For me, it's enormous.
>you probably don't have enough respect for the value of education
I have absolutely no respect for the current educational system.
The grades kids usually skip are teaching 90% review every year, and skipping one just lets you get out of that worthless grind sooner. I've known multiple adults who skipped grades as kids, and all have said it was a good thing.
What can mess things up is throwing a kid into a group of older kids if they aren't socially prepared for it.
Stupid and boring homework is worthless. There's no point in defending it. Kids who have no assigned homework ever (in primary and secondary school [1]) can still grow up with a work ethic, a top college degree, and a great job. Heck, I know adults that were "unschooled" [2] as kids and who got exactly the jobs they wanted when they were ready.
Learning isn't something that should be restricted to school, hard or soft skills. You can develop way more soft skills interacting with others than you can being forced to sit still and not talk for hours at a time. What skill does the latter teach, exactly? I don't know why the constraints of school are celebrated when they should be condemned.
Well, now meet one! I skipped grade 2, and I think it was the right choice. I would have skipped grade 1, but my parents held me back in order to let me ease into full-length school days. I was incredibly fortunate to have good outlets for creativity available to me and a dedicated and wonderful teacher that year, who kept me engaged.
The reasons skipping that grade was good: I avoided a poor teacher, whom I would not have gotten along well with. Part of the reason for me skipping a grade was that the disparity in reading levels was actually detrimental to the class, because of the diversion of the teacher's resources. Second reason is that I have an early birthday, so I was never tooo far behind my peers in the next grade, and in fact I felt much more comfortable in that situation and made friends better.
In high school, a relatively good high
school (public, but my year MIT came
recruiting, and the year before three
guys went to Princeton and ran against
each other against some fourth SOB for
President of the freshman class), I took
four years of math. Since my brother was
in a private college, to save money I
did my freshman year at a not very good
state college. There they wouldn't let
me take calculus and, instead, forced me
into some 'college algebra' -- from my
four years in high school I already knew
99% of it. So, a girl told me when the
tests were, and I showed up only for those.
Teacher said I was "The best math student
I've ever had.". Well, maybe, but the
main reason was I'd long since learned
the material.
So, for calculus, I just got a good book
and dug in. So, yes, first I did the
chapters on analytic geometry, i.e.,
the conic sections -- hyperbolas,
parabolas, ellipses -- and then one with
calculus. For my next year, my brother
was out of the good, private college,
so I transferred in as a sophomore
and hopeful math major. So, I started
with their sophomore calculus. Did fine.
Wrote my honors paper in math and got
800 on my GRE Math knowledge test.
But, right, I 'skipped' freshman calculus,
never took it! Didn't get credit for
it, either.
In grad school, there was an advanced course
in linear algebra. I'd never had a course
in linear algebra but still told the faculty
that I didn't need that course. They said,
with a patronizing smile, "Take it anyway.".
Okay. I blew away all the other students
with by wide margins the highest scores on
homework, tests, and midterm and final exams.
Prof wrote, "Best performance in the class.
Knows this material cold.". Yup. I told
them so! Heck, I'd wanted to study optimal
control theory, not waste time with linear
algebra. How'd I do that? That is, essentially
'skip' a first, and, really, an advanced,
second course in linear algebra? Easy? I
already knew the material from independent
study of a stack of books, including some
of the best, especially Halmos, 'Finite
Dimensional Vector Spaces'. But in total
it was a big stack. How? Why? A long
list of various projects in school and in
my career in physics, signal processing,
applied math, numerical analysis, multivariate
statistics, and more along with some careful
independent study.
Lesson: Independent study can work fine.
Then can 'skip' about whatever you want,
at least in math.
Really, guys, what the heck do you think
a research prof or any researcher does?
Actually know all that stuff just from
sitting in classes in school? Heck no!
Instead they learn, from texts, papers,
seminars, etc. Actually, if need to
know something and can get a good text,
then usually can get good understanding
of just what need from that text for
less than 10% of the effort that would
be required if had to learn the text
well enough to get an A on all of it.
Net, independent study is crucial.
The amount of redundancy in our public education is such that skipping a grade doesn't really mean missing out on education...
I suppose it can have an impact on socialization, but it still seems like a good trade if you gain a year of your life. I made the trade once the normal way and twice more by starting college early. Stuff was hard, but I can't imagine boring myself to death for three extra years in a town isolated from civilization would have been better.
I skipped 6th grade and I'm still glad that I did so. I spent years before in school just being incredibly bored. Some years, I would write plays for my fellow students to perform, sometimes I would take "advanced" math, but I just felt like I wasted a lot of time.
I wanted to skip my senior year in high school as well, but my parents wouldn't let me. I have to say that I'm glad they didn't. I actually enjoyed that year a lot. One of my favorite classes was a humanities course that was rather unique. We had a team of teachers and would study the music, art, literature, and history from a period in time and gradually marched our way forward. It was great! Also, in college, the only humanities course that I took was science fiction, so if I hadn't taken that course, I would have missed out on a lot!
At least for me, skipping grades isn't about an "ego boost" it's about time. It's the same thing with AP courses--some people say that they aren't equal to college courses, but if you take them, pass, and the school accepts them, then it saves you an incredible amount of time.
It's definitely not a marshmallow test, especially if it conditions you to be bored and drift off in classroom-like settings. Especially when getting more advanced concepts earlier on pays compound interest by exposing you to the topics you're more likely to explore on your own.
(A rough hack around not being able to skip a grade (if the institution is inflexible) is to supplement the school's curriculum with textbooks from other countries. China and Russia both have textbooks with harder problem sets for the same topics, which are great prep material if you've joined, say, a math team. What makes me sad is, that's their regular material for the same age group, not some super-advanced track.)
And gods forbid, the day comes when the kid who's held back by not skipping a grade goes to college and finds that their new peers had gotten more advanced material in their other schools while they themselves whiled away their years being inadequately challenged. And they're now hopelessly behind, or at least have to paddle that much harder just to keep up. There is no purpose to holding a kid back against their will. If my parents stopped me from skipping a grade, it would only have been punishment for doing nothing wrong. And I would have fought them tooth and nail.
> I do think that the educational system in the US by and large poorly serves gifted children
I was gifted. I ran through years, absent-mindedly attending courses, handwaving tests and scoring incredible marks. The best thing that happened to me is getting into prépa[0]. They make you hit the wall on purpose. The jump from the previous years is purposely high. The only way to get through it is to snap yourself out of your gift/boredom/ego vicious circle and start to learn to discipline yourself. Only by surrendering your gift and unlearning what you know can you build a solid foundation and make your talent truly shine.
I did the same thing and would get 0 credit for assignments or tests because I didn't "show my work". It made the 15 year old me furious and I basically swore math off after that.
Me too, but it meant that I ended up learning how to fake showing-the-work after I knew what the answer was, which I think in turn taught me what they were trying to get across in the first place...
This stuff makes me laugh looking back on it. Also teachers saying stuff like, "If you do all of your homework, no matter what you will get at least a B."
Pretty much high school was an obedience test. "Monkeys, if you do exactly what I tell you, when I tell you, I will rate you all 'Above Average'."
For me it was never exactly learning-how-to-learn, but struggling with the anxiety of difficulty once I got past the level where everything was trivially easy.
It's not something I've entirely conquered either, frustration leading to shut-down still happens from time to time.
We home schooled our kids prior to high school and one of the more interesting challenges was this 'doing the steps' part. My eldest was very much like you, look at the problem, tell you the answer. Which was 99% of the time correct, and 1% of the time wrong. She was really annoyed that we focused on that 1% but eventually we got to the point where by writing down all the steps you could then see where in your thinking you had been mislead. The trick was differentiating between "doing math" versus "learning math." (and the nice thing about math at this level is that if you get all the steps right you cannot help but get the right answer). Once we got past the big fight about "always showing your work" not being a 'for all time, forever' edict but instead for a 'these problems while you are learning' edict, it became possible to do math in this ponderous way, but only when learning and only when training our minds on the steps and alerting ourselves to the places we were likely to make mistakes.
I was (and still am in many ways) this undisciplined kid. I never learned the value of a good work ethic, of effort.
One of the most important thing I want to teach my 4 months old son, is the value of effort.
I am glad you shared your experience, I will keep it as one of the many tools I am gathering so that I can be able to teach what I haven't learned to my children.
College-level calculus burned me so much, I didn't had the algebra background necessary to grok it, much of it is memorizing heuristics and "tricks", and college professors (specially in my public uni) didn't had much patience either. I even did well in other math-related classes, but calculus was a chimera. Unfortunately, I fell so much behind the curriculum that I had to drop out of college to start working full-time.
Lately I've been picking up other math-related online classes, and I finally realized that I had never had real exposure to mathematics, and that high-school curriculum is something else. So, there's that too... we are mostly scammed into thinking we've learned something during high-school, and then life happens and you actually figure out you don't know shit. Hopefully I'm a curious person, so I'm always learning something by myself, mostly to broaden my knowledge in other topics, but to not let the gears grind too.
I definitely remember the first time I could no longer slack off, take 0's on homeworks, and ace tests to get a C+/B and it was in high-school :(
I jumped to AP Calculus without taking the pre-requisite AP class everyone else had taken, and I thought I was so cool and smart. By the weeks end I no longer felt so cool and smart - I was completely lost.
Calculus sucked more for me because here in Brazil the education system doesn't include it in the high-school curriculum, so unless you're on some top private school, you only first hear about "calculus" in college. In the USA and other places there's exposure to it prior to college, which I believe is sensible.
As a side note, I can't stress enough how bad the education system is in Brazil (in the sense of lack of structure, motivation, etc.), even at college level. Almost everything I know is self-taught (including English). I sometimes hear complaints about public school in the USA, and there's a meme that americans are "dumb", but it seems miles ahead to what I had access to.
Yeah, luckily the area I grew up in happens to have one of the top rated public school districts in the nation, so most things that were offered in private school education-wise were offered in public school as well.
From my experience, there's probably much less calculus-taking going on in American high schools than you think. Of that, even less is anything resembling calculus.
In India we had pretty advanced calculus in our senior and pre senior year. This included extensive use of calculus in physics courses. Electrodynamics was totally calculus based and we used to have lots of 'word problems' involving calculus. This was pretty standard across most schools, so much so that when I went to college to do my engineering we had zero basic calculus classes and went straight to advanced calculus.
I have no clue if learning advanced calculus this early helped us or not. Or exposing the whole class to these courses was such a good idea. However now they are easing these courses a bit and moving some of the tougher parts out.
It is very rare for an incoming calculus student to know algebra. In fact, I often tell my students that the first goal of college-level calculus is to make them actually learn algebra. It's an extremely sad state of affairs for me (a mathematician).
I can vouch for your article. I believe you captured the problem with school-level math.
As an anecdote for you, since you're a mathematician: during school I had zero patience for math. I would often study just enough to get a passing grade. On the other hand, I enjoyed physics classes a lot, it involved more problem solving and holistic vision than memorization (since you can just memorize a couple formulas and derive everything else you need - e.g. the second and third equations of motion from the first). Maybe I would have enjoyed math classes more if it involved more intuition and less rote? I'm sure you'll come across kids like I've been during your voluntary lectures.
My high school curriculum was deliberately set up so that Calculus is where we really learn algebra. 9th and 10th grade were designed to teach mathematical thinking. In 11th grade you have the choice of taking 11th grade math or Calc 1 (with permission of your 10th grade math teacher), both of which would instill algebra (technically, you are aloud to take any math elective, but I think everyone takes at least one of these two). The concept is that, because algebra is being used as a tool to solve a more complicated problem, there is no choice but to actually learn it.
Having said that, we did go into it being passingly familiar with algebra, which may be more than you observe in your students. Also, I don't think it is possible to go through the 9th and 10th grade courses without developing some feel for meaningful symbol manipulation.
EDIT: I just read your article, I think our math program is like you describe it should be.
I just want to say, as someone who is now re-educating themselves in Math, I really love your Math ∩ Programming site. Thank you for this lovely resource.
-- says that in 2009, just 16% of U.S. high school students took calculus. And a common complaint by college professors is that high school calculus courses teach rote procedures without explaining calculus in any depth -- the students know how to solve calculus problems, but they don't actually understand the subject.
That's my perspective on it. I first took calculus as a junior in high school, and the majority of it boiled down to memorizing what the derivative of `x` type of function is and what the integral of `y` type of function is.
When the AP test rolled around I was really struck. The problems were about the flow rate of water descending into a tank and what happens when you put a drain here with this rate of flow, etc. Completely different from our earlier problems which could be solved by rote memorization. And from my perspective - one of a student who knew a bunch of calculus "rules" but lacked understanding of how calculus really worked - this was incredibly difficult.
I got a 3, which is passing, but opted to take beginner-level engineer's calculus when I got to college anyway. Even if you "learn" calculus in high school, it does not teach the level of mathematical maturity required to understand the higher level manipulations. This kind of thought is the foundation for any good engineer, and I have no regrets about retaking the course.
Thanks for posting the article. I wish I had known more about this when I was in high school. I have recently found myself becoming much more interested in mathematics when thinking about very simple concepts and asking why it is a certain way vs. memorizing the rule. I think my 10+ year aversion to the subject is rooted in the fact that it felt like nothing more than rote memorization in high school, and thus a dreary subject to learn anything about.
I'm with you. I made it to hardware architecture in undergrad without ever pulling out a book to study. Then I had a rude awakening and ended up on academic probation and failed a few classes while I figured out how to study. Luckily I was friends with a couple of girls who were driven (finished school with 4.0s after finishing HS with 4.0s, etc...) who basically taught me how to study. They also showed me the effort required to really learn something.
I think in the end, the slap in the face came at the right time and made me more capable later. No matter how smart a person is, there are things they do not know and have to go learn. Learning how to learn it skill, and like all skills it takes practice.
Almost exact same here, except I failed college calculus - twice. It's always been a sore point for me that people who are obviously not as 'smart' as I am somehow all managed to pass it - I couldn't even understand it. Can I lay a little blame on bad professors? perhaps. others complained about the profs too, but ... they still managed to grok enough to pass.
I only managed to satisfy degree requirements by taking 'logic' (a philosophy class) instead of calculus. I was warned off trying this route by a few people though, as it was "hard". I'd been hobby programming for... 10 years at that point - there's little about 'logic' that could possibly be 'hard' in a logic 101 class, so I passed by doing something I was naturally good at. I simply couldn't afford (financially) taking calculus another 2-3 times to keep trying to pass.
It's still a sore point even now... 20+ years later, and a source of secret (perhaps not so secret now that I post this!) shame. :(
I'd never even had to try at anything (except music, perhaps) until well in to high school, at which point I'd mostly just given up. I scored in the top 2% of the ACT test (back when it was scored differently, in the 80s), and I'm not actually 100% sure I finished all the questions - I know I didn't study for it, nor was I particularly well rested. Yeah, as someone else wrote, schools are simply not oriented towards helping 'gifted' students, assuming that they're already 'ahead' of others, and seem to be left on their own - I know I was.
Did you ever read Calculus Made Easy? If you just want to understand enough calculus to know why a thrown ball follows a parabola, that really isn't hard. The typical university course aims higher than that - it's trying to instill a way of thinking that's required to progress towards a third year course in Generalised Nonsense Theory. That way of thinking is quite unnatural, and makes the calculus course harder than it needs to be.
A long time ago, I struggled in Calculus AB. Having just done a college visit to a school where I really wanted to go and where I sat in a college calculus class for Freshmen, I knew I wanted to place high enough on the AB test to get out of taking that with the other liberals arts majors. My teacher in a gentle manner tried to discourage me from taking the test. As I was a solid B- all year. Maybe he didn't want me to lower his average. I ended up discovering the book below - a book that explained Calculus concepts using stories set in a fantasy math magic land. I studied hard, practiced hard. And I got a 4. And placed out. And showed that teacher that I could do it.
"Considering how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.
Some calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics (and they are mostly clever fools) seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.
Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can."
This story sounds almost exactly like my own...except I failed r times...got a B the 4th. The funny thing is that I probably remember more calc 15 years on than most oothers that passed because I took it 4 times :)
i just feel you only have your self to blame if you are in this situation. somewhat seems like you are still blaming the school for not getting you to do the work required of you. (I was the same way, but i caught myself and have tried to change it)
It happened to me during second semester Calculus. In first semester, the professor found out that I didn't do the assigned homework (worth no points) and said that I would "die" in next semester. Sure enough, it happened. What I learned over the years since that time is that some things just take practice or effort. The difference in Calc 2 was that the problems became non-intuitive and virtually everyone is forced to learn some identity or transformation to solve a problem (usually involving trig functions). Basically second-order formula plug and chug, but "effort" required to be able to do it right with time constraint.
I still didn't espouse the value of hard work until I've gotten out of college. I tried to cruise by like I always did, though it increasingly became untenable. What made me really understand working hard was actually through sports. There, I had no illusion of being superior, and it's established that you get better through practice. You get to see yourself getting better each time, and put yourself to the test. True iteration.
I had a similar experience. Breezed through my first calculus class. No studying, no homework (also no points), not even necessarily paying attention in class. Easy A.
Then I took Calc 2. I don't think I've ever failed so hard in my life. ... Except freaking english...
Integrals are the devil's handiwork. Derivatives are almost too easy, and then you get to Calc II and suddenly you're supposed to be able to do it inside out and backwards, with the help of all those dozens of identities you must now memorize. I went from an A+ in Calc I to a C- in Calc II.
Yup. I bombed calculus twice simply because I have a lot of trouble memorizing things like that. I ended up taking the sucker's way out: I took it online in a class where Mathematica was encouraged. I use derivatives and integrals pretty often now, but I've yet to need to do them by hand since.
I never hit a wall with mathematics. My approach was to write down what I have to and do everything else in my head.
I hit a wall within the first five minutes of programming. I know I will mistakes and I make up for that by making small, clear code commits and trying to make my code easy to read.
I'm a much better programmer than I am a physicist. I am also much happier working as a programmer than I was studying physics.
I definitely make mistakes, so one tactic I use is liberal use of code comments. I start with a comment about what the overall task is about, so that I can keep perspective, and then I will use a series of "TODO ..." comments to break things down into smaller steps.
The nice thing about this is, some of those survive revisions and can then be line comments which explain the next few lines of code:
# Frob the Foo.womble, so that Bar gets its input
# in the format it expects
Similarly, I have grown to use commit messages longer than one line, even if I expect to later rebase it together with something else.
I tend to design stuff on paper with logical boxes and arrows, then add that as a large comment at the beginning of a complex section, then implement it without any comments in the code. That way, the code is still readable but there is a reference above it. Just like you have in books on programming languages.
At Wharton, at the time, this was definitely true:
"When you were in college, did you ever meet bright kids who graduated
top of their class in high-school and then floundered freshman year
in college because they had never learned how to study? It's a common
trap. A friend of mine calls it "the curse of the gifted""
I was lucky that I had to work hard in high school. I definitely noticed a bunch of kids that were actually depressed when they were surrounded by others equally gifted and got their first "b" grade. No adversity experience.
I was lucky enough to get hit by this early. I always cruised through math with very little effort, doing any required homework in the 5 minute break before class, etc, and getting near 100%. In grade 9, I didn't fail hard or anything, but I did struggle with the final exam, and ended up with a B in the course. Fortunately that was enough of a wake-up for me, and at that point it was still early enough to correct course without a massive upheaval. I'm thankful I didn't continue to cruise until hitting a real wall in university.
I would highly recommend going back and learning maths properly.
In my case, I actually gave up on maths in year 7 because I wanted to hang out with friends more than study. I consistently failed in high school despite being pretty promising in primary school ... but that's just 'cause I "wasn't trying", right?
Well, maybe so, but maths is a skill. You can't ignore it for 4 years and then pick it up in the same way you can with English or Japanese or Sociology.
So when it came to year 11 and 12, when I actually wanted to do well at maths, I couldn't, so I borderline failed high school maths.
A foible of the (Australian) state in which I went to year 11/12 meant that, despite not using maths towards my university entrance score, I was still allowed to use it as a pre-requisite to get into a university course.
I didn't go to uni straight away because I didn't really know what I wanted to do. At age 21 and on a whim, on the last day that you could mail your applications in, I picked Mechatronic Engineering from the handbook and sent in my application. Why? Because I thought it sounded cool (I used to love Robotech :) but I had no idea that Engineering was so maths heavy (that's how ignorant I was of the field).
First year I failed everything. The only thing I did well in was programming, so I took 2 years off and got a job as a programmer. In the last 6 months before I started uni again, I went through my Calculus text book from the beginning, going over my first year uni notes and assignments at the same time. Answering all the problems in the book, etc.
As it turns out, the things that were most nobbling my ability to do calculus was lack of understanding of algebra, trigonometry, geometry ... things like logs and graphs and functions, factorisation, all that stuff. Once I'd learned that, I discovered the rest wasn't so bad.
I re-did my first year subjects in summer school that year and passed (even got some Credits which is 65+!) and then managed to get a low distinction in one of my second year courses.
You never saw a guy so happy with his 75 in Vector Calculus :) all the engineering geeks were crying in their pillows because they got a 98 instead of a 100 but I was punching some serious air.
Getting past this personal myth that I was "just bad at maths" is one of the most important things I've ever done. It really taught me that, with persistent execution and incremental improvement, you can learn and do anything (within reason: ie. I probably can't learn to levitate although I'd love to be proven wrong :)
Reiterating austennailred, despite being miles way from ESR or Linus, the "curse of the gifted" is 100% real, but I think it can actually be beneficial in the long run for a certain type of "gifted".
There is one on hand the "gifted" who runs on his own fumes with no other form of external effort. Much like @austennailred notes about his efforts in high school mathematics, this type of "gifted" often suffers from something similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect in the long run --> in other words, a sense of superiority can potentially drive you into believing you are better than you actually are.
This, I believe, can happen when people attempt to pursue things which do not particularly satisfy their innate curiosity or their genuine interests. Sure you can be great at math naturally, but your view of how good you are limited by the population size of those you compare yourself against can leave you damagingly unprepared when you realize that you actually aren't as great as you thought you were.
What makes the "curse of the gifted" the "blessing of the gifted" on the other hand, is when that moment where you realize your own fallibility seems to provide a moment of illumination rather than a sense of dejection.
For me, my first attempts at genuine college level discrete mathematics versus having used basic counting, permutations, probability, number theory principles in the past showed that computer science or at least the mathematics of computer science can be difficult. I had a similar issue in chemistry as well. The difference was even though I was always a strong math and science student, approaching college level chemistry made me just feel inferior and made me drop it. On the other hand, when faced with adversity in mathematics/CS I tended to take the difficulty as a challenge. Rather than drop it, realizing that perhaps there were others who could be better at mathematics, CS in this new environment drove me to pushing myself to a place of intense focus I had had before.
Now this is where I think passion crosses with the concept of the "curse of the gifted" to make it more of a blessing than a curse. When you love something and you know what it feels like to be best, realizing your own shortcomings can sometimes cause you to miss that feeling. Now in order to get back to a place where you "feel gifted" you have to be in love with the work to get there over "the idea of being gifted" and this I think can happen to those who are put in a position where the feeling of "being gifted" is compromised.
Anyway, just my view, first "longer" post I've written on HN but I thought austennailred had a great point and just wanted to comment.
Great piece by both Eric and Linus and crazy to think how 14 years later, we have Git.
Hear you on that, I had no discipline in high school compared to my contemporaries. Then I went to college and had my first CS classes. I couldn't handle the load, couldn't get the discipline to study between the distractions of college life and stubborn refusal to learn how to study. I ended up getting really into martial arts and that discipline transferred over. When I went back to school. Thank God for that, because I'd be in a very different place without it.
When he was about 20, Yehudi Menuhin,
one of the best concert violinists of
the 20th century, concluded that suddenly
he didn't know how to play violin.
Why? Because before his teachers, back
to his age 7 or so, had carefully walked
him through the music note by note and
bar by bar and, likely then, the artistic
expression. But, still he was darned
gifted. So, a few years later, relearning
violin, he was fine again for the rest of his
life.
Being able to do arithmetic, algebra, and other
mathematical operations in your head is fine.
E.g., during WWII, John von Neumann, one of the
best mathematicians of the 20th or any century,
sometimes went to people working on war projects
to see if he could help them out. At one stop,
a guy was unsure about how to find a solution,
so von Neumann suggested, "Let's try a local
solution via infinite series and look at a few
terms. So, von Neumann did the arithmetic in
his head [he could take two eight digit numbers
and multiply them together in his head]. When
von Neumann left, the guy was near tears. Why?
Because he had been up all night using a mechanical
desk calculator to get just some of that arithmetic
right!
I found in doing research in math (I've published
such stuff), once get into the problem well then
do most of the thinking for the actual research
just between the ears and writing very little.
Can even do some of the algebraic derivations
just between the ears. The actual research, at
least the way I do it, is heavily 'conceptual'
where writing isn't very efficient anyway.
From what you wrote, I see nothing wrong with your
abilities. If you are not handy with paper and
pencil, then it is not too much to expect you to
become handy with just some usage. So, try, and
soon you will 'get it'. It sounds like your
problem with calculus was mostly just a problem
with paper and pencil -- so, 'get it' with paper
and pencil. Unless are, say, another von Neumann,
can't expect to do significant derivations in
calculus, say, integration by parts or multiple
integrals, without writing down the expressions
step by step.
But, of course, for calculus, long ago some software
efforts for integration worked out what expressions
could be integrated in closed form and what ones
could not and wrote software to do the integrations
for all the ones that could. The results are in
at least one of the old computer algebra packages!
So, with that software, "Look, Ma, no pencil or
paper!".
About your suspected faults, don't be the least
discouraged about them! Some are just your
imagination. Some can be easily enough corrected.
Essentially all the rest can be circumvented.
In particular, it appears that you are concerned
about some skills that were supposed to take
you from a few days to at most a few months
to get good enough with way back long before
you shaved! Doing catch up on that material
now should be a few days' walk in the park.
E.g., in K-12, I didn't learn English grammar
and punctuation very well. In college
I was in math and physics where this gap was
not very important, and otherwise I just
wrote only sentences where I did understand
the grammar and punctuation. Now I've long
had a 12th grade English grammar book right
at hand and look up details when I'm in
doubt; long ago I got nearly everything I
missed in K-12.
Back to working without writing, in plane geometry
I refused to do the homework the way the teacher
wanted, write out in full detail proofs of just
three problems. Instead I worked all the non-trivial
problems and then also the more challenging ones
in the back of the book, often writing nothing,
sometimes writing in the margin of the book,
sometimes on scraps of paper, and only for a few
of the most difficult problems in the book, actually
writing out a complete proof. Worked fine! When
the teacher wanted to see my homework, I showed
her nothing, and she was torqued. When I came in
second in the class on the state test, she was
'confuse...
It's also an example of why it's poor practice to teach the gifted along side of lower performing students -- they realize they can get by easily without working hard and it becomes a habit.
Ideally, the gifted should have their own programs where they are forced to compete with other exceptional students the entire time they're in school, rather than follow a program meant to pander to the lowest common denominator students in society.
Also, I'm with you bro, fell into the same trap. It sucks.
ugh, the way you did it, I thought that was the way most people did it. Usually you see the answer and only "show working". Though the mechanical approach can facilitate more complex problems.
I think we're the same person. Up until grade 12, I could show up late, stoned, or not at all, skip all the homework, and end up at the top of the class due to tests. I was on-track/ pre-accepted into engineering until calculus came, and my natural "getting" math completely tapered off. When the problems became abstract enough that I couldn't understand what they were asking for (or more importantly, why) I dropped out of my first course.
Switched to a more creative field, and circled back towards engineering-type jobs 10 years later. Happy (enough) with where I am now, but can't help but think things would have been better if laziness, hubris and structure of the school system didn't keep me from learning how to learn earlier.
> "x + 1 = 6" I didn't have to subtract 1 from each side, I just thought about it logically and knew the answer.
I don't see the difference. In my mind, thinking about it logically is recognizing that one side has an excess and removing it from the other side. That's subtracting.
To you is it like looking at 5 * 4 and knowing it's 20 rather than thinking about 2 * 5 is 10 and two of those is 20?
I was the kind of rule-following kid who went through the algebra steps because you were supposed to rather than out of necessity. (Or so I like to think: I'm not good at math in my head because I always wrote it out or maybe I relied on paper since I couldn't do it in my head.) I recall rebelling against memorizing multiplication tables in grade ~4 because I thought my time was better spent leaning new stuff (or maybe understanding how to multiply faster -- wouldn't that be ironic!).
It's always interesting to hear how someone else's brain works. Thank you.
More the latter, though the former holds true too. I'd rather people say things to my face before going behind my back. Organizations where there is more private than public communications tend to be very disfunctional.
fair enough. I suppose your view is a form of radical honesty. In my observations, it takes a particularly mature person to take public shaming in stride, and I tend not to credit most people with that level of maturity.
There are degrees in how harsh and public you should shame.
If as a manager, I allow people to frequently complain about their peers with the other people absent, it sets up a terrible precedent. As manager I would become the bottleneck as people focus their energy on politics rather than problem solving.
ESR is a dick. I really don't know why others don't see it here. He's always been a bit of a long-winded blowhard, even when he's right.
People worked without source control because CVS was not real version control. It was a bad joke, and Linus was right. Without integrity guarantees, a source control system is just a pain in the ass you'd rather not have to deal with. Tarballs, patches, and email worked fine back when the community was small and tight-knit.
No, I just read it and like many other things ESR said it is well thought out, friendly and helpful.
Please note how ESR again and again ranks Linus (the second coming of Ken) higher than himself (old fart) while still trying to convey som hard won experience.
ESR is being extremely condescending and patronizing. I don't consider that friendly or helpful. He's giving tons of hand-wavy pop psychology in response to a technical issue on which he's out of his depth. His "experience" was not with anything the size and complexity of the Linux kernel and was not particularly relevant. He does like to set himself up as the wise old mentor to people who don't really want or need to listen.
Nothing's quite as destructive as being told over and over that you're a natural at something so it'll be easy for you. It's a shame that well-meaning parents and mentors will sometimes undermine someone's potential by discouraging them from learning necessary skills.
Except assuming that if you did a bad job at something, it's because you were lazy.
The message I got growing up was that "you're so smart, but so lazy". This was principally because of my terrible fine motor coordination combined with my intellect.
So I'd try to do some sort of "posterboard" or "project" and it'd look like a slapped together mess no matter how hard I tried. My handwriting was often illegible to me, even when I tried to write very slow.
ADHD was also an issue, but the fact that every project I poured so much effort into was derided as lazy... yet I could ace every test... told me that effort wasn't, well, worth putting in.
No, actually. But I suffered nearly as badly as most. I think it almost took legal intervention to stop them trying to force cursive on me.
Being allowed to type assignments - in the early 90s - was one of the greatest things that ever happened to me.
Then again, I met other problems caused by my terrible organizational skills in creative ways. For instance, I ran a webserver that had had a folder that pointed to where I did all my assignments. When I inevitably forgot to print something... there it was.
Still. My experience, especially prior to high school (and prior to ADHD medication, now that I think about it) was completely dominated by working my ass off and being told that I wasn't trying at all.
Gifted kids often do not learn to study and do not learn patience or discipline because it just never comes up for them. They get enough right in school without those things that it is not part of their background. Then, one day, after they are adults, they need good study habits or patience or something like that and don't have it and it bites them in the ass.
(There are ways around that but most parents and teachers don't know how to help a gifted kid with those areas.)
I don't know if I'm "gifted" or not (how does one even determine such things outside of test scores and such?), but I suppose I'll try to rephrase. I don't know how much help I can be, and in-fact austenallred's post may be more illuminating.
What it seems to come down to is that some people are just naturally better at some things than others (for whatever reason). People have often told me that I have a pretty good memory (I disagree, but that's what they say), mostly due to the fact that I've been able to, on occasion, drudge up meaningless trivia with little exposure to it. I don't know why or how I can do it, I just can.
Though I'm sometimes "pretty good" at remembering things, problems would likely arise if I were to, say, try to skate through a course or six on organic chemistry based on this "ability" alone. Because past expectations have led me to believe that I don't need to work hard to commit things to memory, it may be a nasty shock if I one day find out that I'm wrong. If that happens and I haven't made good use of time that others have spent studying, I'm suddenly behind.
I hope that makes sense.
Off-topic because I'm curious: what makes you think that you're dumb?
I took geometry in my first year of high school and struck a deal with the teacher that if I got an A on every test I wouldn't need to turn in any homework. I never took notes.
I entered college passing several AP tests and jumped right in to advanced math and physics courses.
I started getting cocky and would skip a week of classes at a time.
Eventually I met a course that I couldn't think my way out of, thermodynamics. There was something about it I couldn't wrap my head around. I failed the midterm and decided not to show up for the final. Electricity and magnetism was no picnic either. I got a D in that one.
I had hit rock bottom. I eventually had to leave this college and start over with a fresh outlook to do the work and try to enjoy it.
I still never took notes in class but I did all the coursework. Eventually I earned a BS in computer science.
Imagine you were always good at throwing a javelin. You could throw it further and faster than anybody else in your school. You would watch as other students painfully go through the motions of getting their form down: positioning the javelin at just the right angle, doing that weird prancing motion as they run, and gripping it just so. All the while your natural strength and ability bested their most valiant efforts. However, over the course of months and years of training, their form improved. Their technique got better. And soon, they were constantly besting your every throw.
This is the point at which your natural talent is exhausted and now you too need to learn the technique in order to make any advances. The problem is that your fellow athletes have already put in their 10,000 hours mastering the technique and building their muscle memory to achieve the best possible throw. And you rapidly fall behind, unable to keep up with their slow but relentless progress.
This is actually a poor analogy for knowledge work, but a similar principle applies. Many people get by being able to easily soak in the knowledge and intuit the correct solutions without having to put in much effort at all. Even if they fully understand the theory and practice of how to mechanically arrive at a solution, the habit of not having to invest significant energy in determining a solution stays with them. The problems get harder, beyond what their capacity to intuit affords them. Gaps in their knowledge become magnified and soon their understanding of a subject is shown to be a shallow house of cards. At this point, they could choose to accept that they need to completely change strategies, fill in the gaps, and no longer rely on their intuitition. However, habits die hard and many struggle in vain to wrap their heads around the problems instead of working through them systematically. Unwilling or not realizing that they need to change, they lose motivation and burn out.
Lots of good explanations in this thread, but I'll add my own:
I'd call it the trap of the gifted, rather than the curse. That trap has three prongs:
1) Gifted people get concepts right away, almost effortlessly.
2) Because it's so easy for them, they never have to work at learning. It just happens for them.
3) Being so good at something earns praise from their teachers, parents, friends, etc. This often becomes central to their self-esteem.
This is fine until the day when their giftedness alone simply doesn't cut it. It could be in high school, or college, or graduate school or maybe even at some point in their professional career. But eventually it stops being easy and this is usually a very traumatic event.
Because of the three prongs of the trap, the gifted person finds themselves in a very hard situation. First, they are not used to frustration because previously they got everything right away. Second, they have no persistence because they've never had to work hard. Third, they become anxious and afraid and possibly even become depressed because they are no longer "smart" (at least by their own definition).
Being gifted isn't a curse or a trap in and of itself, but it can lead to a certain kinds of bad habits. Schools and parents tend not to do a very good job correcting these bad habits, which can lead to big problems.
Suppose you play baseball. You have a teammate who is less talented than you are. You are the best hitters on the team. He works hard; you don't. You both play Little League, then High School, then when you encounter American Legion pitchers, he can adapt and you can't - because he'ds developed a structure in which to learn to improve. You have now encountered a massive opportunity cost from not properly evaluating how to use your time.
I would never want to work with a person like that. If one of my coworkers wrote an email that abrasive and outright mean, I would request to be transferred to a different project.
Holy shit. I would never work with someone who addressed me like that after I asked an honest question. It's a wonder that there are enough competent people working on Linux who are willing to put up with this. Getting a message like this once would lead to a personal e-mail or in-person conversation explaining that this is in no way an acceptable way to communicate with me, followed by a prompt beeline for the exit if it occurred again.
I knew that stuff like this goes on in mailing lists; I've grown up in the computer culture. But seeing this as an adult, after learning some people skills and how interpersonal communication works, it's really shocking what to see kind of destructive tone prevails in some prominent tech circles.
But it wasn't "an honest question"; that's the point. It would have been an honest question for you or me, but you and me are not Linux kernel hackers. (At least, I'm not, and I assume you're not.)
Getting a message like this once would lead to a personal e-mail or in-person conversation explaining that this is in no way an acceptable way to communicate with me, followed by a prompt beeline for the exit if it occurred again.
And I expect Linus would be absolutely fine with that, because if you were unable to understand why he was so emphatic about the point he was making, he wouldn't want you hacking on the kernel anyway.
The key thing to recognize is that Linus treats the kernel as what you might call "mission critical" software. Think of it as like, say, the operating code for the Space Shuttle. If someone came along and changed the operating code for the Space Shuttle so that, say, the program that fired the retro-rockets stopped working, and when asked about it, their response was, "well, that looks like a bug in the retro-rocket program", you would not want that person doing that job. And since the retro-rocket code is mission critical, just saying, "no, that's not a good idea" might not get the point across emphatically enough. You might have to use strong language to make sure it is 100 percent understood that breaking the retro-rocket code is unacceptable. In a situation like that, you do not want to leave any room for misinterpretation.
Also, if you look at Linus' posts, you'll notice that he does not always use that strong language. He only uses it when, in his view, it's warranted--meaning, when someone has done something that is so wrong that just saying "that's wrong" won't get the point across strongly enough. That's why we have strong language: for those (hopefully very rare) occasions when no less strong language will do justice to the situation. There are certainly plenty of people in our culture who abuse such language; but looking at Linus' posts as a whole, I'm not sure he's one of them.
It's perfectly possible to get an important point across without being an asshole, and it's really an indication of the social dysfunction that some hackers are unable to. Maybe that's what working with code and little in-person human contact for decades does to you.
I've seen the same tone from crypto hackers, also under the guise of writing "mission critical" software. It's not an excuse. You don't see airline pilots or doctors yelling at each other for making the occaional honest mistake, which happens in every field and can with the correct routines be caught before it causes any damage.
You don't see airline pilots or doctors yelling at each other for making the occaional honest mistake
You're right, you don't. But my point was that you also don't see Linus yelling at other kernel hackers for making honest mistakes. The mistake he yelled at someone for in the case under discussion was not honest; it was a mistake nobody qualified to hack on the kernel should have made in the first place.
>You don't see airline pilots or doctors yelling at each other for making the occaional honest mistake
Whoa, whoa whoa. I don't know about pilots but speaking as someone whose significant other is in medicine, those people are FIERCE. Yelling, crying, and having massive holier-than-thou outbursts is so common that I'm surprised anyone puts up with it.
Why is that not a right way of communicating? He's right. Could Linus deliver the same message beating around the bush? The message is clear and to the point.
I honestly don't see an alternative, even though I would never communicate in such a way.
You can talk sternly without telling someone to go and fuck themselves, in as many words.
"It's unacceptable to break userspace. I've fixed the issue personally on this occasion. Look after your area or I'll be forced to find somebody else who can." would suffice
It's interesting to speculate that the actual intention is to reduce communication. Elsewhere on the thread Linus quoted with approval:
Alan put it well at some point: the way to create working open source software is to minimize the amount of communication needed.
As in, the intention is not to communicate, but to maintain a kernel. If occasional derision of the "shared code reduces bugs" meme is required, Linus will provide it.
It would be an honor to work with someone as articulate as Linus (Eric too). I'm constantly surprised they were (and are) able to do so much with email as opposed to the typical lets have a meeting approach.
The world _needs_ more people like them- not just because of what they've built, but because of their approach to it and that sheer brutish honesty of opinions.
The benefit of recognizing this isn't just avoiding that crunch at the limits of your talents - it's learning to the use the tools, processes and people which will allow your talents to flow most efficiently every day.
The classic example of this for me has been engineers who resist documentation, project management and delegation as if each is wasting away their valuable productive time when it's exactly the opposite.
Anyone explain what "splitting a driver" in kernel parlance and code sharing is? Modularization is just breaking large pieces of the program up into small pieces right? Is code sharing just the same thing or are they talking about something different?
I believe in this case that the driver existed as one piece or module and each hardware version was handled as a different case in branch logic in an attempt to keep the code consolidated and modular (code sharing). As the hardware matured and new versions came to be it gets harder to reuse existing code and that's the context of this thread.
Linus wants to split the driver and create a new module to house that handles only that specific flavor of hardware instead of adding new edge-cases to the existing code.
At least, that's how I read it. I wasn't working on the Kernel back in 2000 so I can't say.
That said, the "curse of the gifted" manifests itself in a lot of ways. One problem is also that "less gifted" see the "gifted" and say, "If they don't have to be disciplined, why do I?"
Linus wisely declined to respond to this extremely condescending comment by someone who was out of their depth and didn't clearly understand the issue at hand.
Another problem: Many gifted people are unreliable in very important ways which seriously undermine the value of what they have to offer. (I have personally spent most of my life wrestling with this, compounded by health issues and other issues. I am 48 and only just now getting to a place where I think I can get past that issue.)
I had the "curse of the gifted" throughout high school and am suffering the consequences now (although I'm trying to turn things around). That said, I also had a friend who was an absolute monster. He operated on an entirely higher level of thinking than mine. Slept through class and just had to skim the textbook once to 'get it'. He would finish tests in half the provided time and get perfect marks. I ended up sitting next to him through Chemistry and Physics; we would goof off in class, and then go home and play games much longer than we should have. Then, a test would roll along, and he would get his usual 100 while I would do much, much worse. The way in which he just 'got' things was the source of a lot of malevolence and envy back then, although I've learned from it now.
Someone else mentioned that ESR got no reply, and the thread continued on another path. So, Linus did not reply, it seems. But, he did begin using revision control soon after; though I think that's likely to have happened, anyway.
In the world of music instrument performance, it is well-known that one's skill is the product of their talent and practice. And since talent is more or less given, practice can be applied to overtake someone else's ability. Up until some limit of practicality :) And there are zillions of examples of practice, or "woodshedding" leading players to overtake those with inherited skill who don't practice.
Really, it's all about momentum. Not practicing = no effort = no moving momentum = no growth = no movement. (
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
Calvin Coolidge
30th president of US (1872 - 1933)
I've read a lot of quotes like this, but I used to wonder, "Is this just people downplaying all the other things that led to their success, like family money?" It's interesting that modern psychology is providing some proof as to why these quotes are true.
I think, in context, Linus was probably right. There are some situations where having 2 very different project/modules depend on common code could be hell. Just remember the multiple WebKit debacles or the BSDs. It might be better to keep an eye on each other, pick the specific updates, but have total independency. Else, you end up in commit wars and endless arguing on mailing lists.
They split off a common codebase, but they share a lot of code and patches fly across the multiple codebases without major problem. What takes the most effort is porting across big new features. But that is expected.
I'm reminded of the author of BDS C compiler. He didn't know how other compilers worked using multiple passes, so he wrote one that ran in a single pass. The result was smaller (important in the 80's) and faster than other compilers.
Because while I exactly agree (and while that's always cool with Paul B!), I think ESR factored into git indirectly in a way. Provided part of the impetus to want to rewrite things.
Think about it: maybe the most important thing in that email is that ESR lightly compared Linus to Ken Thompson and maybe that kept him thinking along the lines of rewrite everything. All the dialogue factors in, I think ultimately..
Note that noone replied to Eric and the thread continued on. Also go back and read some of Linus's posts before this. Eric writes using vague generalizations about age and experience; Linus writes with specifics about his experience with the kernel. The former style makes for popularly read posts but the latter seems much more effective.
Yes, I came here looking for that. The lack of any specifics about the kernel issue at hand and the general attempt to project Age and Wisdom made me immediately suspicious.
i had to scroll down this far to find people who actually read the link. everybody above just wants to tell us how much of a curse their high intelligence is.
I wonder if they want to use their experience with the "curse" as proof of their intelligence? I'm sure anyone here could find some example of it. But I can think of way better things to do than talk about being smart on HN.
I would recommend you try reading hn on a mobile device. Apps allow to tap a comment to hide the whole thread, which make it really easier to cycle top level comments (this one is actually the third)
Although noone replied directly Matthias Andree wrote:
"(I have read Eric's folloup to Linus' mail I'm replying to, but not following that one up in AOL style. I second Eric mentioning the "curse of the gifted" from own experience. You start something without design, it succeeds for your talent, experience, whatever, it evolves and grows and eventually disembogues into a rewrite from scratch, that time with a design before the implementation.)"
My guess is that most of them thought Erics Mail too off topic to continue in that direction on the kernel list. I'd like to know what they thought of Erics arguments though. Exspecially Linus opinion at the time would have been interesting ...
This is what Alan Kay means when he says, "IQ is a lead weight." [1]
Also see Rich Hicky's talk "Simple Made Easy." [2] In which he suggests that nobody's that smart; you will always hit a brick wall without the tools to manage complexity. "A juggler can juggle 3 balls. A really good juggler can juggle 9. But no juggler can juggle 90 or 900 (paraphrased)."
I was an undergrad with Cary, and he got A's, I got B's with the odd C and this is exactly why. Until I took the Discrete Math course ( w/ the Eggers book - which is fantastic ) , I was floundering. I knew what the rules were, roughly, but I didn't KNOW know them.
I'm not name-dropping Cary. It's just a coincidence, but I googled him and found the essay. I bring up the "we were undergrads" thing because it's a nearly perfect natural experiment.
Use one of the Algebra sections in junior high or high school to teach rigor. There are no moves in a solution unless you name the principle by which the move was made.
I know it seems impossible to implement, but there can't be a better time than 8th or 9th grade to do this. You get exposure to rigor for the kids that aren't pointed at STEM, the kids that are will actually be prepared - win-win. If we have to hire ringers as math teachers - people outside the education industrial complex - so be it. Whatever it takes.
That seems like a positively annoying and pointless thing (see the line where they eventually just start referencing them by number; it's become just another 'thing to do').
Not the value of teaching math through axioms and deriving everything you do from them! That's very useful and proper preparation for higher math.
But just because I can express everything in propositional logic with just NAND, I don't do that. Just as I would prove the mean-value theorem once and then simply invoke it when appropriate, I define conjunction, disjunction, negation etc. once and move on with the world. This is the lecture you are trying to teach, after all: you can deconstruct the universe into very simple blocks.
Just to reinforce things: we are talking about kids very early in their math career. And math is drill; Khan academy, all that. It's an investment.
You can do drill in 8th grade, or you can do it in your freshman year of college.
The point is:
1) I thought it annoying and pointless in the 8th grade. Oh clever me, I knew so much better.
2) People who sucked it up and did it, with whom I shared classes, blew my doors off in college math courses for a couple of years. A teacher made this the central fact of the algebra class they took.
3) Then I took the discrete math course, and stopped having trouble.
There is something to this. Rigor is not natural. Learning rigor is essential to being able to operate your life well.
What's the Eggers book? It doesn't seem to be referenced in the linked blog post, and I can't seem to find anything with a Google or Amazon search on "Discrete Mathematics Eggers".
370 comments
[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 423 ms ] threadLinux and other such runaway success stories are true Black Swans and Linus's subsequent embrace of source code control IMO demonstrates you can teach new tricks to old dogs.
And actually, there was source control all along. Every version of the kernel was a separate tarball sitting on many ftp servers, and there was a patch / set of patches to bring it to the next version. It just wasn't a database-backed automated version control system.
What I got out of the thread was that Linus had a solid & rational argument justified by actual technical reasons, which was ignored by Eric.
I did not see where Linus was leaning on pure ability.
Watching another group from the outside is not experience. But what makes you say he even had that? He's pretty consistently suggested he has no time to pay any attention to any of the BSD projects going right back to 1993.
*edit: Didn't look hard enough, according to this: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Getting-Started-A-Short-History-o... it was just files and patches from 1991-2002. Seems crazy from a modern perspective...
Not that it isn't relevant, but it is 14 years old and the title should probably reflect that.
Which Linus invented and coded up essentially to solve some of the problems brought up here
Which (git) today arguably has done more for programming groups than all the new languages and frameworks of the past fourteen years combined.
So, it is interesting. But mostly interesting because of how massive Git spawned from it.
"He who has never failed somewhere, that man cannot be great. Failure is the test of greatness."
-Herman Melville
The best thing I ever did to preserve and improve my brain was find things, really hard things, about which I was passionate. It's not so much about studying as it is about finding subjects and venues of learning that just kick your ass. If you don't have the experience of getting your intellectual butt kicked, and if you don't have the ability to learn from the experience, you can only grow so much.
The easy stuff shouldn't be avoided; you should just expect yourself to pick it up as necessary. If you are not getting challenged, if you don't encounter people who are way ahead of you in some subjects, then you are doing it wrong. The feedback is key. Getting stopped in your tracks, just when you thought you were running along at a good clip is invaluable.
Not that I ever achieved greatness, and I do sometimes ask myself why, even in my private life, I always pick the really hard to study (and have for decades now). I'm sure masochism is involved, but the good stuff is just hard, and you have to be willing to be someone's idiot some of the time to learn.
At least I learned how to live on far less than 20K a year. I mean, it was the 90's, and it was in new Jersey, but that still wasn't a fortune (and I had a bad book buying habit).
Also, stepping back and reflecting upon what I've learned even in just the past few months has helped put things in perspective; the stuff that I'm learning now would have been completely unintelligible to me then. Suffering from the "curse of the gifted" I never really learned how to study and often get easily discouraged, but I see now that I just need to keep focused and not give up so easily.
I read his biography "Just For Fun" and it says he basically spent his entire childhood messing with computers. But it doesn't seem like he really failed as an adult. People like Andy Tanenbaum kept telling him he would fail -- i.e. the kernel would reach a point where complexity prevents further change, which is actually an extremely common failure mode for software. But with hindsight they were wrong.
But if you are going to mention that ESR is involved, you may as well mention that Linus is present as well.
Thankfully I wasn't smart or gifted enough that I could ride it for long, but when it comes to math and problem-solving I rode it well into my high school years. I never learned to do algebra "by the book," because I didn't need to. Or maybe because I wasn't smart enough to.
The math teacher would teach "3x + 6 = 9." Basic algebraic problem-solving says you subtract the 6 from both sides, then divide by 3. So "3x = 3" then "x = 1." Easy. But I learned pretty early on that I could do it in my head. It was a little bit challenging, but then I wouldn't have to waste the time of writing it out, and I wasn't handicapped like all of those suckers who had to go through the motions no matter how simple the problem was. If the teacher wrote "x + 1 = 6" I didn't have to subtract 1 from each side, I just thought about it logically and knew the answer. Of course, the math got more complex, but I was good enough at doing it in my head that, at least for a long time, it never really mattered.
I thought it was because I just "got" math, and the other kids were on a lower level. But as the math grew in complexity, I fell behind. By the time we reached Calculus I was still doing most of it in my head, as I had never really learned to write it out on paper. And the complexity of the math outgrew my capacity to visualize. I showed up to my AP calculus test without a calculator, partially because I was forgetful and partly for fun, and it wasn't until I got my score back (a failing 2 of 5) that it finally hit me: I was actually behind. In school. I was cocky enough that this was a slap in the face.
I had to start from scratch, and I'm still not sure if I've made up for a lot of that. I ended up in more creative fields, mostly because I felt inferior to those who had learned the rules and not been cocky douchebags like I had been in the beginning.
This really sucks to write. I frequently wonder what could have been.
As she described it "I needed to rewire my brain and music was the way to do that". From her perspective learning to play music helped her begin to understand how things "fit" together in her head. Her ability to memorize things was incredibly helpful (so she was initially a step-up in confidence), but as she played more she began to see how chords build on each other to form songs. She went from rote memorization to actually building a mental model of music.
In the end she became not only a fantastic musician but a MUCH better student.
In my Calculus class we weren't even allowed to use a calculator on the test. Actually, almost all my math classes through college wouldn't let us use calculators during tests.
(I actually did the same thing on mine, but fortunately extra calculators were provided, possibly because of their past experiences with students pulling this kind of stunt).
In my opinion, that's silly, as none of the 3 semesters of college calculus I took allowed the use of a calculator, but that's the test that was mentioned.
AP Exams/Courses are offered in many subject areas and each have very strict guidelines (like which calculators to allow), which are dictated to the instructor by the College Board.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Calculus#Exam [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Board
[1] https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse
The test is designed so that you still need to have a fairly high-level understanding of calculus and how the functions work. They aren't testing your ability to crunch out 56/7, but your ability to understand that the rate of flow of a liquid out of an irregular trough changes as the fluid level drops, and that you can model each portion of the equation correctly. A calculator isn't going to help you know that you need to account for a changing volume, and that the volume is directly correlated to the outflow.
It'll help you get the right formula for the area of a circle or volume of a cylinder, but not the higher-level reasoning that is really important.
Although this may be just deflecting the blame, I do think that the educational system in the US by and large poorly serves gifted children. The underlying notion seems to be that gifted children are already ahead of the game and so don't deserve any special attention. Another piece of the puzzle is grading-as-certification rather than grading-as-progress report or some other scheme. Straight As can mask a lot of problems.
I've got a room mate who was put ahead a grade in middle?late-elementary school and missed the whole foundation of algebra. They did so because he got straight A's so obviously he's smart enough; he could just skip that. (They promised to give him a text book so he could learn on his own that summer, but never got around to giving it to him.)
Of course, he started struggling in school the next year. Now math is one of his worst subjects. They completely screwed him over because they were distracted by his grades.
Skipping a grade means giving up a full year of education. If that proposition doesn't give you pause, you probably don't have enough respect for the value of education. Even if you you get absolutely nothing out of that year aside from the soft skills you develop by sitting in a class with other kids and listening to lectures and grinding through homework (even stupid and boring homework), it's still vastly more valuable than the fleeting ego boost you get in exchange when you sacrifice it in order to skip a grade. Parents, please, this is one marshmallow test[1] you and your kids really don't want to fail.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
During elementary school, a friend and I got a hold of a Math review book meant for college-age folks who didn't really grok Math in High School. We enjoyed competing with each other in learning math, but it resulted in us going into 6th grade knowing everything we would be learning for the next three years. In Math alone. We were falling asleep in class, waking up at the end, and getting perfect-score-plus-bonus on every daily quiz.
We made the choice (not our parents, mind you) to try and skip a grade in Math alone. The school fought against us in this, and we eventually broke through, skipping two grades in math. Because our middle and high schools were next door to each other, we could walk across the street to take more advanced classes. The only downside was that I ran out of Math classes to take after my Sophomore year.
This isn't a brag. Far from it. All that this did was bring us into the level of math we were already prepared for, and which some private schools or wealthier schools already teach at that age-level, without skipping grades. I am grateful for the opportunity to not sit on my hands for two additional years, and to not be artificially disadvantaged by a system that moves too slow for the current standards of college preparation.
I have bumped up against the "Curse of the Gifted" in several places in life. I suspect I am hitting one right now in some aspects of how I produce software. But skipping two grades in lower-level Math was not one of them. In fact, it is now standard at my middle and high school, among the top students, to simply skip ahead at least one year in math. You end up with either more free time, more time for arts/personal pursuits, or more time to load up on AP sciences.
It is not a failed marshmallow test. It is a sign the curriculum is inadequate for the student's needs.
Maybe even in the more extreme case of a child skipping several grades altogether by himself, that's the best of a bad set of choices. But we shouldn't be offering only bad choices. At least in/near any decent size city, there should be a large enough population to create classes of a reasonable size of same age students at roughly the same level.
We actually ended up separated in our advanced math, and I was bullied heavily because I had to end up eating lunch with 8th graders while only being in 6th and 7th grade. It was socially sub-optimal and it sure wasn't rainbows and unicorns. However, I was already an outcast amongst my own grade level, so being an outcast amongst older kids wasn't much of a difference.
My point is that it was not intellectually hobbling, it did not set me up to feel a Curse of the Gifted in Math, nor did it teach me bad habits as the analogy with the marshmallow test would imply.
Why? There is great educational value in being in a class which has different levels.
If you are smarter: learning to help others, working together with people that are slower than you are, learning that usually intelligence is not one-dimensional and kids that are not very good at math might be great at writing…
If you are less smart the benefits are across the board. I remember reading a study about mixing kids from different incomes in the same school as opposed to wealth segregation (you might argue that smarts and wealth are not the same, but they are often highly correlated at least when starting out) and the conclusions were that there was no drawback for the rich kids, but huuuge advantages for the poorer.
the problem ended up being that i lost all my peers to study and eventually lost interest in the university. the result was that all my peers now have a ph.d and i struggled to get back in many years later to now write a master thesis...
But I was one of the oldest in my grade (so I was still sorta in the right age band), and it was the second grade (so our social structures weren't all that well-developed).
Fewer years of "writing/literature" could have weakened my writing skills, but I think that was primarily from my non-application due the incestuous lit-crit regurgitate-the-themes-the-teacher-says educational approach, and more of this certainly wouldn't have helped. I applied myself just fine when I was in technical classes in college and therefore had something real to write about.
Socially, I actually did better when being placed with the older kids. There was less Idiocracy-style jockeying for social position, or at least I just wasn't involved.
In science/math, most school years involved spending half of the year "reviewing" the previous year's material. My recollection of elementary arithmetic class is that you learn multiplication tables up to 6 one year, up to 10 the next, and up to 12 the next. For someone who gets it, will remember it, and just wants to move on, I'd say being held in these doldrums is more harmful than simply letting them go closer to their own pace.
Narratives are central to human identity. Particularly for young people who haven't yet developed the ability to reason in the abstract. If you want to create people who can follow, who can lead, who oppose tyranny, who oppose corruption, who believe in the ability to change the world, and who understand why they believe what they believe - narrative is the most powerful at your disposal.
Literature may be the only important subject at school. It teaches us about the use of the language we use in our every day interaction, and pushes the study of narratives about life. You guys who got bad literature teaching really missed out. You will have compensated for it somewhat through film and independent reading.
He started school a year ahead by being skipping Kindergarten. He progressively began testing out of math courses, and eventually took BC Calculus when he was in 9th grade. He then decided to skip tenth grade, but since he was already so far ahead in math, he really just had to test out of three courses -- English, Chemistry, and World History. He ended up graduating valedictorian, and he finished his undergrad in two years. He's now completing his masters in physics at Cambridge. He will likely do his Phd there as well.
Interestingly, he couldn't speak as a young child. But his father was able to teach him math, which he soaked up like a sponge. Most notably, his father instilled in him the importance of what my friend calls "the grind." He was taught that he couldn't be truly successful in mathematics unless he practiced hard, and this discipline has served him well to this day.
My son goes to a Montessori school that has two different grades in each class, so you hear not just the stuff for your grade, but also for the next (or previous) one. I think that's a perfect environment for skipping grades, because you get to condense two years into one.
I value education, just not schooling, despite the attempts to equate the two.
>Parents, please, this is one marshmallow test you and your kids really don't want to fail.
Except that pushing yourself harder and earlier is analogous to waiting for the two marshmallows, not eating the one.
In my case, I just studied at regular speed at school, and at home my older brother kept me up on what he learned about the topics that interested me (math & science). During regular school classes I enjoyed the ability to re-think about the stuff I already knew, and the extra time I didn't need to devote to them was time I did spend thinking and experimenting with other subjects like philosophy, writing, or computers and videogame development (I designed, drew, encoded and compressed the maps for our first two commercial games all by hand during class - but this was back in the 8 bit days).
I think the chance to experiment and pursue my interests without pressure or obligation was incredibly valuable.
I think it hurt me socially a bit during high school, but I closed that gap very comfortably in college as well, so I really don't see any downside and think there was massive upside to completing my schooling 1 year early, essentially giving me one additional year of freedom as an adult.
In many ways, that's like getting an extra year of "life" (and specifically at age 21). What would you put as the fair value for that? For me, it's enormous.
I have absolutely no respect for the current educational system.
The grades kids usually skip are teaching 90% review every year, and skipping one just lets you get out of that worthless grind sooner. I've known multiple adults who skipped grades as kids, and all have said it was a good thing.
What can mess things up is throwing a kid into a group of older kids if they aren't socially prepared for it.
Stupid and boring homework is worthless. There's no point in defending it. Kids who have no assigned homework ever (in primary and secondary school [1]) can still grow up with a work ethic, a top college degree, and a great job. Heck, I know adults that were "unschooled" [2] as kids and who got exactly the jobs they wanted when they were ready.
Learning isn't something that should be restricted to school, hard or soft skills. You can develop way more soft skills interacting with others than you can being forced to sit still and not talk for hours at a time. What skill does the latter teach, exactly? I don't know why the constraints of school are celebrated when they should be condemned.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling
Can't agree more. -- someone who's happily skipped two grades at school (not in the US, mind you) and sometimes wishes he had skipped all twelve.
Education doesn't stop with schooling.
The reasons skipping that grade was good: I avoided a poor teacher, whom I would not have gotten along well with. Part of the reason for me skipping a grade was that the disparity in reading levels was actually detrimental to the class, because of the diversion of the teacher's resources. Second reason is that I have an early birthday, so I was never tooo far behind my peers in the next grade, and in fact I felt much more comfortable in that situation and made friends better.
Just for an alternate perspective!
So, for calculus, I just got a good book and dug in. So, yes, first I did the chapters on analytic geometry, i.e., the conic sections -- hyperbolas, parabolas, ellipses -- and then one with calculus. For my next year, my brother was out of the good, private college, so I transferred in as a sophomore and hopeful math major. So, I started with their sophomore calculus. Did fine. Wrote my honors paper in math and got 800 on my GRE Math knowledge test.
But, right, I 'skipped' freshman calculus, never took it! Didn't get credit for it, either.
In grad school, there was an advanced course in linear algebra. I'd never had a course in linear algebra but still told the faculty that I didn't need that course. They said, with a patronizing smile, "Take it anyway.".
Okay. I blew away all the other students with by wide margins the highest scores on homework, tests, and midterm and final exams. Prof wrote, "Best performance in the class. Knows this material cold.". Yup. I told them so! Heck, I'd wanted to study optimal control theory, not waste time with linear algebra. How'd I do that? That is, essentially 'skip' a first, and, really, an advanced, second course in linear algebra? Easy? I already knew the material from independent study of a stack of books, including some of the best, especially Halmos, 'Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces'. But in total it was a big stack. How? Why? A long list of various projects in school and in my career in physics, signal processing, applied math, numerical analysis, multivariate statistics, and more along with some careful independent study.
Lesson: Independent study can work fine. Then can 'skip' about whatever you want, at least in math.
Really, guys, what the heck do you think a research prof or any researcher does? Actually know all that stuff just from sitting in classes in school? Heck no! Instead they learn, from texts, papers, seminars, etc. Actually, if need to know something and can get a good text, then usually can get good understanding of just what need from that text for less than 10% of the effort that would be required if had to learn the text well enough to get an A on all of it. Net, independent study is crucial.
I suppose it can have an impact on socialization, but it still seems like a good trade if you gain a year of your life. I made the trade once the normal way and twice more by starting college early. Stuff was hard, but I can't imagine boring myself to death for three extra years in a town isolated from civilization would have been better.
I wanted to skip my senior year in high school as well, but my parents wouldn't let me. I have to say that I'm glad they didn't. I actually enjoyed that year a lot. One of my favorite classes was a humanities course that was rather unique. We had a team of teachers and would study the music, art, literature, and history from a period in time and gradually marched our way forward. It was great! Also, in college, the only humanities course that I took was science fiction, so if I hadn't taken that course, I would have missed out on a lot!
At least for me, skipping grades isn't about an "ego boost" it's about time. It's the same thing with AP courses--some people say that they aren't equal to college courses, but if you take them, pass, and the school accepts them, then it saves you an incredible amount of time.
(A rough hack around not being able to skip a grade (if the institution is inflexible) is to supplement the school's curriculum with textbooks from other countries. China and Russia both have textbooks with harder problem sets for the same topics, which are great prep material if you've joined, say, a math team. What makes me sad is, that's their regular material for the same age group, not some super-advanced track.)
And gods forbid, the day comes when the kid who's held back by not skipping a grade goes to college and finds that their new peers had gotten more advanced material in their other schools while they themselves whiled away their years being inadequately challenged. And they're now hopelessly behind, or at least have to paddle that much harder just to keep up. There is no purpose to holding a kid back against their will. If my parents stopped me from skipping a grade, it would only have been punishment for doing nothing wrong. And I would have fought them tooth and nail.
I was gifted. I ran through years, absent-mindedly attending courses, handwaving tests and scoring incredible marks. The best thing that happened to me is getting into prépa[0]. They make you hit the wall on purpose. The jump from the previous years is purposely high. The only way to get through it is to snap yourself out of your gift/boredom/ego vicious circle and start to learn to discipline yourself. Only by surrendering your gift and unlearning what you know can you build a solid foundation and make your talent truly shine.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_pr%C3%A9paratoire_aux_gr...
Pretty much high school was an obedience test. "Monkeys, if you do exactly what I tell you, when I tell you, I will rate you all 'Above Average'."
It's not something I've entirely conquered either, frustration leading to shut-down still happens from time to time.
One of the most important thing I want to teach my 4 months old son, is the value of effort.
I am glad you shared your experience, I will keep it as one of the many tools I am gathering so that I can be able to teach what I haven't learned to my children.
College-level calculus burned me so much, I didn't had the algebra background necessary to grok it, much of it is memorizing heuristics and "tricks", and college professors (specially in my public uni) didn't had much patience either. I even did well in other math-related classes, but calculus was a chimera. Unfortunately, I fell so much behind the curriculum that I had to drop out of college to start working full-time.
Lately I've been picking up other math-related online classes, and I finally realized that I had never had real exposure to mathematics, and that high-school curriculum is something else. So, there's that too... we are mostly scammed into thinking we've learned something during high-school, and then life happens and you actually figure out you don't know shit. Hopefully I'm a curious person, so I'm always learning something by myself, mostly to broaden my knowledge in other topics, but to not let the gears grind too.
I jumped to AP Calculus without taking the pre-requisite AP class everyone else had taken, and I thought I was so cool and smart. By the weeks end I no longer felt so cool and smart - I was completely lost.
As a side note, I can't stress enough how bad the education system is in Brazil (in the sense of lack of structure, motivation, etc.), even at college level. Almost everything I know is self-taught (including English). I sometimes hear complaints about public school in the USA, and there's a meme that americans are "dumb", but it seems miles ahead to what I had access to.
- Introduction to mathematical thinking [1]
- Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [2]
- Machine Learning (actually a CS course, but involves linear algebra and some calculus) [3]
- Calculus: Single Variable [4]
[1] https://www.coursera.org/course/maththink
[2] https://www.coursera.org/course/mathphil
[3] https://www.coursera.org/course/ml
[4] https://www.coursera.org/course/calcsing
Relevant (an article I wrote): http://j2kun.svbtle.com/you-never-did-math-in-high-school
As an anecdote for you, since you're a mathematician: during school I had zero patience for math. I would often study just enough to get a passing grade. On the other hand, I enjoyed physics classes a lot, it involved more problem solving and holistic vision than memorization (since you can just memorize a couple formulas and derive everything else you need - e.g. the second and third equations of motion from the first). Maybe I would have enjoyed math classes more if it involved more intuition and less rote? I'm sure you'll come across kids like I've been during your voluntary lectures.
PS: I'll be following your blog.
EDIT: I just read your article, I think our math program is like you describe it should be.
I agree there is some baseline level of rote manipulation people can't get away with, but it's gone too far.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=97
-- says that in 2009, just 16% of U.S. high school students took calculus. And a common complaint by college professors is that high school calculus courses teach rote procedures without explaining calculus in any depth -- the students know how to solve calculus problems, but they don't actually understand the subject.
When the AP test rolled around I was really struck. The problems were about the flow rate of water descending into a tank and what happens when you put a drain here with this rate of flow, etc. Completely different from our earlier problems which could be solved by rote memorization. And from my perspective - one of a student who knew a bunch of calculus "rules" but lacked understanding of how calculus really worked - this was incredibly difficult.
I got a 3, which is passing, but opted to take beginner-level engineer's calculus when I got to college anyway. Even if you "learn" calculus in high school, it does not teach the level of mathematical maturity required to understand the higher level manipulations. This kind of thought is the foundation for any good engineer, and I have no regrets about retaking the course.
I think in the end, the slap in the face came at the right time and made me more capable later. No matter how smart a person is, there are things they do not know and have to go learn. Learning how to learn it skill, and like all skills it takes practice.
I only managed to satisfy degree requirements by taking 'logic' (a philosophy class) instead of calculus. I was warned off trying this route by a few people though, as it was "hard". I'd been hobby programming for... 10 years at that point - there's little about 'logic' that could possibly be 'hard' in a logic 101 class, so I passed by doing something I was naturally good at. I simply couldn't afford (financially) taking calculus another 2-3 times to keep trying to pass.
It's still a sore point even now... 20+ years later, and a source of secret (perhaps not so secret now that I post this!) shame. :(
I'd never even had to try at anything (except music, perhaps) until well in to high school, at which point I'd mostly just given up. I scored in the top 2% of the ACT test (back when it was scored differently, in the 80s), and I'm not actually 100% sure I finished all the questions - I know I didn't study for it, nor was I particularly well rested. Yeah, as someone else wrote, schools are simply not oriented towards helping 'gifted' students, assuming that they're already 'ahead' of others, and seem to be left on their own - I know I was.
http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Easy-Way-Douglas-Downing/prod...
The prologue is great:
"Considering how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.
Some calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics (and they are mostly clever fools) seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.
Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can."
I still didn't espouse the value of hard work until I've gotten out of college. I tried to cruise by like I always did, though it increasingly became untenable. What made me really understand working hard was actually through sports. There, I had no illusion of being superior, and it's established that you get better through practice. You get to see yourself getting better each time, and put yourself to the test. True iteration.
Then I took Calc 2. I don't think I've ever failed so hard in my life. ... Except freaking english...
I hit a wall within the first five minutes of programming. I know I will mistakes and I make up for that by making small, clear code commits and trying to make my code easy to read.
I'm a much better programmer than I am a physicist. I am also much happier working as a programmer than I was studying physics.
The nice thing about this is, some of those survive revisions and can then be line comments which explain the next few lines of code:
Similarly, I have grown to use commit messages longer than one line, even if I expect to later rebase it together with something else.ESR "grandpa" was at the Wharton Computer Center when I was there. [1]
http://www.catb.org/~esr/resume.html
At Wharton, at the time, this was definitely true:
"When you were in college, did you ever meet bright kids who graduated top of their class in high-school and then floundered freshman year in college because they had never learned how to study? It's a common trap. A friend of mine calls it "the curse of the gifted""
I was lucky that I had to work hard in high school. I definitely noticed a bunch of kids that were actually depressed when they were surrounded by others equally gifted and got their first "b" grade. No adversity experience.
[1] APL was big back then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_%28programming_language%29
In my case, I actually gave up on maths in year 7 because I wanted to hang out with friends more than study. I consistently failed in high school despite being pretty promising in primary school ... but that's just 'cause I "wasn't trying", right?
Well, maybe so, but maths is a skill. You can't ignore it for 4 years and then pick it up in the same way you can with English or Japanese or Sociology.
So when it came to year 11 and 12, when I actually wanted to do well at maths, I couldn't, so I borderline failed high school maths.
A foible of the (Australian) state in which I went to year 11/12 meant that, despite not using maths towards my university entrance score, I was still allowed to use it as a pre-requisite to get into a university course.
I didn't go to uni straight away because I didn't really know what I wanted to do. At age 21 and on a whim, on the last day that you could mail your applications in, I picked Mechatronic Engineering from the handbook and sent in my application. Why? Because I thought it sounded cool (I used to love Robotech :) but I had no idea that Engineering was so maths heavy (that's how ignorant I was of the field).
First year I failed everything. The only thing I did well in was programming, so I took 2 years off and got a job as a programmer. In the last 6 months before I started uni again, I went through my Calculus text book from the beginning, going over my first year uni notes and assignments at the same time. Answering all the problems in the book, etc.
As it turns out, the things that were most nobbling my ability to do calculus was lack of understanding of algebra, trigonometry, geometry ... things like logs and graphs and functions, factorisation, all that stuff. Once I'd learned that, I discovered the rest wasn't so bad.
I re-did my first year subjects in summer school that year and passed (even got some Credits which is 65+!) and then managed to get a low distinction in one of my second year courses.
You never saw a guy so happy with his 75 in Vector Calculus :) all the engineering geeks were crying in their pillows because they got a 98 instead of a 100 but I was punching some serious air.
Getting past this personal myth that I was "just bad at maths" is one of the most important things I've ever done. It really taught me that, with persistent execution and incremental improvement, you can learn and do anything (within reason: ie. I probably can't learn to levitate although I'd love to be proven wrong :)
There is one on hand the "gifted" who runs on his own fumes with no other form of external effort. Much like @austennailred notes about his efforts in high school mathematics, this type of "gifted" often suffers from something similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect in the long run --> in other words, a sense of superiority can potentially drive you into believing you are better than you actually are.
This, I believe, can happen when people attempt to pursue things which do not particularly satisfy their innate curiosity or their genuine interests. Sure you can be great at math naturally, but your view of how good you are limited by the population size of those you compare yourself against can leave you damagingly unprepared when you realize that you actually aren't as great as you thought you were.
What makes the "curse of the gifted" the "blessing of the gifted" on the other hand, is when that moment where you realize your own fallibility seems to provide a moment of illumination rather than a sense of dejection.
For me, my first attempts at genuine college level discrete mathematics versus having used basic counting, permutations, probability, number theory principles in the past showed that computer science or at least the mathematics of computer science can be difficult. I had a similar issue in chemistry as well. The difference was even though I was always a strong math and science student, approaching college level chemistry made me just feel inferior and made me drop it. On the other hand, when faced with adversity in mathematics/CS I tended to take the difficulty as a challenge. Rather than drop it, realizing that perhaps there were others who could be better at mathematics, CS in this new environment drove me to pushing myself to a place of intense focus I had had before.
Now this is where I think passion crosses with the concept of the "curse of the gifted" to make it more of a blessing than a curse. When you love something and you know what it feels like to be best, realizing your own shortcomings can sometimes cause you to miss that feeling. Now in order to get back to a place where you "feel gifted" you have to be in love with the work to get there over "the idea of being gifted" and this I think can happen to those who are put in a position where the feeling of "being gifted" is compromised.
Anyway, just my view, first "longer" post I've written on HN but I thought austennailred had a great point and just wanted to comment.
Great piece by both Eric and Linus and crazy to think how 14 years later, we have Git.
Why? Because before his teachers, back to his age 7 or so, had carefully walked him through the music note by note and bar by bar and, likely then, the artistic expression. But, still he was darned gifted. So, a few years later, relearning violin, he was fine again for the rest of his life.
Being able to do arithmetic, algebra, and other mathematical operations in your head is fine. E.g., during WWII, John von Neumann, one of the best mathematicians of the 20th or any century, sometimes went to people working on war projects to see if he could help them out. At one stop, a guy was unsure about how to find a solution, so von Neumann suggested, "Let's try a local solution via infinite series and look at a few terms. So, von Neumann did the arithmetic in his head [he could take two eight digit numbers and multiply them together in his head]. When von Neumann left, the guy was near tears. Why? Because he had been up all night using a mechanical desk calculator to get just some of that arithmetic right!
I found in doing research in math (I've published such stuff), once get into the problem well then do most of the thinking for the actual research just between the ears and writing very little. Can even do some of the algebraic derivations just between the ears. The actual research, at least the way I do it, is heavily 'conceptual' where writing isn't very efficient anyway.
From what you wrote, I see nothing wrong with your abilities. If you are not handy with paper and pencil, then it is not too much to expect you to become handy with just some usage. So, try, and soon you will 'get it'. It sounds like your problem with calculus was mostly just a problem with paper and pencil -- so, 'get it' with paper and pencil. Unless are, say, another von Neumann, can't expect to do significant derivations in calculus, say, integration by parts or multiple integrals, without writing down the expressions step by step.
But, of course, for calculus, long ago some software efforts for integration worked out what expressions could be integrated in closed form and what ones could not and wrote software to do the integrations for all the ones that could. The results are in at least one of the old computer algebra packages! So, with that software, "Look, Ma, no pencil or paper!".
About your suspected faults, don't be the least discouraged about them! Some are just your imagination. Some can be easily enough corrected. Essentially all the rest can be circumvented.
In particular, it appears that you are concerned about some skills that were supposed to take you from a few days to at most a few months to get good enough with way back long before you shaved! Doing catch up on that material now should be a few days' walk in the park. E.g., in K-12, I didn't learn English grammar and punctuation very well. In college I was in math and physics where this gap was not very important, and otherwise I just wrote only sentences where I did understand the grammar and punctuation. Now I've long had a 12th grade English grammar book right at hand and look up details when I'm in doubt; long ago I got nearly everything I missed in K-12.
Back to working without writing, in plane geometry I refused to do the homework the way the teacher wanted, write out in full detail proofs of just three problems. Instead I worked all the non-trivial problems and then also the more challenging ones in the back of the book, often writing nothing, sometimes writing in the margin of the book, sometimes on scraps of paper, and only for a few of the most difficult problems in the book, actually writing out a complete proof. Worked fine! When the teacher wanted to see my homework, I showed her nothing, and she was torqued. When I came in second in the class on the state test, she was 'confuse...
Ideally, the gifted should have their own programs where they are forced to compete with other exceptional students the entire time they're in school, rather than follow a program meant to pander to the lowest common denominator students in society.
Also, I'm with you bro, fell into the same trap. It sucks.
Switched to a more creative field, and circled back towards engineering-type jobs 10 years later. Happy (enough) with where I am now, but can't help but think things would have been better if laziness, hubris and structure of the school system didn't keep me from learning how to learn earlier.
I don't see the difference. In my mind, thinking about it logically is recognizing that one side has an excess and removing it from the other side. That's subtracting.
To you is it like looking at 5 * 4 and knowing it's 20 rather than thinking about 2 * 5 is 10 and two of those is 20?
I was the kind of rule-following kid who went through the algebra steps because you were supposed to rather than out of necessity. (Or so I like to think: I'm not good at math in my head because I always wrote it out or maybe I relied on paper since I couldn't do it in my head.) I recall rebelling against memorizing multiplication tables in grade ~4 because I thought my time was better spent leaning new stuff (or maybe understanding how to multiply faster -- wouldn't that be ironic!).
It's always interesting to hear how someone else's brain works. Thank you.
As a side note, I can't even imagine how Torvalds worked with others without source control. That sounds like absolute hell.
Do you say that as benevolent moralist or is it your personal preference that any gossip concerning you be addressed at you before an audience?
If as a manager, I allow people to frequently complain about their peers with the other people absent, it sets up a terrible precedent. As manager I would become the bottleneck as people focus their energy on politics rather than problem solving.
It's not black and white, but how you lean.
People worked without source control because CVS was not real version control. It was a bad joke, and Linus was right. Without integrity guarantees, a source control system is just a pain in the ass you'd rather not have to deal with. Tarballs, patches, and email worked fine back when the community was small and tight-knit.
Please note how ESR again and again ranks Linus (the second coming of Ken) higher than himself (old fart) while still trying to convey som hard won experience.
The message I got growing up was that "you're so smart, but so lazy". This was principally because of my terrible fine motor coordination combined with my intellect.
So I'd try to do some sort of "posterboard" or "project" and it'd look like a slapped together mess no matter how hard I tried. My handwriting was often illegible to me, even when I tried to write very slow.
ADHD was also an issue, but the fact that every project I poured so much effort into was derided as lazy... yet I could ace every test... told me that effort wasn't, well, worth putting in.
Being allowed to type assignments - in the early 90s - was one of the greatest things that ever happened to me.
Then again, I met other problems caused by my terrible organizational skills in creative ways. For instance, I ran a webserver that had had a folder that pointed to where I did all my assignments. When I inevitably forgot to print something... there it was.
Still. My experience, especially prior to high school (and prior to ADHD medication, now that I think about it) was completely dominated by working my ass off and being told that I wasn't trying at all.
(There are ways around that but most parents and teachers don't know how to help a gifted kid with those areas.)
Does that help?
What it seems to come down to is that some people are just naturally better at some things than others (for whatever reason). People have often told me that I have a pretty good memory (I disagree, but that's what they say), mostly due to the fact that I've been able to, on occasion, drudge up meaningless trivia with little exposure to it. I don't know why or how I can do it, I just can.
Though I'm sometimes "pretty good" at remembering things, problems would likely arise if I were to, say, try to skate through a course or six on organic chemistry based on this "ability" alone. Because past expectations have led me to believe that I don't need to work hard to commit things to memory, it may be a nasty shock if I one day find out that I'm wrong. If that happens and I haven't made good use of time that others have spent studying, I'm suddenly behind.
I hope that makes sense.
Off-topic because I'm curious: what makes you think that you're dumb?
I took geometry in my first year of high school and struck a deal with the teacher that if I got an A on every test I wouldn't need to turn in any homework. I never took notes.
I entered college passing several AP tests and jumped right in to advanced math and physics courses.
I started getting cocky and would skip a week of classes at a time.
Eventually I met a course that I couldn't think my way out of, thermodynamics. There was something about it I couldn't wrap my head around. I failed the midterm and decided not to show up for the final. Electricity and magnetism was no picnic either. I got a D in that one.
I had hit rock bottom. I eventually had to leave this college and start over with a fresh outlook to do the work and try to enjoy it.
I still never took notes in class but I did all the coursework. Eventually I earned a BS in computer science.
This is the point at which your natural talent is exhausted and now you too need to learn the technique in order to make any advances. The problem is that your fellow athletes have already put in their 10,000 hours mastering the technique and building their muscle memory to achieve the best possible throw. And you rapidly fall behind, unable to keep up with their slow but relentless progress.
This is actually a poor analogy for knowledge work, but a similar principle applies. Many people get by being able to easily soak in the knowledge and intuit the correct solutions without having to put in much effort at all. Even if they fully understand the theory and practice of how to mechanically arrive at a solution, the habit of not having to invest significant energy in determining a solution stays with them. The problems get harder, beyond what their capacity to intuit affords them. Gaps in their knowledge become magnified and soon their understanding of a subject is shown to be a shallow house of cards. At this point, they could choose to accept that they need to completely change strategies, fill in the gaps, and no longer rely on their intuitition. However, habits die hard and many struggle in vain to wrap their heads around the problems instead of working through them systematically. Unwilling or not realizing that they need to change, they lose motivation and burn out.
I'd call it the trap of the gifted, rather than the curse. That trap has three prongs:
1) Gifted people get concepts right away, almost effortlessly.
2) Because it's so easy for them, they never have to work at learning. It just happens for them.
3) Being so good at something earns praise from their teachers, parents, friends, etc. This often becomes central to their self-esteem.
This is fine until the day when their giftedness alone simply doesn't cut it. It could be in high school, or college, or graduate school or maybe even at some point in their professional career. But eventually it stops being easy and this is usually a very traumatic event.
Because of the three prongs of the trap, the gifted person finds themselves in a very hard situation. First, they are not used to frustration because previously they got everything right away. Second, they have no persistence because they've never had to work hard. Third, they become anxious and afraid and possibly even become depressed because they are no longer "smart" (at least by their own definition).
Being gifted isn't a curse or a trap in and of itself, but it can lead to a certain kinds of bad habits. Schools and parents tend not to do a very good job correcting these bad habits, which can lead to big problems.
For example: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75
I knew that stuff like this goes on in mailing lists; I've grown up in the computer culture. But seeing this as an adult, after learning some people skills and how interpersonal communication works, it's really shocking what to see kind of destructive tone prevails in some prominent tech circles.
But it wasn't "an honest question"; that's the point. It would have been an honest question for you or me, but you and me are not Linux kernel hackers. (At least, I'm not, and I assume you're not.)
Getting a message like this once would lead to a personal e-mail or in-person conversation explaining that this is in no way an acceptable way to communicate with me, followed by a prompt beeline for the exit if it occurred again.
And I expect Linus would be absolutely fine with that, because if you were unable to understand why he was so emphatic about the point he was making, he wouldn't want you hacking on the kernel anyway.
The key thing to recognize is that Linus treats the kernel as what you might call "mission critical" software. Think of it as like, say, the operating code for the Space Shuttle. If someone came along and changed the operating code for the Space Shuttle so that, say, the program that fired the retro-rockets stopped working, and when asked about it, their response was, "well, that looks like a bug in the retro-rocket program", you would not want that person doing that job. And since the retro-rocket code is mission critical, just saying, "no, that's not a good idea" might not get the point across emphatically enough. You might have to use strong language to make sure it is 100 percent understood that breaking the retro-rocket code is unacceptable. In a situation like that, you do not want to leave any room for misinterpretation.
Also, if you look at Linus' posts, you'll notice that he does not always use that strong language. He only uses it when, in his view, it's warranted--meaning, when someone has done something that is so wrong that just saying "that's wrong" won't get the point across strongly enough. That's why we have strong language: for those (hopefully very rare) occasions when no less strong language will do justice to the situation. There are certainly plenty of people in our culture who abuse such language; but looking at Linus' posts as a whole, I'm not sure he's one of them.
I've seen the same tone from crypto hackers, also under the guise of writing "mission critical" software. It's not an excuse. You don't see airline pilots or doctors yelling at each other for making the occaional honest mistake, which happens in every field and can with the correct routines be caught before it causes any damage.
Though, I agree, sometimes there is an excessive amounts of public humiliation on the list.
You're right, you don't. But my point was that you also don't see Linus yelling at other kernel hackers for making honest mistakes. The mistake he yelled at someone for in the case under discussion was not honest; it was a mistake nobody qualified to hack on the kernel should have made in the first place.
Whoa, whoa whoa. I don't know about pilots but speaking as someone whose significant other is in medicine, those people are FIERCE. Yelling, crying, and having massive holier-than-thou outbursts is so common that I'm surprised anyone puts up with it.
I honestly don't see an alternative, even though I would never communicate in such a way.
"It's unacceptable to break userspace. I've fixed the issue personally on this occasion. Look after your area or I'll be forced to find somebody else who can." would suffice
Alan put it well at some point: the way to create working open source software is to minimize the amount of communication needed.
As in, the intention is not to communicate, but to maintain a kernel. If occasional derision of the "shared code reduces bugs" meme is required, Linus will provide it.
The benefit of recognizing this isn't just avoiding that crunch at the limits of your talents - it's learning to the use the tools, processes and people which will allow your talents to flow most efficiently every day.
The classic example of this for me has been engineers who resist documentation, project management and delegation as if each is wasting away their valuable productive time when it's exactly the opposite.
Linus wants to split the driver and create a new module to house that handles only that specific flavor of hardware instead of adding new edge-cases to the existing code.
At least, that's how I read it. I wasn't working on the Kernel back in 2000 so I can't say.
Specifically: https://lkml.org/lkml/2000/8/22/52
That said, the "curse of the gifted" manifests itself in a lot of ways. One problem is also that "less gifted" see the "gifted" and say, "If they don't have to be disciplined, why do I?"
You did. Git.
2 examples of many:
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9862693/P...
[2] http://consumer.healthday.com/kids-health-information-23/chi...
Really, it's all about momentum. Not practicing = no effort = no moving momentum = no growth = no movement. (
Calvin Coolidge 30th president of US (1872 - 1933)
ESR is way overrated, IMHO.
I don't know anything about webkits, but how are "the BSDs" relevant?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fa.linux.kernel/uhah96NhtAA/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDS_C
Because while I exactly agree (and while that's always cool with Paul B!), I think ESR factored into git indirectly in a way. Provided part of the impetus to want to rewrite things.
Think about it: maybe the most important thing in that email is that ESR lightly compared Linus to Ken Thompson and maybe that kept him thinking along the lines of rewrite everything. All the dialogue factors in, I think ultimately..
Fix your reality -- that is the highest priority.
WooHoo sex homo happy_happy_joy_joy ingrate sing spending happy so_let_it_be_done crazy high_five
-----
My reality is completely broken.
God says... jobs cracks_me_up hello take_your_pick recipe it_figures don't_mention_it goods how_high huh daunting Mom fight I_planned_that be_happy chaos bickering Varoom hopefully cowardice application vengeance HolySpirit Jesus I_didn't_do_it ohh_thank_you crazy no_you_cant sad oh_come_on that's_much_better have_fun skills courage If_had_my_druthers well_I_never I'm_thrilled hold_on_a_minute application absolutely when_hell_freezes_over ha how's_the_weather energy I_can't_believe_it What_are_you_doing_dave daunting you're_wonderful but_of_course IMHO hooah What Is_that_so in_other_words Ramsay charged surprise_surprise failure_is_not_an_option that's_for_me_to_know silly_human car not_that_theres_anything_wrong crazy smart why_do_I_put_up_with_this impossible lifes_like_chocolates This_is_confusing who_are_you_to_judge super_computer beam_me_up love genius everythings_a_okay happy_happy_joy_joy crash_and_burn whale it's_hopeless charged smack_some_sense_into_you dance abnormal couldnt_possibly dance let's_see be_happy let's_roll try_again do_you_want_another home homo in_other_words how_about_those_yankees vengeful sex umm why_is_it theft how_about_those_yankees revolution ehheh_thats_all_folks joking I_planned_that awful baffling Jesus daunting voodoo where's_the_love FBI I'm_bored desert hilarious you're_nuts surprise_surprise bastard relax I_pitty_the_fool once_upon_a_time who's_to_say application it'd_take_a_miracle figuratively absetively_posilutely
Note that noone replied to Eric and the thread continued on. Also go back and read some of Linus's posts before this. Eric writes using vague generalizations about age and experience; Linus writes with specifics about his experience with the kernel. The former style makes for popularly read posts but the latter seems much more effective.
Also, compare this message from Linus earlier in that thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2000/8/22/52 with a post of his from yesterday: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/10/575, especially regarding abstraction.
(from Everybody loves Eric Raymond)
It ought to be called the curse of the lazy until you bring Linus or someone else gifted into it.
"(I have read Eric's folloup to Linus' mail I'm replying to, but not following that one up in AOL style. I second Eric mentioning the "curse of the gifted" from own experience. You start something without design, it succeeds for your talent, experience, whatever, it evolves and grows and eventually disembogues into a rewrite from scratch, that time with a design before the implementation.)"
My guess is that most of them thought Erics Mail too off topic to continue in that direction on the kernel list. I'd like to know what they thought of Erics arguments though. Exspecially Linus opinion at the time would have been interesting ...
Source: https://lkml.org/lkml/2000/8/23/103
That seems to be a recurring theme. While ESR was writing opinionated tomes, LT wrote a successful OS kernel and a widely used source control system.
Also see Rich Hicky's talk "Simple Made Easy." [2] In which he suggests that nobody's that smart; you will always hit a brick wall without the tools to manage complexity. "A juggler can juggle 3 balls. A really good juggler can juggle 9. But no juggler can juggle 90 or 900 (paraphrased)."
[1] http://www.tele-task.de/archive/video/flash/14029/ [2] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy
http://carymillsap.blogspot.com/2011/01/axiomatic-approach-t...
I was an undergrad with Cary, and he got A's, I got B's with the odd C and this is exactly why. Until I took the Discrete Math course ( w/ the Eggers book - which is fantastic ) , I was floundering. I knew what the rules were, roughly, but I didn't KNOW know them.
I'm not name-dropping Cary. It's just a coincidence, but I googled him and found the essay. I bring up the "we were undergrads" thing because it's a nearly perfect natural experiment.
Use one of the Algebra sections in junior high or high school to teach rigor. There are no moves in a solution unless you name the principle by which the move was made.
I know it seems impossible to implement, but there can't be a better time than 8th or 9th grade to do this. You get exposure to rigor for the kids that aren't pointed at STEM, the kids that are will actually be prepared - win-win. If we have to hire ringers as math teachers - people outside the education industrial complex - so be it. Whatever it takes.
Not the value of teaching math through axioms and deriving everything you do from them! That's very useful and proper preparation for higher math.
But just because I can express everything in propositional logic with just NAND, I don't do that. Just as I would prove the mean-value theorem once and then simply invoke it when appropriate, I define conjunction, disjunction, negation etc. once and move on with the world. This is the lecture you are trying to teach, after all: you can deconstruct the universe into very simple blocks.
You can do drill in 8th grade, or you can do it in your freshman year of college.
The point is:
1) I thought it annoying and pointless in the 8th grade. Oh clever me, I knew so much better.
2) People who sucked it up and did it, with whom I shared classes, blew my doors off in college math courses for a couple of years. A teacher made this the central fact of the algebra class they took.
3) Then I took the discrete math course, and stopped having trouble.
There is something to this. Rigor is not natural. Learning rigor is essential to being able to operate your life well.
My bad - I mispelled "Eggen" as "Eggers"