A sceintist (and theorist) mindset (1),
vs.
a builder (engineer) mindset (2).
At high proficienly levels, when you are at either of these, the other looks a bit impossible. Even if you are good at both, your mind can operate at one at a time. It physics language, there is a large energy gap in the spectrum of their Haminltonians.
An example:
1: Thinking (correctly) about Probabiity (Bayesian).
vs.
2: thinking like a programmer (hackery, tinkering).
While programming (implementing or debugging things like backprop using NN, State space using UKF), I find tell myself feeling: I would not come up with this solutionn in 1000 years. (being in mode 2, wishing for mode 1).
Yet, on other days, you find yourself you can generated many ideas -- only if you had enough time to implement all (being in mode 1, kind of wishing for mode 2!, despite it may seem mierable, comparatively -- but more realistic, pragmatic, etc).
Let me give another exmape: When I am writing a silly shader using SDF, I certain shapes seem very complex, evasive to mind. If feels it is a much harder problem that initially thought, or, requires almost a genius to solve them. Yet, sometimes I solve them effortlessly.
But on other days, where I can reinvent that algorithm thing from a theoretical mindset,
when thinking on paper, or using mental calculations, geometrical thinking, etc, I can solve impossible problems with bord-eye view, and 20 km altitude!
What amazes me that how hard problems I have been solving in mode 1, when I am in mode 2.
It felt like these two areas are not integrated, or there is a gap between them.
It is hard to switch to them. Especially, jumping form mode 2 to mode 1 is harder:
Mode 1 can be achieved ony via that sort of course and memoentum. Moving from mode 1 to mode 2 feels like sudden stop and getting occupied with too many details.
None is essentuially better:
Mode 2 provides precision (in a certain way), groundedness, solid-ness, robustness. Also embodied, embedded, etc. Mode 1 is more socially-engaged, socially-extended.
Mode 2 is more tactical thinking, while mode 1 is strategical thinking.
Mode 2 is more engaged (rahter than distant). But both need sharp attention and focus and somehow precision. exmpales:
1: Thinking (correctly) about Probabiity (Bayesian) -- vs thinking like a programmer (hackery, tinkering).
1: strategic thinking.
1: Entrprenuership: seeing product from view of client.
2: Even in science shoed, you kneed to get into mode 2: (publishing paper, testing your idea, implementing, etc).
1: Geometry (and higher mathematics, Category theory, Riemannian Manifolds, PDEs, etc).
2: ...
1: You are a master, 2: you are a servant (of yourself). But a true master need to be able to act like a good servant (to themselves), when needed. To execute you need to be in mode 2. Even in science, etc.
In mode 1, t's like high altitude moving fast. But with that momentum, you cannot build things, like.
A key observaiton is, the capabilitirs are expluded in each My view has evolved on this since I detected it.
View 0: I cannot be that, I can just do programming, and its not especial.
View 1: Those are not "integrated", a gap exists.
View 2: Those are differnt mindsets: switch is hard. Just different hats: details/fighting/OCD vs eloquent social/expressive (also maybe a bit of leader-servant? but is more about the ability and capability, rather than role, and direcitn of influence: you can command, but you are powerless in a larger scope).
View 3: Different momenta (energy state: momenta: far orbits on a phase-plane).
View 4: Myopy vs bird-eye. tactical vs strategical thinking.
View 5: Wings of (art, sience, theory, etc. It feels very much like the "wings of art" moment in the Daedalus mythos
View 6: Maybe only in teamwork, a social setting of a band of multiple poeple, this can be done: since a person needs to be in each of those mode-roles (this also emphasises on "mode as a role").
View 7: the "cognitive rivalry" paradigm that I have developed (more on it, later).
(TBC)
Bird-eye view, vs. Fish-eve view: sees nearby closely, but the outside is too far.
Are these modes essentually separate? or jut not integrated? (technical dept).
Are there other modes too? Like entrprenuerthips, socially-engaged or social influencing mode, etc? Or are they also instanaces of the same?
Some possible examples:
Art mode A: Being connected to emoitions, grounded, etc (a very vulnerable state).
Art mode B: Being connected to creativity flow.
Art mode C ( = 1 ): Immersed into the medium ( which is more like mode 1 in the main part of the post).
Are these the same mode? The power mode ( in in the gym: you push harder, and you). I cal lthis the "Testosterone-1" mode (one of testosterone modes).
Related: the persseverence mode. Most of these are art modes. Maybe I should cann mode 1, the Daedalus mode. But it has too much cultural load/charge and percedence. Maybe this name is ued for too many things. I want to keep things seaprated, untill otherwise (ie I discover some of them are the same).
BTW, pragmatism mans keeping these connected.
Also requires a dose of realism too, in the recepie.
vs.
a builder (engineer) mindset (2).
At high proficienly levels, when you are at either of these, the other looks a bit impossible. Even if you are good at both, your mind can operate at one at a time. It physics language, there is a large energy gap in the spectrum of their Haminltonians.
An example:
1: Thinking (correctly) about Probabiity (Bayesian).
vs.
2: thinking like a programmer (hackery, tinkering).
While programming (implementing or debugging things like backprop using NN, State space using UKF), I find tell myself feeling: I would not come up with this solutionn in 1000 years. (being in mode 2, wishing for mode 1).
Yet, on other days, you find yourself you can generated many ideas -- only if you had enough time to implement all (being in mode 1, kind of wishing for mode 2!, despite it may seem mierable, comparatively -- but more realistic, pragmatic, etc).
Let me give another exmape: When I am writing a silly shader using SDF, I certain shapes seem very complex, evasive to mind. If feels it is a much harder problem that initially thought, or, requires almost a genius to solve them. Yet, sometimes I solve them effortlessly.
But on other days, where I can reinvent that algorithm thing from a theoretical mindset,
when thinking on paper, or using mental calculations, geometrical thinking, etc, I can solve impossible problems with bord-eye view, and 20 km altitude!
What amazes me that how hard problems I have been solving in mode 1, when I am in mode 2.
It felt like these two areas are not integrated, or there is a gap between them.
It is hard to switch to them. Especially, jumping form mode 2 to mode 1 is harder:
Mode 1 can be achieved ony via that sort of course and memoentum. Moving from mode 1 to mode 2 feels like sudden stop and getting occupied with too many details.
None is essentuially better:
Mode 2 provides precision (in a certain way), groundedness, solid-ness, robustness. Also embodied, embedded, etc. Mode 1 is more socially-engaged, socially-extended.
Mode 2 is more tactical thinking, while mode 1 is strategical thinking.
Mode 2 is more engaged (rahter than distant). But both need sharp attention and focus and somehow precision. exmpales:
1: Thinking (correctly) about Probabiity (Bayesian) -- vs thinking like a programmer (hackery, tinkering).
1: strategic thinking.
1: Entrprenuership: seeing product from view of client.
2: Even in science shoed, you kneed to get into mode 2: (publishing paper, testing your idea, implementing, etc).
1: Geometry (and higher mathematics, Category theory, Riemannian Manifolds, PDEs, etc).
2: ...
1: You are a master, 2: you are a servant (of yourself). But a true master need to be able to act like a good servant (to themselves), when needed. To execute you need to be in mode 2. Even in science, etc.
In mode 1, t's like high altitude moving fast. But with that momentum, you cannot build things, like.
A key observaiton is, the capabilitirs are expluded in each My view has evolved on this since I detected it.
View 0: I cannot be that, I can just do programming, and its not especial.
View 1: Those are not "integrated", a gap exists.
View 2: Those are differnt mindsets: switch is hard. Just different hats: details/fighting/OCD vs eloquent social/expressive (also maybe a bit of leader-servant? but is more about the ability and capability, rather than role, and direcitn of influence: you can command, but you are powerless in a larger scope).
View 3: Different momenta (energy state: momenta: far orbits on a phase-plane).
View 4: Myopy vs bird-eye. tactical vs strategical thinking.
View 5: Wings of (art, sience, theory, etc. It feels very much like the "wings of art" moment in the Daedalus mythos
View 6: Maybe only in teamwork, a social setting of a band of multiple poeple, this can be done: since a person needs to be in each of those mode-roles (this also emphasises on "mode as a role").
View 7: the "cognitive rivalry" paradigm that I have developed (more on it, later).
(TBC)
Bird-eye view, vs. Fish-eve view: sees nearby closely, but the outside is too far.
Are these modes essentually separate? or jut not integrated? (technical dept).
Are there other modes too? Like entrprenuerthips, socially-engaged or social influencing mode, etc? Or are they also instanaces of the same?
Some possible examples:
Art mode A: Being connected to emoitions, grounded, etc (a very vulnerable state).
Art mode B: Being connected to creativity flow.
Art mode C ( = 1 ): Immersed into the medium ( which is more like mode 1 in the main part of the post).
Are these the same mode? The power mode ( in in the gym: you push harder, and you). I cal lthis the "Testosterone-1" mode (one of testosterone modes).
Related: the persseverence mode. Most of these are art modes. Maybe I should cann mode 1, the Daedalus mode. But it has too much cultural load/charge and percedence. Maybe this name is ued for too many things. I want to keep things seaprated, untill otherwise (ie I discover some of them are the same).
BTW, pragmatism mans keeping these connected.
Also requires a dose of realism too, in the recepie.
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر