Thinking about how to think

[rousseau]

One of the gifts I've taken away from software development is the realization that when you're writing code, there is an almost infinite number of ways to do the same task. And generally, the more thought and time you put into a solution, the better your solution is. Read a book about using a language effectively, read a book on effective design patterns, principles that are consistent across all technologies, commit time to thoroughly understanding a problem, and your solution will look much different had you not done all that. Even just stand back and look at the big picture and you'll have a better understanding of what you're up against.

I call it thinking expansively. In other words, stepping outside the box of the problem at hand and viewing it from new perspectives and angles. A way of trying to define more properties of the problem so you can attack it, or at least see it better.

Without that type of thinking we run the risk of believing that the perspective we're holding on a given thing is the correct one, the most effective one, the one that we want to accept as our own. We fail to look for new and better ways of seeing things and consequently finding new approaches.

On top of all that, one could use their own values to better guide the way. If your value is [x], and [x] is opposite to [y], your action is going to be much different than if your value was [y]. And so one of the key factors in problem solving and decision making is knowing and defining our own values.

 

[fromderinside]

One of the gifts I've taken away from software development is the realization that when you're writing code, there is an almost infinite number of ways to do the same task. And generally, the more thought and time you put into a solution, the better your solution is. Read a book about using a language effectively, read a book on effective design patterns, principles that are consistent across all technologies, commit time to thoroughly understanding a problem, and your solution will look much different had you not done all that. Even just stand back and look at the big picture and you'll have a better understanding of what you're up against.

I call it thinking expansively. In other words, stepping outside the box of the problem at hand and viewing it from new perspectives and angles. A way of trying to define more properties of the problem so you can attack it, or at least see it better.

Without that type of thinking we run the risk of believing that the perspective we're holding on a given thing is the correct one, the most effective one, the one that we want to accept as our own. We fail to look for new and better ways of seeing things and consequently finding new approaches.

On top of all that, one could use their own values to better guide the way. If your value is [x], and [x] is opposite to [y], your action is going to be much different than if your value was [y]. And so one of the key factors in problem solving and decision making is knowing and defining our own values.

Wait a minute rousseau. You are working with [x] and [y] which you know to have opposite values. Obviously this is not new to you so perhaps you are still in the box. Imagine [z] which is unknown to you. Study it. Experiment with it. Try to define it. If it follows from rules you have already it is in the box too. So try another, perhaps [r] or . Perhaps its a radical as defining a new way to imagine what has always been a straight line. That's basically what Einstein had to do when he came to general relativity with the aid of a few good mathematicians.

Me I'm more into free association when I'm working on problems. Sure I may wind up day dreaming. I could also wind up with a new approach to the problem at hand. I think of it as a bit like being able to dream out problems while I'm working on them.

 

[rousseau]

One of the gifts I've taken away from software development is the realization that when you're writing code, there is an almost infinite number of ways to do the same task. And generally, the more thought and time you put into a solution, the better your solution is. Read a book about using a language effectively, read a book on effective design patterns, principles that are consistent across all technologies, commit time to thoroughly understanding a problem, and your solution will look much different had you not done all that. Even just stand back and look at the big picture and you'll have a better understanding of what you're up against.

I call it thinking expansively. In other words, stepping outside the box of the problem at hand and viewing it from new perspectives and angles. A way of trying to define more properties of the problem so you can attack it, or at least see it better.

Without that type of thinking we run the risk of believing that the perspective we're holding on a given thing is the correct one, the most effective one, the one that we want to accept as our own. We fail to look for new and better ways of seeing things and consequently finding new approaches.

On top of all that, one could use their own values to better guide the way. If your value is [x], and [x] is opposite to [y], your action is going to be much different than if your value was [y]. And so one of the key factors in problem solving and decision making is knowing and defining our own values.

Wait a minute rousseau. You are working with [x] and [y] which you know to have opposite values. Obviously this is not new to you so perhaps you are still in the box. Imagine [z] which is unknown to you. Study it. Experiment with it. Try to define it. If it follows from rules you have already it is in the box too. So try another, perhaps [r] or . Perhaps its a radical as defining a new way to imagine what has always been a straight line. That's basically what Einstein had to do when he came to general relativity with the aid of a few good mathematicians.

Yea that's where I'm at.. sometimes.

Me I'm more into free association when I'm working on problems. Sure I may wind up day dreaming. I could also wind up with a new approach to the problem at hand. I think of it as a bit like being able to dream out problems while I'm working on them.

One of my more recent habits is to write down the different things that come to mind over time, especially those things that are valuable. A perspective is no good if you forget it. Once it's captured, if it's relevant enough, eventually it will become a natural part of the way I think. I guess you'd call this learning, except in this case I'm teaching myself with the help of what I already know. And the tendency is that the more I do it, the more capable and less anxious I am.

 

[fromderinside]

.

Me I'm more into free association when I'm working on problems. Sure I may wind up day dreaming. I could also wind up with a new approach to the problem at hand. I think of it as a bit like being able to dream out problems while I'm working on them.

One of my more recent habits is to write down the different things that come to mind over time, especially those things that are valuable. A perspective is no good if you forget it. Once it's captured, if it's relevant enough, eventually it will become a natural part of the way I think. I guess you'd call this learning, except in this case I'm teaching myself with the help of what I already know. And the tendency is that the more I do it, the more capable and less anxious I am.

I do it as a diversion from keeping to what want one to look at what is being said. Like most things FDI I'm a contrarian thinker too. I experiment informally going over the same text letting myself go along remembered paths to see if anything is better, added or changed. Kind of a mental experiment which is what I do. Perhaps I'll find that dreaming and day dreaming are actually related/not related or an experiment will pop into my little bald head relating to how one processes what one concentrates upon.

Thanks for the forum rousseau​.

 

[none]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariadne's_thread_(logic)

...
Trial-and-error approaches are rarely concerned with how many solutions may exist to a problem, and indeed often assume only one correct solution exists. Ariadne's thread makes no such assumption, and is capable of locating all possible solutions to a purely logical problem.
...

it's been a while since I read the article but it isn't deductive or inductive logic
basically it is finding all solutions to a problem not the only solution

 

[fast]

We don't usually need a better solution to a problem when we already have a sufficiently mediocra solution to a problem. For instance, there are plenty of plans for getting out of debt, some are better than others. Why try to find the best one when one that simply works will do? Not thinking might not make a problem go away, but why think hard when someone has already done some thinking for us? Don't go blindly into the night, but don't reengineer the flashlight either. There are other problems of the world your hardcore thinking could be better utilized for, like what to do when she says you're just a friend.

Post posted by poster in jest

 

[fromderinside]

We don't usually need a better solution to a problem when we already have a sufficiently mediocra solution to a problem. For instance, there are plenty of plans for getting out of debt, some are better than others. Why try to find the best one when one that simply works will do? Not thinking might not make a problem go away, but why think hard when someone has already done some thinking for us? Don't go blindly into the night, but don't reengineer the flashlight either. There are other problems of the world your hardcore thinking could be better utilized for, like what to do when she says you're just a friend.

Post posted by poster in jest

Evolution here: Stay out of my shop!!

 

[fast]

We don't usually need a better solution to a problem when we already have a sufficiently mediocra solution to a problem. For instance, there are plenty of plans for getting out of debt, some are better than others. Why try to find the best one when one that simply works will do? Not thinking might not make a problem go away, but why think hard when someone has already done some thinking for us? Don't go blindly into the night, but don't reengineer the flashlight either. There are other problems of the world your hardcore thinking could be better utilized for, like what to do when she says you're just a friend.

Post posted by poster in jest

Evolution here: Stay out of my shop!!

But you need me. All you thinkers are just alike--always thinking. Think, think, think. Your shop might actually show some improved productivity with a little less thinking and a little more doing. Dang job coulda already been done if ya didn't spend so much time thinking about solutions to the inefficiencies of getting the job done quicker. Procrastination under the guise of making things better, please, we coulda been solved many of the worlds problems if just half of the people would stop thinking for themselves. Eta: it aint like they're worth a damn at it know how.

 

[untermensche]

The OP is talking about the thinking of a craftsman. Trying to perfect your craft.

It is a specific kind of thinking, not "thinking".

 

[Under the Rose]

The manner in which we think becomes habitual over time, a facet which is quite useful for many repetitive or incremental tasks but extremely limiting in other areas such as problem solving or unfamiliar circumstances.
I sometimes use the exercise of printing with my left hand to open myself to new perspectives on thinking. It does not matter what one prints, or how neatly, merely that one uses their less dominant hand for the exercise.
Doing any familiar task in a different manner will similarly invoke new perspectives.

 

[rousseau]

The OP is talking about the thinking of a craftsman. Trying to perfect your craft.

It is a specific kind of thinking, not "thinking".

Not necessarily a craft, but problem solving in general, yes. Very applicable to my line of work, though.

 

[rousseau]

Evolution here: Stay out of my shop!!

But you need me. All you thinkers are just alike--always thinking. Think, think, think. Your shop might actually show some improved productivity with a little less thinking and a little more doing. Dang job coulda already been done if ya didn't spend so much time thinking about solutions to the inefficiencies of getting the job done quicker. Procrastination under the guise of making things better, please, we coulda been solved many of the worlds problems if just half of the people would stop thinking for themselves. Eta: it aint like they're worth a damn at it know how.

But if you don't think at all and the paradigm under which you're approaching a problem is incorrect, then you're pretty much just in the friend-zone.

 

[fast]

But you need me. All you thinkers are just alike--always thinking. Think, think, think. Your shop might actually show some improved productivity with a little less thinking and a little more doing. Dang job coulda already been done if ya didn't spend so much time thinking about solutions to the inefficiencies of getting the job done quicker. Procrastination under the guise of making things better, please, we coulda been solved many of the worlds problems if just half of the people would stop thinking for themselves. Eta: it aint like they're worth a damn at it know how.

But if you don't think at all and the paradigm under which you're approaching a problem is incorrect, then you're pretty much just in the friend-zone.

I retract my statement and now fully recognize the wisdom that you have so graciously shared with me. I am now of the newfound opinion that no matter how much we learn from others, we should never stop thinking for ourselves. It is with this grand insight that I can now forge forward in the endeavors of life before me with a new sense of self-guidance, taking what I learn along the way and coupling it with my own unique perspective on things. I just may elude the zone in which I seek to escape--or I may just learn to move on, remain friends and it no longer be a zone of unrequitedness.

I guess the secret to thinking is the avoidance of stagnation. We must be open to new ways of approaching things so that we don't become complacently stuck in a rut.

 

[untermensche]

The OP is talking about the thinking of a craftsman. Trying to perfect your craft.

It is a specific kind of thinking, not "thinking".

Not necessarily a craft, but problem solving in general, yes. Very applicable to my line of work, though.

No. It is not problem solving "in general".

It is working to solve very specific kinds of problems over and over again. That is craftsmanship.

I need not know a thing about the problems you solve to be problem solving.

 

[fromderinside]

I need not know a thing about the problems you solve to be problem solving.

That's no help so why are you talking about it?

 

[untermensche]

I need not know a thing about the problems you solve to be problem solving.

That's no help so why are you talking about it?

His claim was that he is doing problem solving "in general".

How is this no help?

 

[bigfield]

One of the gifts I've taken away from software development is the realization that when you're writing code, there is an almost infinite number of ways to do the same task. And generally, the more thought and time you put into a solution, the better your solution is. Read a book about using a language effectively, read a book on effective design patterns, principles that are consistent across all technologies, commit time to thoroughly understanding a problem, and your solution will look much different had you not done all that. Even just stand back and look at the big picture and you'll have a better understanding of what you're up against.

I call it thinking expansively. In other words, stepping outside the box of the problem at hand and viewing it from new perspectives and angles. A way of trying to define more properties of the problem so you can attack it, or at least see it better.

Without that type of thinking we run the risk of believing that the perspective we're holding on a given thing is the correct one, the most effective one, the one that we want to accept as our own. We fail to look for new and better ways of seeing things and consequently finding new approaches.

On top of all that, one could use their own values to better guide the way. If your value is [x], and [x] is opposite to [y], your action is going to be much different than if your value was [y]. And so one of the key factors in problem solving and decision making is knowing and defining our own values.

This is a good approach to problem-solving, and should be applied to developing social policy, fiscal policy etc. as much as computer programming.

There is also the need to constantly stay up to date. There are technologies available today in computer science that did not exist five years ago but now represent best practice for programmers and designers--anyone who stopped learning new concepts five years ago will fail to take advantage of such new developments, and will fall behind. It's true outside of IT as well.

 

[rousseau]

Not necessarily a craft, but problem solving in general, yes. Very applicable to my line of work, though.

No. It is not problem solving "in general".

It is working to solve very specific kinds of problems over and over again. That is craftsmanship.

I need not know a thing about the problems you solve to be problem solving.

So most problem solving would be more casual, and you'd just have to passively think? Is that what you're getting at?

 

[untermensche]

No. It is not problem solving "in general".

It is working to solve very specific kinds of problems over and over again. That is craftsmanship.

I need not know a thing about the problems you solve to be problem solving.

So most problem solving would be more casual, and you'd just have to passively think? Is that what you're getting at?

All I'm saying is that the methods of problem solving are related to the problem.

There is no such thing as a "general problem". There are only specific problems with specific methods, maybe even many specific methods, to solve them.

But computers are new and many of the problems are new so it is not only the use of known methods but the invention of new methods of problem solving. It is human creativity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All I'm saying is that the methods of problem solving are related to the problem.

There is no such thing as a "general problem". There are only specific problems with specific methods, maybe even many specific methods, to solve them.

But computers are new and many of the problems are new so it is not only the use of known methods but the invention of new methods of problem solving. It is human creativity.

Once we have a solution solving one problem, we can choose to use it to solve another problem, whenever we happen to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it belongs to the same class of problems as the first one. As far as I know that's the general problem-solving "method" that we all use, most of the time. That's no real method. It's just being economical with our energy resource. And sometime we hurt our pinky toe into some unrecognised difficulty. Ouch!
EB