In my experience, I have used coaches that don’t have more technical skill than me, but are able to provide insight, questions, and provoke me to think through my problems in ways I might not have otherwise.
I break things down into coaching vs training vs mentorship.
Training is when you need to learn a very specific skill from someone that knows more than you. A great example is learning how to drive - it requires training from someone who knows more than you.
Mentorship is when you need to grow more holistically and are learning from someone that is significantly more advanced in your chosen area of study than you. Usually this involves not just technical training, but also a mindset that you wish to learn. Examples of this are apprenticeships or when you seek out a mentor that you think has done well and wish to learn from.
Coaching is when someone may not have more technical skill than you, but is still able to help you improve by probing, prompting, reflecting, or observing. A great example are sport coaches, who are not necessarily more skilled than many of the players they coach.
These are loose and blurry definitions, but I hope it helps frame another perspective on coaching.
If people are looking for hard (the hard mostly comes from the ambiguity of problem space and autonomous nature of our teams) impactful work, send em our way (USDS).
If they’re looking for impactful work, but not necessarily some of the things that make USDS “hard,” our partners are also great places to land.
There’s plenty of work for those that can do it though
Maybe it’s good, maybe it’s bad. A lot of anecdotes about “important” historical figures or institutions that use copy by hand as a method for learning.
I would have preferred citing actual research, not an appeal to historical methods.
Given that some of the conclusions that word for word copy may be less efficient than summarized copy[1], it may be a less efficient and less effective way of learning than going through a reading and summarizing every paragraph.
At the beginning of diving into a topic area or when I want to go very deep on a subject.
Books tend to have good comprehensive overviews of an area/technology, whereas most online tutorials are very shallow, even if more current.
On the flip side, when I need /deep/ understanding it’s almost always a combination of a book on the topic to fill in holes I missed, the docs, and live repos if available.
If it’s just for day to day use, or a technology I’m only using in passing - no.
I do vet the authors though. A lot of trash is published.
> …the criticisms of people who fall below some threshold at some specific task, with dubious claims about the effect on their overall performance
It’s unclear to me where this criticism is coming from.
> If someone doesn't like how I work, then don't watch me work. I get paid for the fruits of my work, not how I get there.
Similarly it’s unclear to me where there is anything about anyone measuring how you get your work done. That seems unrelated to the article at hand that only passingly mentions any work context (only of a co-worker making a claim about their own effectiveness) while spending most of the article on games and typing competitions.
I might have read too much into your use of the term “safe” as being indicative that there was some danger or concern.
I agree with this sentiment:
> I said I spend not a lot of time typing. Therefore, a device that is aimed at improving typing speed, has a low impact on my productivity.
Though, setting aside that efficiency =/= effectiveness/productivity, I think the spirit of the article is that if a coworker is typing a lot, that may claim that their efficiency has increased greatly, not that every single person will see equal improvements.
FWIW: this is being typed with two thumbs on an iPhone because that’s as efficient as _I_ need to be right now ;)
What hardware/software are you using? I’ve looked into it a few times, but the cost benefit hasn’t been there for me for doing the research without knowing anything about it yet.
Do you code with it as well, or is it primarily chat/browsing/etc?
My point is more of it being not a bad thing to improve on.
Most of the cases where you needed actual really fast travel have been covered for a long time and the number of careers or situations where a person need to travel fast have been declining for a long time, but I think we can all agree faster travel times are better.
Side note: stenography and chorded words with something like Plover (similar to the above) is where really fast typing usually comes into play for. I have not looked into any of the above because the pain of changing my habits hasn’t been worth the benefits to me yet.
I’ve considered it when I had to do interview transcripts, but ultimately I didn’t want to make the investment. I hope future generations are able to learn on something more designed for contemporary use than QWERTY and classic keyboards - I know my wrists have thanked me for moving to a split keyboard for the ergonomics alone.
I think things like this are not “everyone must use this new better way of typing,” but more “hey there may be a better way of doing this task.”
I am always surprised, though at this point I shouldn’t be, that there is always pushback against any attempts at improving the status quo when it comes to typing speeds on HN - as though the creator is attacking all of us with lower typing speeds personally…
From another perspective: sure you might speed up only 0.5% of your workday - but how is that a bad thing?
Repetitive stress injuries aside, even if you only spend an hour a week typing (I suspect it’s honestly more) then if you end up increasing your typing speed by double you’re still saving yourself 25 hours a year. Assuming my a career of 35 years that’s 875 hours and you increase your time fighting imposter syndrome by 0.25%.
Scale up as appropriate for how much time you actually spend typing.
Agreed. On my journey to some sort of personal meaning I ended up going through psychology, physical sciences, philosophy & meditation - roughly in that order with poetry and literature interspersed…
But understanding life has, in my experience, been similar to the hermeneutic circle: to understand a part, you must understand the whole, and to understand the whole, you must understand the parts…
That is: the entry point is here - learn about the world and about how humans think about and perceive it. Start anywhere, but start.
*edit: I forgot to add also history. It also helps to shed light on the different meanings people have discovered over time.
When I had questions, I ended up changing from chemistry to philosophy in undergrad (before dropping out after realizing no one had the answers). Despite the aforementioned realization, the grounding in Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and a few others gave me fertile grounds to later plant seeds of wisdom from thinkers and artists from every walk of life.
I wish I could help you with the struggle, but unfortunately, like most learned things, it’s something that only you can do. If you ever want to, I’d be happy to chat seriously about what it means to be human, beyond making money, any time.
From one sick bed to another: best of luck, and happy birthday.
For myself: how I think when I’m writing is somewhat different than when I’m speaking. I still prefer writing _and_ typing despite the ability to record myself.
I also think we’re a bit of a ways off before speech-to-text will work for programming…
Maybe what I’m looking for isn’t stenography, but chorded typing with the ability to break out of it when I need to.
I break things down into coaching vs training vs mentorship.
Training is when you need to learn a very specific skill from someone that knows more than you. A great example is learning how to drive - it requires training from someone who knows more than you.
Mentorship is when you need to grow more holistically and are learning from someone that is significantly more advanced in your chosen area of study than you. Usually this involves not just technical training, but also a mindset that you wish to learn. Examples of this are apprenticeships or when you seek out a mentor that you think has done well and wish to learn from.
Coaching is when someone may not have more technical skill than you, but is still able to help you improve by probing, prompting, reflecting, or observing. A great example are sport coaches, who are not necessarily more skilled than many of the players they coach.
These are loose and blurry definitions, but I hope it helps frame another perspective on coaching.