Philosophy: A matter of what matters

[R.G.]

It occurs to me that something that I know and use all the time is not something I've seen expressed within the electronics realm, and especially for very beginning beginners in electronics, so I thought I'd get it down explicitly here.

(1) Some things matter, some things don't.
(2) Knowing *which* things matter and which don't is crucial to success.
(3) If you don't know which things matter, your success is tied to incredibly tedious attention to every detail.
(4) Elegance and excellence in design depends on forcing some things not to matter.

Beginners are taught to follow instructions to the letter to achieve any success. This is in fact critical, because beginners don't have the base of knowledge that lets them separate things that matter from things that don't at a glance, almost unconsciously.

When I was a beginner, it was almost infuriating to me to hear an elder say "...yeah, that's different, but it doesn't matter here..." because I had set up the idea that everything mattered.  And it did to me, because I had not yet learned to separate them for myself.

Knowing how to separate them is only done by intimate knowledge and experience. Every time an elder said that infuriating line, I got a little clearer picture, because it uncovered another subtle part of things that I hadn't thought of before. Over time, they added up.

That the "matter-ing-ness" of things can be influenced is another idea that took a while to sink in. Good designers can force things to matter or not matter. In complex designs where everything matters, the design is fragile and rigid. Any change in anything causes it to not work right. In designs where you can whop in any old part any have it work, the original designer took some pains to force the matteringness into only those things that were critical. Case in point: transistor biasing; good transistor bias design is tolerant of power supply variation, temperature extremes, and transistor characteristics to the point where it will do something almost right if the parts values are even close and almost any old transistor will do.

Yeah, yeah, I can hear you thinking "R.G.'s gone off the deep end comtemplating his too-prominent navel." Probably so.

I have this other theory that any possible situation has a C&W song already written about. In this case it's "The Gambler". You know - you gotta know when to hold 'em...

[Mark Hammer]

And of course, discussing the importance of what matters.....matters. :lol:

I am an intermittent follower of research on the psychology of expertise; that is what constitutes being an "expert", what's different about their thinking, and how you get to that point.

A great deal of expertise research is conducted with chess players.  Not because chess players are any sort of cut above, but because people who are serious about chess document their games, and are also ranked internationally on that basis.  In other words, it is easier to study chess players and explore what makes the difference between rising to rank X and only rising to rank Y than it would be to study the same thing in, say, chefs, kindergarten teachers, or car mechanics.

In the history of chess programs and simulators, one of the classic strategies was to devise algorithms for the software to "look ahead" and consider the implications of many more moves by their human opponent, the idea being that the machine (or any player for that matter) is more susceptible to their opponent's moves if they don'tthink far ahead enough and overlook "that" move (oh....yeah.....right.....THAT move  :x ).  Faster CPU speed and general throughput enabled these algorithms to be more efficient, but humans continued to win despite the ever-increasing number of MIPS.  Ultimately, it would be heuristics, rather than algorithms that would unseat humans as chess champs.

If you talk to chess players of different levels of expertise, though (and trust me, I ain't one of them), one of the things you see is that experts actually *don't* consider that many more moves than novices do, either current moves or subsequent implied moves (potentiated by an immediate one).  Rather, their strength lies in recognizing what doesn't matter and so restricting their mulling over to that which they recognize as potentially mattering. In other words, what experts are able to bring to the table is that they can cover more ground with the same or less work, simply by being able to allocate time and effort efficiently on the basis of knowing where it yields benefit.

In the electronic design or troubleshooting context, expertise would show itself by, again, allowing one to separate things into the "matters" and "doesn't matter much" bins.  Other folks here are leagues above me in terms of blazing trails and designing things, but after years and years and years of twiddling knobs, building stuff wrong then right, and staring at schematics, one of the things that brings comfort and satisfaction to me is an ever-increasing capacity to zero in on one or two things about a design that DO make a difference.  To have someone say "I just wish it were more XYZ" and be able to respond with "Oh, just change that part right there", or make a suggestion about adding just one more control and have it make a world of difference in terms of usability.  It brings me pleasure to be able to do it, and brings me added pleasure to find I am able to do it more as time moves on.

Which brings us to time.  Expertise researchers tend to be in relative agreement that it generally requires about 10,000 hrs of practice in any area to arrive at expert levels of performance.  What *counts* as practice is another matter.  In our context, it could include simply thnking about something you tried out earlier that day during the bus ride home, comparing ToneFrenzy or ROG clips for slightly different designs, staring at 4 versions of a Superfuzz, building something "wrong" for the 5th exasperating time that weekend, watching your scope as you adjust a trimpot, OR going on a weekend retreat with your best gal and your Hill and Horowitz ("Start without me honey, I want to finish this chapter.  There's spare batteries in the backpack.").  All of this amounts to practice and connecting every little tidbit you know in the area such that you can say "When trying to do *this*, those things matter, but if you're trying to do *that*, then those things matter more".

Of course, it's like that with life too, which is why some cognitive researchers who study "wisdom", treat it as a form of expertise; wise people know what matters and doesn't in life.

I'm in a very happy mood.  Just came back from a touch of gluttony at an Indian Buffet across the street from work.  I've been getting into Indian cuisine lately, and studying my cookbook, studying the shelves at the local Indian supermarket, and trading notes with a guy I know in Bombay.  Not quite up to talking shop with the grannies, but looking forward to it.  Wonderful feeling when you can eat a meal and be going "A-HA!, so that's how they do it".  Like watching slowed-down high-speed movies of Django's fingers.

As for your prominent navel, don't sweat it.  Only your wife's opinion and your cardiologist's opinion matter.  Well, maybe your tailor's too, but less often so. :wink:

Nice post.  Even engineers wax philosophical now and then.

[Ballz]

Guys, guys - excellent!
It´s been a long time since I read something this eloquent and well thought-out on the net, let alone in a hobbyists forum! :shock:

Keep it up!

Cheers /Richard (who doesn´t know how to spell Nietzsche but cares about the odd philosophical thought now and then)

[RDV]

Well,..........when it comes right down to it.....the only thing that really matters is............GOOD HYGIENE.

Keep it clean

RDV

[csj]

yeah, Richard...
That's one of the reasons some of us keep coming back.
In addition to having real  EEs Diystomp has it's own homegrown versions of Robert Pirsig and Marshall McLuhan.

Find that over at the Gearpage or 18watt.

[Skreddy]

A great deal of that expert ability boils down to recognizing patterns.  Circuits, as well as chess scenarios, tend to fall into classic, well-documented archetypes and strategies.  The time spent studying these patterns frees one from the tedium and confusion of seeing too many variables at once; one gains the ability to see bigger pictures and intuit situations without much effort.  The same applies to music with regard to learning scales, chords, and theory: practice and study pay off.  The good news is that the training doesn't have to be formal.  I feel like I've gotten a college education over the past few years hanging around forums with R.G. and Hammer, so thanks, gentlemen.

[Lonestarjohnny]

Its like RG said, takes time to Develope a Nose and set of ears that can learn by listening and seeing, not just Babbling crap out of book, one of the best stated and nun anytrue'er things can you read my friend, Thanks RG for those Nice word's you just Spoke,
Not to forget Mark also, Thank you for Elaborating.
JD

[Paul Marossy]

Someone I once knew when I first started in consulting engineering said that "an expert is not one who knows all the answers, but rather, one who knows where to look to get the answer." I always thought that was pretty true.

Some of the most knowledgeable people I have known had no formal training in the areas that they were experts in. I am mostly self-taught in most areas of my life, including my professional one. What makes me unsure about myself sometimes is that I am not sure if what I am teaching myself is right or not. Time is the judge of that...  

[puretube]

[Lonestarjohnny]

Paul, as long as your happy, thats all that really counts anyway !
JD

[Peter Snowberg]

Fantastic reads. I couldn't agree more.

I think my big advantage was to realize what expert really meant before many of my classmates. I may be a graduate of the school of hard knocks, but I'm an expert in ignoring that stuff that doesn't count and lots of people mistake that for increased aptitude. Others are too busy focusing on the stuff that doesn't count and they think my worker-drone skills need improving.   I would much rather be mountain biking.  :mrgreen:

"Not everything that can be counted counts,
and not everything that counts can be counted."
 --  Albert Einstein

Take care,
-Peter

[Paul Marossy]

Yeah JD, that is true. It gets old at work, though, when most everyone has degrees and you don't, so you are viewed by some as not being equal even though you can outperform many of these college grads from good colleges in many aspects.  :evil:

But the people at the top, (the principals and owners) recognize me differently, so I am actually teaching college grads how to do design and stuff. It's just kind of a weird position to be in - being recognized as an expert in something but not having any other credentials than being self-taught and 15 years of experience. I have never been one to do things they way everyone else does them. I guess that "non-conformist" label I was given long ago has held itself to be true...

A common thread here seems to be "don't sweat the details". I have noticed a lot of newbies in my field got so bogged down in the details that the job wnet over budget, was late, etc. Really good advice. The details are important, but knowing which ones are the most important are key here.

[Arno van der Heijden]

"Not everything that can be counted counts,
and not everything that counts can be counted."
 --  Albert Einstein

Take care,
-Peter

Peter, do you mind if I borrow your Einstein quote?  

[Peter Snowberg]

Peter, do you mind if I borrow your Einstein quote?  

I stole it from Albert and I don't think he would object.

http://www.quotedb.com/authors/albert-einstein

Take care,
-Peter

[davebungo]

It occurs to me....Yeah, yeah, I can hear you thinking "R.G.'s gone off the deep end comtemplating his too-prominent navel." Probably so. ...

No definitely not.  I hear you loud and clear on this one.  I can draw a parallel within my own job as a software engineer.  I constantly get irritated with examples of sub-standard code design (not to mention untidy/inconsistent layout and commenting), but its not so much the standard of workmanship which rubs the wrong way, its more my inability to put across how I would tackle things.  Some engineering principles are quite hard to put across in a way in which the recipient suddenly yells "Yep - I've got it!"  Usually, when I'm on a roll about something or other which has got me excited enough to bring it up at our morning get together, I get blank looks and I can hear them thinking "Dave's off again!"  This is a source of real frustration.  Often it's hard to think of examples of why doing something "this" way (albeit expedient) will result in a boot up the backside 6 or 12 months down the line - it's particularly difficult with Software because of the sheer man hours involved and the difficulty in reversing what appear to be quite trivial technical decisions made some months earlier.  Does anyone else share this sort of experience?

[zenpeace69]

It occurs to me that something that I know and use all the time is not something I've seen expressed within the electronics realm, and especially for very beginning beginners in electronics, so I thought I'd get it down explicitly here.

(1) Some things matter, some things don't.
(2) Knowing *which* things matter and which don't is crucial to success.
(3) If you don't know which things matter, your success is tied to incredibly tedious attention to every detail.
(4) Elegance and excellence in design depends on forcing some things not to matter.

Beginners are taught to follow instructions to the letter to achieve any success. This is in fact critical, because beginners don't have the base of knowledge that lets them separate things that matter from things that don't at a glance, almost unconsciously.

When I was a beginner, it was almost infuriating to me to hear an elder say "...yeah, that's different, but it doesn't matter here..." because I had set up the idea that everything mattered.  And it did to me, because I had not yet learned to separate them for myself.

Knowing how to separate them is only done by intimate knowledge and experience. Every time an elder said that infuriating line, I got a little clearer picture, because it uncovered another subtle part of things that I hadn't thought of before. Over time, they added up.

That the "matter-ing-ness" of things can be influenced is another idea that took a while to sink in. Good designers can force things to matter or not matter. In complex designs where everything matters, the design is fragile and rigid. Any change in anything causes it to not work right. In designs where you can whop in any old part any have it work, the original designer took some pains to force the matteringness into only those things that were critical. Case in point: transistor biasing; good transistor bias design is tolerant of power supply variation, temperature extremes, and transistor characteristics to the point where it will do something almost right if the parts values are even close and almost any old transistor will do.

Yeah, yeah, I can hear you thinking "R.G.'s gone off the deep end comtemplating his too-prominent navel." Probably so.

I have this other theory that any possible situation has a C&W song already written about. In this case it's "The Gambler". You know - you gotta know when to hold 'em...

No shit!  This is great... You're right.  I have become very adept at numerous skills over the years and your theory applies to every one of them.  As a newbie builder I get very frustrated at times not having that knowledge base developed.

[Ge_Whiz]

RG - like many simple truths, I could have come up with your points 1 to 3 if I'd thought about it. But point 4 - that's REAL insight. Well elucidated.

[David]

All the time, pal, all the time!

A fellow bit-slinger since 1983.

[Tony Forestiere]

Hello All!
Have been out of town for the last two weeks (without internet access)
Tracking through the forum, I came upon this thread and realized why I stay! You guys are ALL beauty and brains Four and five dimensional thinking, (that outside, through, and what defines "the box" thinking) is not the the conceptive thought process of the "average bear". Kudos to R.G. and Mark Hammer for capsulizing something that I have "known and know that I know" into a viable and active description of why those of us "non-papered" folks can transcend the norm...we think

Beautiful concepts!
Tony

[brett]

Someone I once knew when I first started in consulting engineering said that "an expert is not one who knows all the answers, but rather, one who knows where to look to get the answer." I always thought that was pretty true.

That is something that rings true for me too.
I'm a researcher who is that classic kind of expert - one who knows where to look for solutions.  But I work in an industry (agriculture) where most people (nearly 90%) like to keep checking everything.  Give people like that a schematic and they CAN'T reduce it down to a few general sections, and work out the most critical.  But they never miss anything, either.  They are good for quality control.  These kind of differences are represented in personality tests like the Myers-Briggs test, or my personal favourite, the Kiersey temperament sorter (Kiersey has a great book - "Please understand me").  

One of the key differences in temperament is whether you are an INTUITIVE type, who quickly learns the skills to work subconsciously and handle concepts, or a SENSING type, who quickly learns to keep watch over everything.  Intuitive types make good scientists, while sensing types make good bus drivers and policemen.  Interestingly, about 80% of people are sensing types, and only 20% intuitive.  That shocks scientists and engineers, who often think that everyone thinks like they do.  But it's great, really.  I am so "off with the fairies" in my little intuitive world that I wouldn't be happy or safe driving the school bus.  I can do their science and they can run the mechanics of the world.

Apologies for the long post, but this stuff fascinates me.