|
|
|
|
|
by gridlockd
2219 days ago
|
|
> Shouldn't that be more like "Let's say you're learning to be a surgeon."? No. It is an exaggerated example, because I am illustrating a psychological effect. The point is that you are consulting an expert, and you don't want that expert to tell you about all their mistakes, because your mind is now occupied with doubting that expert. It's not rational. > For that situation, the person they're learning from discussing problems they hit and how they solved them does sound like it would be very useful. It's useful to present common mistakes, but mentioning who made the mistake is both irrelevant and damaging. |
|
Sometimes books are written for entry level people (to the technology or topic) and they're written in an authoritative tone. But I work with people who write books. And I read their books. I don't read them like some kind of expert oracle distributing the blessed texts. I read them as a work of documentation from a friend or colleague, so I don't really feel this veneer of expertise is necessary.
Sometimes the experts try hard to scrape away the veneer of expertise by adding side fluff like in Learn you a Haskell for Great Good. Or, Alex Crichton, who is undoubtedly an expert in Rust and compiler technology giving this talk where he keeps saying things like "it does a process called quasiquoting which doesn't make any sense to me", "I don't know what hygiene means"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4SYTOc8fL0