If you're going to talk about it, read it.

• I was saved by the negativity in “The Intellectual Production of Engineers” about “if you are going to talk about 00, you should at least read xxx”. I’ll take that as a good thing since I was studying something else on my own time. People’s time is finite, and the reading experience depends a lot on people’s prerequisite knowledge and experience, and I don’t remember everything anyway.

  • I totally agree with the second half, but I only feel uncomfortable when you describe it as ‘I was negative about “if you’re going to talk about 00, you should at least read xx”’!

    • https://twitter.com/nishio/status/1093194631238434816

Think about why you feel uncomfortable.

• For ease of explanation, I’ll rewrite the symbols to “If you’re going to talk about A, you should at least read X.”
• Good thing I was studying something else on my own time.
  • agreement
  • If you learned about B instead of learning about A, there is nothing wrong with that.
  • Compared to learning about A because “everyone else is learning about A,” you are choosing what you want to learn about, and that’s rather nice.
• People’s time is finite.
  • agreement
  • You can’t learn everything because it’s finite.
  • What to invest limited time in is an individual investment decision
• The reading experience is highly dependent on a person’s prerequisite knowledge and experience
  • agreement
  • You don’t get the same thing from the same book.
• I don’t remember everything anyway.
  • agreement
  • It’s not like a human downloading a file to a computer.
  • We don’t remember everything, and computers are better at remembering everything.
• Negative about “if you’re going to talk about A, you should at least read X.”
  • hmm
  • There’s nothing wrong with learning B instead of A, and in learning A, it might be a good idea to read Y instead of X.
  • But when someone talks about the KJ method, for example, and says, “The KJ method is a method of classifying things by writing them on sticky notes,” I say, “What are you talking about when the proponent himself says Do not classify. so many times?” And so on.
  • This is a “if you’re going to talk about X, at least read the book where it was proposed” composition.
    • I’m not saying, “Be faithful to the scriptures.”
      • Once you understand it, you can modify it to suit your situation or cut corners in areas you deem unimportant. Recommendation
      • But the “once you understand it” is not done.
        • Shuhari is “defending” first.
      • Related: People who call what is not a mind map a mind map….
  • This could be an impression that depends on the relationship between A and X.
    • If you’re going to talk about programming, at least learn Haskell.”
      • A is very wide and X is high cost
      • NG feelings
    • If you’re going to talk about Haskell, at least read the Haskell tutorial.”
      • A is narrower and X is lower cost
      • This is the opposite of the “of course” feeling.
    • NG feels that “claims that impose high cost burdens on a wide range of people”
    • If the scope is narrow, I feel that “if you’re going to talk about it, you obviously need to know the premise.”
  • You said you were negative about “if you’re going to talk about A, you should at least read X” which is not limited to A and X, even though my feelings are different depending on the content of A and X. You came up with A and X which are not negative, which led to your discomfort.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/語るなら読んでおけ using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.