Type-specific advice for contest applicants

2018-05-18 A text for people who want to help creators who want to enter some kind of contest, but are not sure how to advise them. Specifically, I’m thinking of middle school students who are trying to apply for unexplored junior high and the adults who are around them, but I don’t think the story is limited to those situations. Just to be clear: This is not an opinion representing the PMs of Unexplored Junior, but merely a statement of what one PM thought while sifting through the 106 applications. It is not a statement of the judging criteria.

Type 1

.

• What type?

  • lacking in specificity
  • Proposals are not tied to the creator’s personal experience.
  • Ideas are created by piecing together key words from “abstract concepts” that you may have heard in the news.
    • Extreme example “Artificial Intelligence combining deep learning and blockchain to drone the Olympics in VR!”
  • Japanese idiomatic expression “not grounded” is a very fitting expression
  • Basically, it makes no sense.
    • It is based only on information that is already in circulation, and we have combined it.
  • These abstract projects tend to fall short.
    • I wish he and others around him would better understand that it’s hard to create a project like this.

• How can I advise them?

  • Dig deeper = ask questions that make concrete
    • What exactly is this artificial intelligence?”
    • How exactly does that make it?”
    • How does that make anyone happy?”
    • What’s your reason for doing it?”
    • 
    • If it doesn’t materialize to the point where you can say, “Okay, let’s do that now,” then you can’t move forward with that project.
    • As a result of digging deeper, we get into a situation where the creator is not able to materialize with the knowledge he or she has at the moment.
      • What is needed next is to gather information to make it concrete
      • At the very least, Google it.
    • In the process of doing this, the creator may realize that there is more work than he or she thought.
      • This is what learning is all about
      • The first proposal is just a starting point, so you can keep changing the policy based on what you learn.
      • If you have experience with positive feedback on this type of groundless proposal, you run the risk of avoiding it once you see the muddy work that needs to be done.
        • In order to be easily evaluated, they drift into the behavior of “making similar proposals at the people who evaluate them”.
        • If you accumulate success stories in this way, you will grow up to be a delusional person with no concrete ideas.
  • Just using difficult techniques is beneath you.

Type 2

• What type?

  • It is based on my specific experience.
    • “I had this trouble at school,” “I had this trouble at my part-time job.”
    • Trying to resolve issues experienced.
  • I like the fact that you can see specific needs.
    • keep one’s feet on the ground
  • Much better than type 1.
  • On the other hand, some say it’s “small.”
    • Lack of “awesomeness.”
  • Many people in the world underestimate it compared to a type 1 proposal.
    • To those who can’t tell if they’re “on the ground,” the higher the tip of the tree, the more awesome it looks.

• How would you advise?

  • Ask questions to develop
  • 
  • What else can you do with that tool?”
  • Couldn’t we apply this to other areas?”
    • Assumed frame of mind and broaden your horizons.
  • But if you overdo it, on the other hand, it becomes abstract and unintelligible.
    • Because he is imagining and inflating what he has not experienced.
  • Remember, it is very important to “stay grounded.”
    • To keep it out of the air.
  • I would broaden my perspective by asking, “Could this be applied to other fields?” If I thought it could be applied, I would go and interview people in that field.
    • So you “put one’s feet on the ground” in a new field.

Type 3

• What type?

  • Information is not organized.
  • Not connected.
  • Not enough information to begin with.
  • Lack of ability to organize thoughts and communicate them to others
    • This is an important long-term strength that we want to train them in.

• How would you advise?

  • 
  • Basic strategy: Ask questions to increase the amount of information
    • Write down the information that comes up so you don’t forget it.
  • 1: First, abstract concepts are put on hold.
    • Asking questions about abstract concepts can easily lead to sterile results because there is not enough information to make them concrete.
  • Focus on specifics, ask questions, and develop
    • 2: Focus first on the person’s own specific experience and what he/she has actually touched.
      • Examples of questions to develop
        • What did you think then?”
        • What made you happy then?”
    • 3: Select and delve into something as specific as possible out of what you have not yet experienced, what you have not yet made, what you are trying to make, etc.
      • Example
        • How exactly do you make that work?”
        • Is there something that happened that inspired you to make it?”
        • What would happen to make that possible?”
        • If we could do that, what would happen next?”
    • 4: Once enough information has been written out, structure it.
      • Sufficient information” means about 50 to 100 small sticky notes with short sentences or keywords written on them.
      • Rearrange and summarize this to come up with a story structure.
        • I wrote about it in chapter 5 of The Intellectual Production of Engineers: The Intellectual Production of Engineers Author’s official page.
      • At this time, you don’t have to use all the stickies, but don’t throw them away until you are done with them. You may realize later, “Oh, there’s a connection to that sticky here! You may realize later, “Oh, there is a connection to the story on that sticky! If you throw them away, you will find yourself saying, “I think I wrote something related to that sticky, but… I threw it away…
      • It may result in a connection to the concept reserved in #1. It is okay if they do not connect. It is better not to try to force a connection.

• remarks

  • As a result of asking questions, you may feel “incomprehensible” after being bombarded with technical terms and katakana words
  • The key here is to “elicit sufficient information and encourage them to structure it
    • The listener does not need to understand the technical terms.
      • Technical terms that the listener does not understand are, with a high probability, “abstract concepts that should be withheld”.
      • If you don’t know a word, just write it down for now and hold off.
      • If the speaker had a good understanding of the concept, a more biting explanation would emerge as needed in subsequent conversations.
    • Structuring is not something the listener does, either.
      • The listener patiently draws the speaker’s focus, which tends to jump around, to “something concrete”.
      • I believe that once a sufficient amount of grounded information is gathered, the structure will naturally emerge, but I guess the only way to know for sure is to try it out on your own.

Type 4

• What type?
  • Very specific and detailed, excellent!
  • But won’t this plan be completed within the time frame of the project with a deadline?
• About Estimates

  • It is difficult to estimate the time taken for a task.

  • Even more difficult because it’s a “new challenge.”

  • Since it is difficult even for professionals, there is no way that creators can estimate correctly.

  • On the other hand, there is no guarantee that the mentor can also estimate correctly

    • Where it would take 100 hours without knowledge, it only takes 1 if you discover certain knowledge.
    • Mentors are not omniscient either.
      • You shouldn’t say, “That’s hard.”
      • Claiming “I don’t think I can do it” to creators who think they can do it within the time frame will only undermine their motivation.

  • So “whether this plan will be completed within the time frame” is not the issue.

  • Provide guidance that “projects that evolve in stages” are preferable to “one huge project.”

  • 

      - [[Deadlines and estimation errors]]
    

• How would you advise?
  • Let’s have a minimal demonstration first.”
  • I’d better have a little ‘something to show’ by the time I submit my application.”
  • If you had to create something in the most cut-and-dry way to make the judges feel this project is worthwhile, what would you do?”
• If a person can make this type of proposal, you should give him confidence and let him apply more and more.

purpose abstraction and method abstraction

.

• I didn’t discuss the abstraction of purpose and the abstraction of method separately up to this point.
• Purpose is abstract: “Why are you doing this?”
• Methodology is abstract: “How are you going to make this happen?”
• Many follow the development process of “both abstract”, “the objective is now concrete, but the method is abstract”, or “both concrete”.
  • If both are abstract, first make the objective concrete.
  • Rarely is it the type of person who says, “The method is clear, but what’s the point of making it?” There are the type of people who
  • The type of person who enjoyed the technology itself and learned more and more on his own.
  • These types of people have a technical bottom line, so when they meet a challenge that matches their enthusiasm and the needs of society, they produce amazing results.
• I have a lot of trouble with applications that don’t have a specific personal motivation as to why they want to do this.
  • Unfortunately, there are cases in the world where people say, “My parents, my teacher, or my club advisor told me to do it, so I did it.
    • Without independence, both adopters and mentors are unhappy after the adoption.
  • You shouldn’t have too many people around you telling you to get it out.
  • Motivation is based on personal experience and cannot be provided from here
• Lack of specificity in methodology is due to lack of technical knowledge
  • Mentors can give knowledge.
  • However, from a creator’s educational perspective, there is a concern that the experience of “giving them knowledge and letting them carry out projects” will lead to people who cannot carry out projects unless they are given knowledge.
  • We want to develop human resources who can find knowledge on their own and are willing to go on their own.
  • I think it’s good to watch them go on their own, watching from the side, helping them up when they stumble, or giving them a tailwind.
  • So if I don’t see any indication that you are looking up technical knowledge on your own at the time of application, I wonder, “Do you intend to learn on your own? Do you think you will be taught everything?” This raises the concern that the applicant may not be able to learn everything on his/her own.

2021 addition

Type 5

• A pattern in which the means is actually the true end.
• From a third party’s point of view, at first glance, it appears that the “what to do and why to do it” is concrete, but the means to achieve it are just not concrete.
  • For example, “I want to achieve X, and I will use artificial intelligence to achieve it.”
• So I’ll instruct them, “Let’s build up more specific methods to achieve that goal.
  • 
  • As of 2018, that was my plan too.
• I realized for the first time in 2021 that in some cases, this “means” is the real goal.
  • I really want to make software using artificial intelligence, but I don’t know how to do it, so I need a mentor to teach me.
    • I’m not sure, so the description is abstract.
  • If you don’t realize this, and instead of using that method, you tell them to use a more specific method, you are suddenly denying the creator’s true purpose.
  • Creators are no longer motivated to do “what they really wanted to do” (artificial intelligence) because they can no longer do it.
    • But since I said I wanted to do X, it’s hard to say now that I’m not really interested in making X happen.
  • Mentor says, “It’s what he said he wanted to do X. Why does he seem unwilling to do it?” (or “why is he not willing to do X?”)
  • mutual misfortune
• The reason for this kind of proposal is that they implicitly believe that a proposal that says, “We want to do artificial intelligence” will not be adopted.
  • This is a case-by-case basis, but it would be hard to deny that at least Nishio personally has such tendencies.
  • Writing the true purpose may reduce the probability of adoption.
  • But if a purpose is written that is not the true purpose and adopted, the proposer will be unhappy because the true purpose of the adopter will not be achieved.
• Mentors must make an effort to discover the true purpose of the proposer
  • Proposers must be prepared to make proposals that may be misaligned in their true and superficial objectives without malicious intent
  • Both the mentor and the creator will suffer if they fail to see it.
    • This is the sin of mentoring
    • Don’t blame the creators for not writing the true purpose.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/コンテスト応募者へのタイプ別のアドバイス 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.