Skipping steps

When I was in elementary school, actually all the way up until I graduated high school, I was continually scolded by my teachers of mathematics because I skipped the steps they wanted written out explicitly to show that I understood the methodology. At the time, I did not fully comprehend that they needed to see the steps that my mind had already processed without the need to write them down because I needed to prove to them that the understanding was indeed present.

Unfortunately, I have retained that habit of skipping explicitly listing the steps in my reasoning, assuming that others will follow the same path of reasoning I have trod.

My assumption has been proven to me in the comments here to be horribly wrong.

So, tomorrow, Friday, I will explicitly lay out my reasoning underlying a recent post, and I have a new post in the works that I will also tailor such that is very clear even to those whose vision is distorted by the most biased glasses.

—

A note to those who cry “partisan”, be very careful before using that accusation, for in making it you label yourself as much or even more so than those whom you accuse of that sin.

Archives

Weblogs I read

PARTISAN!!!!

Oops, sorry about that, Jack. Got a little carried away…

I’m eager to read your new post. Despite some criticism on my part at TMV, your link to Tea Fizz helped me clarify and understand your positions. I now read your work from a different perspective (thanks to Fizz). Perhaps spelling out the steps of your work will further aid that understanding.

[...] Before I take off for the weekend, though, I’ll go ahead and address this: A note to those who cry “partisan???, be very careful before using that accusation, for in making it you label yourself as much or even more so than those whom you accuse of that sin. [...]

There’s another way of putting it. In my business (making computers run faster and/or use less resources) we call it “intuition” — the ability, based on extensive experience, to glance at a pile of data and immediately zero in on the critical couple of bits which define the problem.

Usually, but not always, I can go back later and (re)construct a chain of reasoning which would/could have led me to the same focus. Eventually. Maybe. But the fact is, that’s not how I did it. What I actually did was glance at the data, pick up on a pattern without really being aware of it, and say to myself: “something odd just there.”

Is it 100% accurate? No such luck; and the conclusion has to be checked and verified — which takes time, but is faster than digging it out initially would have been. Still, it works the vast majority of the time, and gets to the solution really fast in situations where time may be important. If I’ve got all afternoon, I can generate a very nice analysis which will look good to someone reading it. But in real life, what I do (and what my boss WANTS me to do) is get to the answer fast, and fill in the steps later (if at all).

RSS feed for comments on this post.