[HN Gopher] We don't 'do' learning. It does us
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       We don't 'do' learning. It does us
        
       Author : DanielBMarkham
       Score  : 32 points
       Date   : 2021-08-21 10:52 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (danielbmarkham.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (danielbmarkham.com)
        
       | coyotespike wrote:
       | I find this a useful framing, as it encourages me to direct my
       | attention to the broader context.
       | 
       | An organization is always learning something, what and how are we
       | learning, and does that fit for where we are now?
        
       | skmurphy wrote:
       | Key insight: "We talk about organizations being good or bad at
       | learning, but that's not really the case. All organizations
       | learn. One of the first things a team learns are the shared
       | stories the organization has for being as screwed up as it is"
       | 
       | I think most successful new hires learn how to work within the
       | "screwed up" environment, not how to change it--much less improve
       | it. Change agents are rare.
        
       | warent wrote:
       | It sounds like the author is discovering intuition as articulated
       | in a very ancient form. Artists and geniuses have long had
       | experiences of knowledge and information flowing through them and
       | expressing itself through them as some external thing. Actually,
       | everyone has this, but some seemingly to a greater degree than
       | others.
       | 
       | Take for example August Kekule who supposedly discovered the
       | shape of the benzene ring via dream of an ouroboros. Or, Seymour
       | Cray who came to solutions via "communicating with elves" under
       | his home.
       | 
       | If I recall correctly, I remember reading that in ancient Greece
       | it was believed wisdom and knowledge was some external thing
       | (maybe only one philosopher thought this?), like a spirit that
       | would visit an individual. Things were not actively learned, but
       | they were granted and bestowed by an unknown force.
       | 
       | The article though is very difficult to parse. Not to be rude but
       | the signature at the end makes me think the author might just
       | really enjoy the sound of their own writing a bit too much and
       | wants to come across as profound. Communicating things in
       | simpler, more relatable terms is much more meaningful and
       | valuable. Then again it's possible the author is also just so
       | eccentric and brilliant that their way of thinking is difficult
       | to follow.
        
       | undershirt wrote:
       | I don't understand all of this essay, but something about his
       | awareness of cybernetics makes me want to keep reading it until
       | it makes sense.
       | 
       | > We think of computers interacting with people as something
       | created by programmers... That's not true, though... folks
       | creating UX receive vastly more stimulus from machines than they
       | ever would create for others.
       | 
       | > Programming languages, IDEs, and dev environments affect the
       | people swimming in them far more than those people change the
       | world for others
        
       | hcta wrote:
       | I can tell this guy has been reading too much Heidegger because
       | this post and the one it references are completely
       | incomprehensible to me.
        
         | kaycebasques wrote:
         | I think this post is a case study in how a cryptic beginning
         | can turn people off. Particularly these lines:
         | 
         | > Learning is not like seeing lions in a safari. More humble
         | surfing. Less self-deluding chess.
         | 
         | > Reminder to self beginning.
         | 
         | > This is pedantic, but it's important.
         | 
         | The author mentions that storytelling is "near and dear to
         | their heart." My guess is that they are trying to do the
         | storytelling "hook" technique (where you start off by not
         | explaining something fully so that people are compelled to read
         | to the end and get closure). To their credit I did read to the
         | end but I feel like that is a cheap trick. Like a UX dark
         | pattern, but for writing.
         | 
         | The gist of the article is summed up in the title. I suppose
         | this idea has implications for how you think about
         | organizational learning but the author doesn't go into those
         | implications whatsoever.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-08-21 23:00 UTC)