for convenience

[Paul St George]

On 22/03/2022 18.04, dn wrote:

> and thank you - it is refreshing, if not enervating, to receive feedback
> on efforts-expended!
> 
> You will also notice, that now you understand the id() stuff, the
> tag-team effect between @Chris and I (which we have often played, albeit
> not by-design), now makes sense as an whole (if you didn't quite follow,
> earlier).
> 
> 
> My research-topic is Cognitive Psychology (how we learn - albeit not
> usually in Python). I found this conversation useful, and may well apply
> it as an example (with your permission, and suitably anonymised) - one
> doesn't need to be a 'computer person' to follow the logic and thus
> realise the dissonance!
> 
> While learning (this part of) Python and adding to 'previous
> experience', you formed a "mental-model" of how things work (just as we
> all do). However, when it came time to implement this knowledge:
> 
> - you created a 'situation'
> - (all) things didn't 'work' (which also required realisation)
> - you analysed and rationalised (but noted inconsistency)
> - you asked a question (which many of us quickly understood)
> - you've learned/corrected
> 
> 
> The 'issue' is *not* a fault on your part, nor (necessarily) a lack of
> learning or a lack of effort. So, no criticism from me!
> 
> The (under-lying) lesson, is that we (as trainers, but with application
> to all helpers, pair-programmers, mentors, documentation-writers, et al
> - working with less-experienced colleagues) shouldn't spout a whole load
> of 'facts', 'rules', and formulae/s - which we expect to be committed to
> memory. We need to help form a 'correct' mental-model ("correct" being
> defined by the Python interpreter and 'the Python gods' who build it -
> big "thank you" to them!).
> 
> Accordingly, my criticism of tests/exams which require recitation of
> facts ("parroting"), compared with "mastery" (can you actually DO what
> is being asked). More importantly, and finally getting to the point:
> 'tests' should be defined to reveal these (personal) 'quirks' of
> learning/understanding, which led to a 'faulty' mental-model!
> 
> Your rationale made sense, was logical and understandable. How are you
> to know that Python deems it 'wrong'? (until a 'test' shows you!)
> 
> The 'interest' should not be on the people who, and all the 'answers'
> which, were 'correct'. What is more informative, is why someone (aside
> from guessing, ie intelligent, reasonable, after learning the material,
> exerting effort...) got it 'wrong' - but thought his/her path was true!
> -- 
> Regards,
> =dn


Wow, this is super interesting. You have my permission, and please feel free to contact me offline if you want to ask anything.

Yes, I had noticed the tandem with @Chris. I think I needed both! I already have a folder on my Mac called ‘Cameron’. Perhaps I now need an additional folder. Then I can ask my question about whether Python grows to be more like its programmers, or do programmers learn to think Pythonically?


—
Paul St George