cicatriz's comments

Yes, coding in your very broad sense is necessary to modeling in Granger's sense. The bigger problem is that coding isn't sufficient for modeling. We can and do get lost in the details of programming languages and tools. We design "learn to code" programs that teach typing and data-entry as opposed to abstract thinking.

Coding at work is certainly not optimized for practice.

NFL players do an exceptional amount of highly optimized training in addition to their "work" of playing the game: http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/12/10/tom-brady-new-england-patri...

No, you shouldn't have to work a 40+ hour week and then go home and practice to make a living as a software engineer. But if we want highly performant programmers, we should figure out the best ways to practice (and probably spend less--but more effective--time on production code to balance it all out).

See also Rich Hickey's Hammock Driven Development: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc

Yep, I don't get why Wolfram language would replace APIs we already have in place.

Because it's in natural language? WolframAlpha demonstrates (unsurprisingly) that it's still finicky. You still have to do just as much work to ensure connected services are working together properly.

Because--according to universal computation--it covers the entire computable world? So does any Turing-complete language.

I do see this as another cool thing along the lines of IPython Notebooks or JS Fiddle where you can quickly hook up to services and share the results. Uniquely, WolframAlpha's datasets and some of Mathematica's features. So it'd be nice for homework sets or Bret Victor-esque reactive documents (see http://worrydream.com/Tangle/).

Many efforts underway already. To add to the list http://fluxtream.org http://lockerproject.org/

Here's a writeup about a recent study that showed interviewers couldn't predict GPA any better when the interviewees answers were accurate versus random: http://www.danielwillingham.com/1/post/2013/10/why-job-inter...

Anyone who supports math puzzles (or whatever else) in an interview would have to argue that their perception of the candidates performance offers a clear enough data point that it doesn't dilute other information available to them. Given Google's study finding data otherwise, they certainly have the burden of proof.

The headline is misleading, but the article itself is more solid in this regard.

In fact, if you want children to be able to think, you shouldn't "teach them to think". You should teach deep knowledge and skills in a particular subject matter context:

"Maths classes tend to be more sophisticated, with lessons that show the often fascinating ways that geometry, trigonometry and calculus work together in the real world. Students forego calculators, having learned how to manipulate numbers in their heads."

High expectations can also be effective:

"Yet his most effective change was also his wooliest: he expected the best work from all of his pupils."

See http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2007/Crit_Thi...

Not sure how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go, but here's what I know:

The field of intelligent tutoring systems is essentially how to break up a problem and estimate your knowledge on each piece (called a "knowledge component"), and then how to instruct based on the resulting student model. I got started by reading about Andes physics tutor: http://oli.cmu.edu/wp-oli/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/VanLehn... but there are many examples.

Most of the research doesn't actually incorporate spaced repetition. One exception is Philip Pavlik's work: http://optimallearning.org/

It's still a lot of effort to break things down into knowledge components and figure out the sequencing and instruction. That's why companies like Carnegie Learning and Knewton exist, and even those are only targeting elementary or intro level material for now.

I've been thinking about this for a while--I created a spaced repetition system to digitize and learn material in college (alas, I don't use it anymore). I have a philosophical approach to the question here (also cited in Gwern's article): http://blog.learnstream.org/2012/08/spaced-repetition-in-nat...

Your distinction between learning facts and learning ways of thinking is interesting. Most of the spaced repetition research and design is around fact recall--what's called "paired associates" because you recall some response paired with some stimulus. I don't have any evidence for it, but I'd say that the schema can be lost just as well as facts can be.

One thing I will say is that spaced repetition is generally known for the repetition--that you retain something over time, and the spacing is more thought of as convenience. But the truth is that spacing is also part of better learning--when recall is difficult it's learned better (called "desirable difficulties"). I thought of that because Robert Bjork does that research with skills as well as facts. (See http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/everything-about-learni... for an overview.)

Sounds a lot like Kaizen. I liked this -- appropriately short -- book for more real-life examples and background: http://www.amazon.com/Small-Step-Change-Your-Life/dp/0761129...

Not that passion can't reinforce grit, but I tend to think that it's actually grit that causes passion, as Cal Newport often argues: http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/01/23/beyond-passion-the-sci...

So, indeed, what increases grit?

Sayemm's quote about prodigies seems to imply that there is something innate causing a singleminded obsession. Maybe in some cases, but there are cases like Mozart and the Polgar sisters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r#Early_life), who were basically raised into the target of their grit and passion.

I think one of the answers, as in the forth point, is environment. Take programming. In my case, I got started at a young age because I had a computer and found a programming book one time when I was bored. From there it was extremely easy to surround myself, via the internet, with people who are gritty about programming, to read books and blogs all the time, and to have projects all around me.

Not only that, but his countering suggestion is a single word, "value", that he doesn't define or substantiate. Beyond any simple idea of what people want, you almost always need to build a product that they can use and like to use, and that needs good design. Not graphic design -- interaction design.

Why so many of these content-less posts on HN front page lately?

Nocera is a pretty good (funny) speaker too. Talk from Jan 11 http://youtu.be/D3HNrAGWoAI

The book Rails AntiPatterns addresses many: http://www.amazon.com/Rails-AntiPatterns-Refactoring-Addison...