Im wondering if this is a common adhd thing.
For example, I have always wanted to program, but I can’t let myself start with some easy gui building block code. I need to understand how the code is interacting with the computer itself and know how they did it in the 80s. Then of course it’s too hard for me and I give up.
Or if im making music, I need to do everything from scratch the hard way, making it as hard as possible (and killing any creative effort i had in the beginning).
It’s the same with anything. I can’t progress if I dont know the absolute reason why something is being done. And if I do it the easy way, I didn’t do it right and took shortcuts so it was worthless.
I’m sort of like this especially when it comes to math, but mostly because my memory is shit.
I can’t just memorize a formula, I need to know how something works and then I can work out what i need to do. The “understanding” is what triggers the memory to stick, not the need to remember “you need to use x+y-65bm(y+ba)/gap+5-13 when you have a problem involving bears.” I’ll never just remember that. I basically always barely passed my math classes in highschool…
So I never studied science and never followed my passions and am now in a factory lol stupid memory…
This is actually the goal of newer math classes, and is why so many parents have been complaining about “new math”. The new goal is to teach students the core components, then show them how to break larger problems down into those core components.
7x12 may be difficult to do in your head (at least without memorizing your times tables or counting by 7’s) but (7x10)+(7x2) is fairly easy. The goal is to move away from rote memorization like times tables, because educators realized that the best students didn’t actually rely on rote memorization. Instead, they relied on mental shortcuts derived from actual understanding. Plus, rote memorization only works up to a certain point. You don’t need to memorize what 15x13 is, when you can break it down into a series of smaller and easier (15x10)+(15x3)=150+45=195 style problems.
Personally, I haven’t had any issues with new math, because that’s how I always did math. I was one of those students who got bored with rote memorization and started devising shortcuts for math problems. And now they’re teaching those very shortcuts as part of the curriculum, because they realized that it gives a much deeper understanding of how and why the math works.
That’s actually really good to hear! Hopefully less people are left behind because of the dumb way we would teach things.
That’s the “new math”? That’s just how I always have done it. I’ve kicked ass at math because things were a logical progression and order of operations. I could always transform something down to simpler to calculate pieces.
Yeah, all of the former straight-A students (who excelled at rote memorization, without learning why the math worked) are now parents, struggling to help their kids with the “new” math.
In programming you do not need to know the inner workings in order to use something, in fact most people use abstraction to make a project more manageable and modular.
Also don’t learn anything before you start a project because it’s too boring. I always start a project and learn things I need to learn along the way
Starting a project which you actually find interesting and will really use, will also help with following through. There will be boring parts to it but the excitement of having something usable will overshadow any negative feelings.
That’s why I never used Unity for anything but rather just started with raylib. And then went to pure Vulkan.
I’m this way 100%. Feels like I’ll be able to do it better and be less distracted by questions if I get to know something from the ground up, and just doing it a certain way because everyone agrees it works that way is never satisfying/I never feel like I can trust that completely.
Ooh! Get an Arduino/electronics starter kit! You’ll learn how computers worked in the 80s. Then you’ll be able to move on up to say, Python in no time 👍
I should do that. My problem is what to make. There’s a billion things and it’s all been done already, so I just don’t know what I’d want to even do
Pick something in your daily life that you want to make more convenient. Start searching for tutorials, necessary hardware, and related coding.
Even something simple like, “I wish I didn’t have to turn on my fan because it’s in the corner.” Boom: look into building a motion sensor that runs a fan, and maybe it connects via a USB port for power.
Convince yourself it doesn’t need to perfect. It just needs to create a convenience that happens to teach you something.
I would find and follow a tutorial. They give you the “what” to do and you can go down rabbit holes of research connecting the why/how. Then when your done, you are starting with some knowledge/understanding which makes seeing possible applications easier.
I can relate. I have a natural aversion to “high level” languages that obfuscate a lot of the details from me.
I actually do know a lot about the low-level details of programming, how code interacts with hardware, etc. BUT - I didn’t start with that. I first learned BASIC (indeed - in the '80s). Then Pascal, then C. THEN I learned about assembly, computer architecture, etc.
Does knowing those low-level details make me a better programmer? Probably - but they’re certainly not necessary to get started or to even be effective. And if I started with them I may not have gone into programming.
I’ve learned to how to convince myself that “I will simply accept this as it is for now (and that’s okay) but I will let myself dive deep on it later”. A bit of a bargain to give me permission to “cheat” for the time-being. It’s helped when learning new frameworks which can be very complicated. And starting top-down can give you a better appreciation for the details underneath.
See this is why I always wish to had been born in the computing age and not the iPad age, would have actailly had a reason to learn the real building blocks ! Thats a good cheat though.
I recommend the book “Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software”. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/code-charles-petzold/1100324884?ean=9780137909100
There’s a second edition, I’m not sure how good it is, but the first edition is excellent and will make sure you understand every part of the computer.
I also recommend the course Nand2Tetris and its accompanying book The Elements of Computing Systems, where you will build an actual computer from the ground up with just code.
Wow this is awesome, thank you much!
You’re welcome. It’s the first part of any good computer science course, or it was when I was in college at least. And you don’t really need a professor to take you through it, it’s very well written.
Can you trick yourself into doing it the other way?
‘GUI building blocks let me see the shape of the finished code. Once I know the shape, I can work backwards to finer detail.’
‘Making music with the simplified tools lets me get the tune out so I don’t forget it, then I can replace parts with the proper instruments and tools.’
I’m still trying to get my head around coding, but I use the music trick to learn songs. I play them one note at a time on either bass or guitar to figure out the tune, then play them properly with chords or figure out the bass line once I know where the song’s going :)
I can certainly relate. I remember disassembling mechanical things as a young kid and it always bugged me that there was this digital level of design that I couldn’t physically investigate intuitively. Then once I started programming I remembered initially being disappointed by the concept of scripting/dynamic language. It felt like if I tried to imagine the twinkle of the 1s and 0s as they moved around the machine the patterns would more divorced from the physical hardware. Probably not an accurate or valid abstraction but it is the model that I mentally interact with at a high concept level. I’ve grown more partial to dynamic languages since then but only as I’ve come to terms with the underlying mechanisms. ADHD needs solid walls to bounce off of and having a interpreter that exists in this virtual environment doesn’t naturally capture my trust. So in my hubris I doubt the veracity of the tools and learn that it requires a context change to dig in to the lower level of the issue which is demoralizing as an ADHD person. And now because I want to mitigate future context change I spend a lot of time forecasting potential context changes and quickly get overwhelmed by my own efforts.
Yea, can strongly relate. Hindered me a lot during my school years. I just couldn’t do anything without knowing the reasoning behind it. In the way I function, any amount of work is dictated by a need, and if the need -or the rationale, is never presented to me, then I fail to tackle the problem. I love solving problems, but they need to be real, applied.
I definitely relate. I also kind of have this obsession with using only open source software which also tends to hinder my creativity because some of the open source alternatives to things have steep learning curves.
Anyway, I think this is one of the things that makes me great at math but terrible at learning math. If something is complicated, I have to chew it down to the bone and then rebuild back to the original complicated thing.
As such, I’m really good at doing all sorts of math and even have some of my own weird identities/constants memorized, but it takes me a lot of time and effort to learn new math from a textbook instead of (re)inventing it myself.
I’m the same way. I can’t just know how to do something, I need to know why I’m doing something.
I can’t just blindly follow instructions or I’ll never learn. I need to understand everything so that I can find more efficient ways to do the thing I need to do. This is a common frustration I have in the workplace.
It’s put me at odds with some managers, until I got high enough where it became a target and I could determine the path to get there.
I hated managers who wouldn’t tell me the why, because I’d inevitably hit something that doesn’t line up with my training and I’d have to apply the why’s to determine what to do.
Extremely valuable to me.
I wasn’t much of a cook until I started watching Good Eats, and learning the actual science behind shit. Now if I am unable to find X, I know I can substitute a bunch of other things because I know why you’re using X in the first place. Most of the time, it’s not taste that governs what goes into a dish, but the chemical reactions being created.
Knowing how a game works helps determine what is and isn’t a bug, as well as finding bugs or exploits for various reasons. Maybe you’re making a game and wanna crush them. Maybe you’re a speed runner and you can do some frame perfect bullshit because you know how the game does a specific action and it can be manipulated to your favor.
Yeah. I have found the prototype perspective can help. The idea being that this first attempt is part of the learning exercise and you will redo it “properly” the second time. It helps prevent building a emotional mountain of requirements to get started that only exist in my head. It’s kind of an mindset of knowing you will mess up the first one and that is OK because it is expected and a required part of the process.
I’ve struggled with this mentally, especially when I first was learning how to code. Eventually I realized while it’s great to know the ins and outs, you can allow yourself to only worry about what you need to know to get your code running (and that’s okay).
Write a script to go a thing, then learn about how to automate that with a cronjob, then learn about coding in the cloud. If you start too big you might get overwhelmed
