when first grappling with some new language, platform, framework etc I often initially feel blind, clumsy, just sort of groping around in the dark, trying to figure out what's what

then when I set up proper debugging & can step through library code, the world opens up before me

I'm beginning to realize that the former more closely matches most people's experiences with formal reasoning

many don't even know the latter is an option in terms of "how to think"; forget being able to do it

that ideas are possible to treat in this way doesn't occur to them

this took me a very long time to understand, as I've treated reasoning in this way for as long as I can remember; as a deterministic process with distinct objects and transformation rules between them

now I'm no longer sure which came first; programming skill or reasoning skill

to be honest, I do experience the former when first exploring new modalities, ideas, analytical lenses; I feel blind, crippled, unable to exert my full reasoning ability due to lacking an understanding of this new game's rules

but I always seek to get to the latter, & I know how

I'm wondering if that's why many people seem incapable of thinking, to me; that they don't even realize that there is a game happening, that there are rules to learn, competence to be achieved

they think the blind men can never perceive the elephant, that that's all there is

some part of me is aware that there are very smart people who think in a radically different way than I do, and yet are capable of intellectual feats I couldn't dream of

that to them, my reasoning mode may seem stilted, robotic, devoid of life

I wonder how many of these exist

there may be, & likely are, many subsets of reasoning-mode space which are invisible to me, modalities of thought which I may lack the tools to envision; many of these are likely strictly superior to my current one

how can we systematically explore this space & rank these modes?

is it possible, or even desirable, to undertake such a survey? to build an ontology and taxonomy of thought-machinery, with tools for locating one's self within it?

if it is, it may enable us to guide metacognitive growth, to easily suggest next steps for any given person

I imagine there are those who would reject the validity of such a project, as it would inherently involve ranking people's reasoning abilities against each other, which is not something many would approve of

I wonder if it quantifying the utility of any given point would help

chances are it wouldn't, but that shouldn't stop us anyway; I'd personally much rather face the truth of my situation than feel falsely satisfied w/ a suboptimal system

if there are tangible steps I could take to improve my ability to think (& there certainly are) I want to know

I find many people feel otherwise, which has always been difficult for me to understand; I do intellectually get how a fixed mindset of intellectual insecurity would motivate one to avoid honest introspection, but it's hard to put myself in those shoes

I see this at work, often

some of the less... capable, engineers that I work with, they tend to avoid being honest with themselves and others; they talk themselves around admitting they don't know something, they bullshit their way through explanations to protect their egos and perceived social standing

ironically, in the eyes of myself and others, it has the opposite effect; among engineers, respect and hierarchy works differently than in other parts of the world. admitting you don't know something and seeking to rectify that gap is much higher status than already knowing all.