The Feynman Algo relied on him putting a lot of work in. His wife's divorce complaint:

>He begins working calculus problems in his head as soon as he awakens. He did calculus while driving in his car, while sitting in the living room, and while lying in bed at night.

This is not that atypical if you are a physicist, mathematician, or a developer on a non-rote job. Not the wife complaining part, but the 'keep thinking part'.

I think what Bezos says in the interview is funny, but also very directly clarifies further what you're saying. The smartest guy at Princeton solved this problem ...

Not because he was actually smart (ok, perhaps a good memory). Not because he was able to do math really fast, or really accurate, or in his head. None of that. NOT EVEN because he figured out this problem on the spot. That was quite simply not it.

But because he had solved a metric fuckton of problems before, and then got lucky.

I agree with your statement (just got one patent to my name though), but a very important caveat is that you have to learn something (and preferably more than 1 thing) thoroughly before unlearning it. And learning first and then unlearning is vastly different from not learning it at all.

The guy didn't get lucky, the guy has experience and has worked hard. The same thing happens in software, the developer with extensive experience across many areas, that has studied tons of different things is more likely to solve a novel problem than the developer that is one dimensional and master of one tool.

I often see people say things such as, "I have tons of experience with language Y and framework Z and that's all that matters, who cares about trees, graphs and all that ridiculous interview questions..." The big tech companies are looking to innovate and lead, and that's why they ask these questions.

If someone is new to programming and begins by telling me what framework they are considering learning, I often tell them to forget about the framework and learn the language. The language is the foundation that frameworks are built on. Algorithms & Data structures are the framework on which software is built on.

The only time I frown upon such questions is if someone is testing you for exact syntax of the language instead of making sure you understand the nature and solution of the problem.

You pretty much argued the opposite of your point.

Asking algo and whiteboard questions completely ignores the "extensive experience across many years". I can spend years gaining deep expertise in an area, and that means absolutely nothing. All that matters is I practiced for 2 months white boarding algo questions under time pressure.

Or to put it another way. Spent 5 years getting a PhD? Who gives a f*ck. Can you code a DP problem in 20 minutes? You're hired!

So you only need to spend 2 months practicing, and yet you refuse to put in the effort ?

I am sorry but this is insulting. You should practice what makes you better at your job, not jump through hoops for someone else’s entertainment. So yes, some of us, are logical enough to not join the hazing ritual. Just cause you want to do it doesn’t mean others should.

Just think of it as part of the job. The trade off is minimal, while the benefit is clear. If you still don't want to do it then its cool, less competition for those who want.

My point was that the interview process is flawed. It's really just a proxy for an IQ test (a gameable one). I think for a company like Google, it is somewhat understandable - they have very mature processes, strict coding guidelines, and overall very little choice in the tech you use. They are hiring for a "smart cog" rather than "innovative/experienced engineer".

I never thought about algorithms this way. However I would argue it’s much better to study functional patterns and understand why those patterns are useful.

Architecture is also another part that most programmers fail to grasp.

I think of algorithms as good to know but rarely used. It’s has an answer to every question. So what you get is a bunch of people cramming questions and answers until they memorise it; defeating the entire point.

Seredendipity -- when preparation meets opportunity.

> All you need to do is to un-learn to not be creative

Can you please elaborate on this? What exactly are we trying to unlearn. I have never been able to think creatively and this has cause me self respect issues.

I don't have any patents, but I believe the key is to continue to look at the world like a child would.

Be curious and playful (in the domain you want to create in), experiment. Try to figure out things on your own before reading the manual or other learning materials; then learn the existing theory and compare notes. Try to formulate useful heuristics for yourself. Do not reject learning or experimenting with things that seem only tangential to what you are doing.

Innovation is hard. In addition, you have to balance all this against "productivity", such as being focused on a specific problem, getting things done and finishing up.

I’m not the GP, but I feel like “unlearning” often relates to the need to feel certain.

When looking for a solution, is the path straight? Or is it curvy, full of alternatives that appear strange at first? Staying with the strangeness is part of the unlearning. :)

Take a look at these cards[0] for their fun (and creative!) prompts to look at problems (and the world?) differently. To look in different places, in different ways. To juxtapose and separate.

Take a look at some books (typically grouped under “creativity” on amazon), such as “The Artist’s Way”, or “Steal like an Artist”. “Bird by Bird” is another book I’ve enjoyed.

Some things/tricks/ideas/perspectives will click while others won’t. It’s ok to pick a path. Some tricks will work best at one time or another. That’s also fine — part of the unlearning is accepting that too.

Best of luck and feel free to reach out!

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_Strategies

I quite like that response! Goes right to the root of the cause :)

I can somewhat empathize (as I'm sure many others here can), as I often get similar requests from people I interact with on how programming/graphic-design is 'incomprehensible' to them and they 'wish they could do it'. I used to try to offer more practical advice — along the lines of 'Try X online coding resource and see if you like it', but have since defaulted to 'If you really want to do it, then you'll find a way of doing it (and I can help you in any way I can, learning-resource-wise).' which I of course sugar-coat to avoid coming off as condescending (as I obviously do not intend to come across as).

The sentiment that so many people seem to wish they were creative / innovative / more 'logical' is something that I grapple with quite a lot — wondering what levels of 'activation energy' some people need in order to realize they're capable of being creative, and then become self-motivated enough to continue. Like every discipline, it takes years of effort to become good at something, but hopefully only a short fraction of that to 'get into it'.

I think I'll try something similar to your line in future in order to come off as a little more inspiring...

They wish they were a creative person, they don't necessarily wish to do anything creative, it's like with instruments, I'd love to be the kind of person who plays guitar but actually sitting down with a guitar and trying to learn is painful and awkward where programming wasn't. Essentially because there were things I wanted to do that involved programming on a level I could do, writing fizzbuzz was fun, but there's nothing really fun or rewarding to me about playing a 2 chord song while I get used to my fingers hurting, I know it _could_ feel that way but it just doesn't.

I learnt to juggle really quite well in 2016, because I went to a hall once a week with some friends I really liked and practised while we talked, and dropping the balls and constantly fucking up could be fun because we were bonding over it, I don't have something like that for guitar.

One of my favorite talks is from Ken Robinson on how education kills creativity [0]. It gets relevant for this discussion from 7m30s on divergent thinking.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1yl0MFYzXc

Ken Robinson is the problem, not the solution [0].

[0] https://edtechnow.net/guest-posts/ken-robinson-rebuttal/

Just thinking about filing the paperwork for 60 patents... Gah!

LOL, yes, so much fun ;) But meh, patents smachents, the important thing, in my view, is that whatever is keeping you from being creative, find a way to break out. For me, I grew up on a farm in a rural area and it ways moving to San Fran then Seattle and being exposed to all kinds of different and new things.

Funny story, my Mom (who was amazing) came to visit me and I took her to a cool food festival. She commented (and I will never forget this) "Wow there are a lot of different kinds of people here" for my Mom seeing so many people of different colors and forms was mind blowing, but bless her heart, she just sat back and took it all in.

Keep in mind, she was a second generation German immigrant. Anyhow, she saw this amazing thing and immediately understood what I was experiencing. So, for each person, I think, there is something different that will click you out of the trench you might be in and let you see something different. Not sure how to explain it any better.

Genuinely curious, do your patents make money for you?