I tried to learn it on my own first, and didn’t really pick up on anything.
I tried to learn it at university then, and failed that course.
As more and more helpful resources came online, I tried learning from them, and didn’t end up learning it.
I think my brain works very differently to most people. There are some things which simply require a kind of functioning I really don’t have. It seems languages are the frontier of that—where I have it in me to learn exceptions, whereas I can’t learn most. It does seem to generalise to languages—I couldn’t even become bilingual even though my parents speak another language and continuously tried to teach it to me, then sent me through school for it. At one point I learned how to read in this one other language and latter forget—can’t read that stuff at all now, which is kinda odd.
Anyway, I’ve managed to learn Stata. And R is for statistical programming like Stata. So, I suspect I could learn it. Though, Stata is more GUI-like and you can’t do machine learning with it.
The fact that made Stata easier to learn is that it’s GUI like. R isn’t.
I see no reason to believe that learning R on a level where you can do machine learning with it is easier than learning python.
Python has much better documentation than R. It has functions that are much more reasonably named.
I tried learning from them, and didn’t end up learning it. I think my brain works very differently to most people. There are some things which simply require a kind of functioning I really don’t have.
I don’t really think this is the case, since you are using correctly English, which is far more complicated than Python. Just to be clear: complicated = has more rules and is more ambiguous.
Unfortunately, there’s only one study about the neuropsychology of programming language, but it does contradict your assertion. Or at least, if it requires a different thinking, that thinking is done with the same area used for natural language.
I know of only one study on the neurobiology of programming language comprehension. It stacks evidence in favor of the theory that the brain uses the same areas of the brain associated with natural language processing (BA 6⁄44). On the other hand, studies in bilingual aphasia shows conflicting evidence: some patients lose/recover only one of the language following a brain lesion, while others shows modifications at both languages at the same time. So, if you think you have neurological deficiencies regarding the acquisition of Python, I think (wild speculation ahead) that you should show other signs of impairment in the acquisition/use of primary/secondary language. For example, were you able to learn Mata?
Regarding K complexity, the difference in cognitive load is exactly my point: if for you manipulating something that has low complexity has higher complexity, it means that something is wrong in the way you learned it.
*Great research. Thanks for looking at the evidence, I didn’t know those things and I’ll try to take (admittently, a very poor and unbacked up claim on my part that I’m sorry for) your approach in the future.
*I have yet to try learning Mata -I’m unclear of its applications. But, I’ve shown decent skill in the basic neuropsychological components of second language aquisition from military intelligence analysis testing. On the other hand I’ve been fairly bad at learning languages at school. May just have been the classroom format though!
Regarding K complexity, the difference in cognitive load is exactly my point: if for you manipulating something that has low complexity has higher complexity, it means that something is wrong in the way you learned it.
Didn’t think of it that way. Wow!
Edit: It’s just hit me how complex this phrase is:
if for you manipulating something that has low complexity has higher complexity, it means that something is wrong in the way you learned it.
I can’t even conceive of what level of abstraction to place ‘the way I learned a given thing’ between the sandwhiches of cognitive and k complexity...
In fact that may be because it’s incommesurable within the domain of discourse of computational complexity
What do you mean with “failed at learning Python”?
I tried to learn it on my own first, and didn’t really pick up on anything.
I tried to learn it at university then, and failed that course.
As more and more helpful resources came online, I tried learning from them, and didn’t end up learning it. I think my brain works very differently to most people. There are some things which simply require a kind of functioning I really don’t have. It seems languages are the frontier of that—where I have it in me to learn exceptions, whereas I can’t learn most. It does seem to generalise to languages—I couldn’t even become bilingual even though my parents speak another language and continuously tried to teach it to me, then sent me through school for it. At one point I learned how to read in this one other language and latter forget—can’t read that stuff at all now, which is kinda odd.
Anyway, I’ve managed to learn Stata. And R is for statistical programming like Stata. So, I suspect I could learn it. Though, Stata is more GUI-like and you can’t do machine learning with it.
The fact that made Stata easier to learn is that it’s GUI like. R isn’t. I see no reason to believe that learning R on a level where you can do machine learning with it is easier than learning python. Python has much better documentation than R. It has functions that are much more reasonably named.
I don’t really think this is the case, since you are using correctly English, which is far more complicated than Python. Just to be clear: complicated = has more rules and is more ambiguous.
Formal languages require quite a different kind of thinking than natural ones do. It’s not just a matter of comparing their complexity.
Unfortunately, there’s only one study about the neuropsychology of programming language, but it does contradict your assertion.
Or at least, if it requires a different thinking, that thinking is done with the same area used for natural language.
That’s really not how primary v.s secondary language acquisition works. Also k. complexity isn’t the same as cognitive complexity.
I know of only one study on the neurobiology of programming language comprehension. It stacks evidence in favor of the theory that the brain uses the same areas of the brain associated with natural language processing (BA 6⁄44).
On the other hand, studies in bilingual aphasia shows conflicting evidence: some patients lose/recover only one of the language following a brain lesion, while others shows modifications at both languages at the same time.
So, if you think you have neurological deficiencies regarding the acquisition of Python, I think (wild speculation ahead) that you should show other signs of impairment in the acquisition/use of primary/secondary language. For example, were you able to learn Mata?
Regarding K complexity, the difference in cognitive load is exactly my point: if for you manipulating something that has low complexity has higher complexity, it means that something is wrong in the way you learned it.
*Great research. Thanks for looking at the evidence, I didn’t know those things and I’ll try to take (admittently, a very poor and unbacked up claim on my part that I’m sorry for) your approach in the future.
*I have yet to try learning Mata -I’m unclear of its applications. But, I’ve shown decent skill in the basic neuropsychological components of second language aquisition from military intelligence analysis testing. On the other hand I’ve been fairly bad at learning languages at school. May just have been the classroom format though!
Didn’t think of it that way. Wow!
Edit: It’s just hit me how complex this phrase is:
I can’t even conceive of what level of abstraction to place ‘the way I learned a given thing’ between the sandwhiches of cognitive and k complexity...
In fact that may be because it’s incommesurable within the domain of discourse of computational complexity