No, this is not a dictionary entry.
Rather, it is a list of sorts (it no particular order) of older approaches to things.
The OldSchool methods often get abandoned in favor of fads and "new wisdom" (anyone see a contradiction there?) about how to do stuff.
I could have called this "LostTechnology?" (I still might) but I think that would restrict the contributions.
I type the way I was taught in HighSchool: back straight, forearms level, fingers curved, etc. I've been at it for more than 30 years in one form or another, and still have all my tendons. More recently it seems that the solutions sought for this are keyboards that make typing easier.
I reduce problems to known forms before attempting to solve them. Is it just me, or is this becoming a lost art?
I find that I work better with people when I grant them their "beingness" and practice courtesy. Confrontation seldom leads anywhere worthwhile. Nowadays we seem to have adopted "assertiveness" as the way to go.
I look for anomalies in data and conditions: contradictory "facts," omitted time, altered sequences, altered importances, falsehoods, wrong objective, wrong source, and so on, when evaluating what is right or wrong with a situation. I find that taking the answer to "how should it be?" (the ideal scene) and comparing that to "how is it actually now?" and listing and categorizing and assigning these points allows me to reach conclusions that are correct more of the time. Modernly, critical thinking in its various forms seems to have been abandoned in favor of consensus.
I find from examining the results of years of decisions that there really is a "right" and a "wrong" and there is a framework for determining what's right. I find that "doing what feels good" nearly always needs to be adjusted in this context. The "right" to do something doesn't mean that doing it is right. The approach du jour seems to be "as long as it's legal" then it must be right. I disagree.
"In my day, sonny ..." You work. You accomplish something useful. You feel good. In that order. You don't "feel good" your way to success, rather you succeed your way to feeling good. Morale is a function of worthwhile activity, not the other way around. Yes, there's a feedback loop, but you don't start with "feeling good." Today it's clear that someone (lots of someones) have misinterpreted how that loop works.
I find, over and over, things that are part of one discipline find their way into other disciplines under another name. Everything reduces to AssemblyLanguage. Everything. In the end, the CPU has to execute it, and the more efficiently you can present the task to the CPU the better your code will run. Conversely, the most expensive part of the project is the software development, so the economics of writing software will dictate a compromise between "efficient for the CPU" and "efficient for the programmer." In the end, I still hold GoodTightCode as a valuable programming goal. This kind of thinking seems to be something of an anachronism.
I credit a significant portion of my problem solving skills to playing games -- especially non-computer games -- like board games, card games, puzzles, and so on. Today, if you say "game," and you mean "not on a computer," you have to add that qualifier. I prefer games with chunks of stuff I can move around with my hands.
This is clearly not an exhaustive list. I expect there are plenty of other insights to be added.
Put / Get it in Writing
Also "don't sign anything over the phone." Committing to something verbally is hazardous to your dollar. Do business in writing (and read the contract).
More Reading, Less TV
I don't know what it is, but reading awakens the mind; TV numbs the mind. The trend is more TV, the answer is more reading. by 18.104.22.168
Agree mostly. But the dominating half of my brain wants TV, and argues successfully that I do too much reading (IT stuff) already.