There are two kinds of people in the world: conformists and non-conformists.
As children we are neither, but as we grow old we tend to go one way or the other, with an ever decreasing chance of being able to go and be the other way ever again. This is because these two human characteristics are actually two different major cognitive strategies. And as such they are skills, and skills take time to develop, and the time spent on one skill is time lost on the other. Put differently, humans specialize at one major strategy at the detriment of the other. Another reason for this split is that it's hard to integrate both strategies into the psyche because they are fundamentally opposite ways to look at the world. Another reason is that whether you're a conformist or a non-conformist, your strategy appears to work for you in most situations, so the learning is self-reinforcing (and when it doesn't work, there's always rationalizations to fill the gaps).
Conformists and non-conformists use a model of the world that is superficially similar enough that they can actually talk to each other at some level, but the way they construct that model and the weights they assign to the various components of the model are fundamentally different.
A conformist looks at a table and thinks "eating", because that's what everybody else thinks a table is for. That's how the concept of "table" developed and reinforced itself in their mind. A non-conformist looks at a table and sees a platform with four legs that can sustain weight. If you put them each in a room with only a table and a ladder in it and ask them to change the light bulb, the conformist will use the ladder because that's what ladders are for, even though a table might actually work better in that particular case (larger, more stable surface at the right height). The non-conformist will just use whatever feels right, not being used to give much thought on what other people say things should be used for.
Likewise, a conformist looks at a html table and thinks "tabular data", because that's what everybody else thinks a html table is for. That's how the concept of "html table" developed and reinforced itself in their mind. A non-conformist looks at a html table and sees a mechanism that can align typography. If you put them each in front of a computer and ask them to layout a web page, the conformist will go out if their way to avoid using html tables, even though they might actually work better for that particular case. The non-conformist will just use whatever feels right, not being used to give much thought on what other people say things should be used for.
Conformists derive truth from consensus. Non-conformists are stuck with logical analysis. Conformists think from analogy, Non-conformists think from first principles. Conformists derive morals from the law. Non-conformists derive the law from morals. Conformists derive individual rights from the state. Non-conformists derive the state from individual rights (and for some that derivation even fails).
The conformist C programmer will remind you that your program is not portable enough because you assume that a char is 8 bit wide somewhere, and they know from the C Standard that that is not right. The non-conformist C programmer instead feels betrayed by the standard because it doesn't reflect how the machine actually works.
There are two kinds of people in the world: conformists and non-conformists.
As children we are neither, but as we grow old we tend to go one way or the other, with an ever decreasing chance of being able to go and be the other way ever again. This is because these two human characteristics are actually two different major cognitive strategies. And as such they are skills, and skills take time to develop, and the time spent on one skill is time lost on the other. Put differently, humans specialize at one major strategy at the detriment of the other. Another reason for this split is that it's hard to integrate both strategies into the psyche because they are fundamentally opposite ways to look at the world. Another reason is that whether you're a conformist or a non-conformist, your strategy appears to work for you in most situations, so the learning is self-reinforcing (and when it doesn't work, there's always rationalizations to fill the gaps).
Conformists and non-conformists use a model of the world that is superficially similar enough that they can actually talk to each other at some level, but the way they construct that model and the weights they assign to the various components of the model are fundamentally different.
A conformist looks at a table and thinks "eating", because that's what everybody else thinks a table is for. That's how the concept of "table" developed and reinforced itself in their mind. A non-conformist looks at a table and sees a platform with four legs that can sustain weight. If you put them each in a room with only a table and a ladder in it and ask them to change the light bulb, the conformist will use the ladder because that's what ladders are for, even though a table might actually work better in that particular case (larger, more stable surface at the right height). The non-conformist will just use whatever feels right, not being used to give much thought on what other people say things should be used for.
Likewise, a conformist looks at a html table and thinks "tabular data", because that's what everybody else thinks a html table is for. That's how the concept of "html table" developed and reinforced itself in their mind. A non-conformist looks at a html table and sees a mechanism that can align typography. If you put them each in front of a computer and ask them to layout a web page, the conformist will go out if their way to avoid using html tables, even though they might actually work better for that particular case. The non-conformist will just use whatever feels right, not being used to give much thought on what other people say things should be used for.
Conformists derive truth from consensus. Non-conformists are stuck with logical analysis. Conformists think from analogy, Non-conformists think from first principles. Conformists derive morals from the law. Non-conformists derive the law from morals. Conformists derive individual rights from the state. Non-conformists derive the state from individual rights (and for some that derivation even fails).
The conformist C programmer will remind you that your program is not portable enough because you assume that a char is 8 bit wide somewhere, and they know from the C Standard that that is not right. The non-conformist C programmer instead feels betrayed by the standard because it doesn't reflect how the machine actually works.