 Right so Welcome to this presentation. It's called a comment on learning and The program changed during the night So some of you might have entered this room to hear something completely different by a completely different woman So if that's the case, it's quite okay with me if you walk out right now So right Hospitality keep you waiting here, right? So how many of you came to my talk yesterday? Okay, good. So since it's only a fraction of you. I'll introduce myself again My name is I know Corey. I come from Denmark and I bought this outfit here in India to look Indian And I think I'm blending in quite amazingly. Am I not nobody notices. Yeah, so a little bit about myself I'm doing three things. I've got my own company called the meta developer because I'm not a developer anymore But I'm developing developers. So that's why I'm a meta developer. I put speakers on stage I'm the program chair of different conferences mostly developer conferences not agile conferences So I invite speakers to speak at conferences a Second thing I do a lot is helping developers talk to each other I facilitate a lot of meetings for developers mostly retrospectives in agile settings because I've found that it's Somewhat difficult for developers as a race to talk about things that went wrong talk about things that should be better So I'm helping them with games and activities to talk about these things and The last thing that I do and the reason why I'm on this stage today is that I mess with the heads of students So I'm a teacher. I've been a teacher at university since 1998 I've been teaching. I'm sorry about this programming in Java. I know it's not fashionable anymore But that's what I did and software architecture. I'm not doing that anymore now. I've gone meta again I'm teaching the teachers how to teach computer science So after about 18 years of teaching I am now interested in what's actually happening when you're teaching I Started to look at the research about how we learn and that's what I'm going to talk about today So I've got some really really ancient research about how the brain works that I'm going to share with you today And then I've got some anecdotes from my own teaching things that was a problem for me and things that I came over so to me It was very interesting after having taught people for so many years To suddenly start being interested in was actually taking place in people's brains when I'm teaching them Because I could see then the things that tried that didn't work Why they didn't work and I could see the things that I tried that work why they suddenly worked and That's why I wanted to share that with you because I think that's interesting and there's also an anecdote So you can entertain people with tonight. So there's an extra eats Easter egg in this presentation So this is what I'm going to talk about and why should you listen there are three reasons for why you should listen One reason is you want to become an expert. Let's look at how you become an expert Here again, the driver's brothers in 1980 has this skill Acquisition how to become an expert some of you may have seen it And I think it's interesting to look at all these different Stages from being a novice to becoming an expert So for instance if you have you probably maybe you've read a blog post about microservices and Now you're a novice. You know some rules. You know some context-free rules You know what it says in that blog post Then you go to a conference like this one and you hear a presentation about microservices And what's happening now in your head is that you are becoming a beginner So instead of just being able to apply the rules you hear somebody who's experienced in using Microservices talk about the guidelines that they have they say all right in this setting. Maybe you do it a bit differently So now you have some guidelines you can apply but yet it's not your guidelines. It's not your experience Then you start start applying it and then you come to the next level you become competent Now you start making your own rules or actually you can start responding to the unexpected and now you're competent Now something can happen and you can still deal with it without panicking or doing something which is inappropriate the next level is you come to a Conference and you are giving a talk about what you're doing So you have an opportunity to discuss your experiences instead of a one-way communication And now you're proficient Now you're actually on that level right before the expert where you are really good at Using all that you've known your your experience other people's expertise and experience and all the rules But in order to become an expert Actually the theory is you need to be able to teach it Because if you're an expert you have sort of an intuitive grasp of the whole situation and without even thinking about it you react Just to any problems that come up an Interesting thing about teaching is that it forces you to think about things in different ways So instead of just being proficient and being able to solve all the problems that you might see if you're a teacher You are forced to try to solve the problems that other people see so the first company that I worked with after After my studies at university They had the theory that if you wanted to go on a course like if you say I want to to learn something about Java as an example So what happened then was my boss said great build sell a course About the Java programmer certification and you will be the teacher of that course and If there's something that really makes you Motivated to learn about how to become a Java programmer certified teacher It is if you're giving the course in three months time So he sold that course and I was the teacher So I really really really had to learn fast and I learned actually during that course as well And I'm afraid that some of the attendees might have actually noticed that But it was very interesting because instead of putting me on a course He said you are giving the course because he knew that in order to become an expert you have to be challenged Also with other people's problems So even though this is an old thing from 1980. I think it's interesting to think about how you go from being a novice to becoming an expert The second reason why you should listen is that you maybe you want to become better at learning yourself Or maybe you want to try and understand what is happening in other people's heads when they're trying to learn and I've got four different things about that that I'll come back to later One thing is the chunking of information the others as the patterns and automata in your head or the schemas that somebody called them Learning preferences, which is also important and constructivism So I'll come back to these things but before that as I said, maybe you want an anecdote to entertain a dinner party with So that's what we're doing now. So just to keep you awake before we go into the theory This is a picture of a chessboard and I don't know how many of you are so So much of an expert in chess that you can recognize this chessboard But is it is the the chessboard the It's number 22 out of 37 moves where deep blue won over Casparov the first time the deep blue one over Casparov I mean if you you remember when that was yeah in the 80s Yeah, so it's some time ago So the interesting thing about this board is that it is a mid-play board configuration, right? so this is an actual game and What I will talk to you about now is some research made by chase and Simon in 1970s so apparently they didn't use this board configuration. They use something else But they looked at how to become an expert and one thing that people really know is that there's a huge difference in Chess players from being a novice to being an expert. That's really a huge difference. How many of you play chess? How many of you are experts? Right, okay, I'll ask you when you're drunk so What he did in his research was that he tried to figure out what is actually the difference Between what the expert does and what the novice does so he made a lot of video recording of Where on the board do their eyes look and how many how many of the elements on the board? Do they look at at a time like when you look at when people are reading are they looking at the words or the lines or? Things like that, so he did a lot of research, but one thing that he did was that he He took a novice and an expert actually he took a lot of novices an expert But he put one against each other and then he said he has a mid-play Chess board and you have about five seconds to look at it And then you will have to put the elements on your own chess board right and Then they had five more seconds to look at it and then they could put they could move the elements around on the chess board And then they had five more seconds and he kept doing that until they had all the elements correct on the board So my question for you now is do you think that? the master Was better don't answer now then the novice Do you think it was the same or do you think the novice? Was better than the master Right, so let's let's have it by hands and then maybe I'll try and count you So how many things that the master was better than the novice at putting the elements on the board right? Can you put your hands a bit higher? Two people thought that the master was better than the novice. Okay, how many of you think that it was the same? Me to try 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I can't count in English have to do in Danish. How many of you think that the novice is better than the master? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 Right So why do you think the novice is better than the master at putting the elements on the board? Let's package to analyze Okay, he's following the instructions. Well, he's not listening to the master. They're not together He's just looking at the elements. Yeah, okay. Well, that's interesting right because this Will be very surprising to you then normally this is not surprising I'm very interested in seeing what the next experiment will be Actually, what happened was that the master was a lot better than the novice Not just a little bit but significantly better than the novice if you look at the numbers You can see that the first time the novice should put the elements on the board He or she could put on average four elements on the board and the expert could put 16 and The next time they had five more seconds with the board the novice came up to about seven and the expert came up to 20 and the and the expert kept Being better significantly better than the novice until of course they'd seen it so many times They do is just one element at a time right The reason for this They found based on this experiment and others is that the difference in the brain between an expert and a novice is that the Expert has a lot of board configurations in their mind. So they have a lot of patterns So if they're looking at a mid-play board configuration, they have the experience that if it looks like this This is what I do if it looks like this. This is what I do You know, it's the same thing that happens with children when they're learning about Different physical laws if I if I lose this cup and it'll hit my feet It will hurt right and the next time they have something heavy in their hands. They'll know not to let go of it It's the same thing that happens. So in the brain you have these patterns and whenever you see something that matches this pattern You find out what is actually the solution in your brain? Okay, so They tried it again But this is a random chessboard This is a chessboard without a real mid-player configuration Actually, this chessboard is made by JavaScript's math that random functionality so that it's really random It could have been a monkey that put it there if you talk about JavaScript, maybe well anyway So what do you think happened now? It was exactly the same experiment there was the master and there was the novice and First they had five seconds and then they put the elements and so on so So what do you think now? You saw last time the master was significantly better than the novice. How many think that the master is better than the novice now? Zero one How many think that it's exactly the same? Eight Eight how many thinks that the novice is better than the master? Yes, of course, you're right and The reason why you're right is actually the reason you gave for giving the wrong answer in the first place Which I think is very interesting Because The problem for the expert is that when he sees a chessboard that's not mid-play as you said he had all this all this luggage in his Head, he's trying to make sense of something that does not make sense to him So whenever he his brain is trying to find the patterns it gets stopped because there are no patterns And you can see now that the novice is doing actually exactly as good the graph for the novice It's the same as if it was a mid-play chessboard. They start with four they go up to seven and so but the master starts at two two right elements and it had sixteen at the first one and He never really gets close to the novice because the novice just looks at the different elements while the master is sitting They're really confused So that's something that's very interesting and something that you should bear in mind and I have an anecdote about that later But I want to tell you a story with the with this presentation So this is the beginning of a story imagine that there's an apprentice starting in your company And you are the one who's responsible for teaching this apprentice how you do software in your company So it's your responsibility to to teach to be a mentor for this apprentice. You have to imagine that and And Right you keep that in your head and now we'll do another experiment and we'll go back to the story So this here's an activity. I'm going to show you a list of words I'm going to divide the room into two here. Okay, and Your left that's my right. So you over here When you see a word you count the letters in the word and you say that number in your head Don't say it out loud. Don't write it down. Don't write the word down. Just say it in your head. Okay You on the right when you see the word you think about a related word Don't say it out loud. Don't write it down because then you miss it, right? I Was in Australia giving this talk and after I said three times don't say it out loud. What did they do? Yeah, they're on the other side of the world. That's how it is So that's why I put in this slide. I'm sure you don't need this slide Do not write it down bloody bloody blah numbers related words. Okay, you ready? Good, right Now a lot of things will happen to confuse your brains and we'll go back to the words later. Okay I'm just trying to mess with your brains because that's what I do as I say so back to the story You start teaching the apprentice and You talk all day and you use a lot of examples and it should be obvious now this novice should understand these things But it doesn't work and why doesn't it work here? We have to go back to very old research about about the brain actually started in 1956 where we made the mental model of the brain the sore model and This is a picture. Can you can you see what this picture is supposed to be? What? Top view of the head. Yeah, it's also supposed to To exemplify why I'm a teacher and not a graphical expert So this is the nose and According to that model of the brain, this is the working memory and this is the long-term memory and When they made that model, they said that in the working memory you can have seven plus minus two elements But actually newer research show that you can have four plus minus two elements And I don't know whether it's the younger generation that messed their heads up with the phones or what happened But something went down. We lost three elements in our working memory over the course of 50 years, which I think is a bit Well, surprising disturbing. Anyway, so this is the brain model, which I like to use to talk about this thing So when you're working memory is in action, these elements are sort of pointing to entities It could be things. It could be concepts. It could be Sensorial things like a smell or something like that so it's it's sort of active working with four plus minus two things at a time all the time and Sometimes when you see something in the real world, which you've seen before like a cup or a problem in software Some of the patterns in your long-term memory are decoded into your working memory So you can make use of your experiences You can make use of what you know already Because if you only had four elements to work with it would be very difficult to learn anything or to have a Communication so that's why when the working memory is working It's also working by decoding things from the long-term memory. So it's taking patterns in or schemas in So when you're learning something new you do something called chunking So you sort of you chunk this new information into these patterns and these patterns are then put into your long-term memory So it goes like this that you sort of working with it on working memory and then you find a reference It could be a name for a thing or just an idea of a thing And that will then be the reference or the index in the database and then the rest of the pattern will be in your long-term memory and The interesting thing as you probably know is that these Schemas these patterns in your head when you are sleeping. This is actually when they're when they're drilled down into your brain So that's why when you're plugging for an exam and you think I will only sleep four hours because then I can learn better That's that's actually not the case You really need to sleep for the brain to learn things and if any of you had tried learning anything physical like skiing or playing an instrument You probably noticed that you will dream about these things that the brain will try it out again and again And again during the night So that's why I'm telling my students you have to sleep Even though you think that you don't have time if you don't sleep it will you will lose it it will not be drilled down as well and My PSD was about design patterns and I really like design patterns because I think that they are exactly what we need to teach People software design. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but I'm on stage right now Because and when I when I learned this research I could see why because design patterns is actually exactly what the brain needs You have something which is complicated like the visitor design pattern and it takes time to learn it But once you've learned it the only thing that you have to use in your short-term memory is the word visitor and Then when you have the word visitor you can pull out this whole pattern of information from your long-term memory and That means that instead of talking when you're designing something with the language a compiler or something like that instead of talking about the different Classes you're just talking about the visitor and every time you're talking about the visitor your brain silently substitutes it with this whole pattern and It makes it easier to understand So what happens here as I said is that you have the visitor pattern in your long-term memory Which can actually contain a lot of stuff and then you're just using a part of it in the short-term memory So I always ask people When I'm talking to them About learning something in their workplace. What are actually the patterns in your workplace? Think about that You probably have some patterns. I Talked to somebody from Google in Denmark and they're like, oh, we don't need design patterns. They're so obvious Blah blah blah. I say, okay, great But I'm sure you have some patterns. No, we don't have patterns. We don't use that Think about it. I say came back to me and he said Actually We have something we call the double bottleneck. What's a double bottleneck? So in Google, it's all about optimization and speed So they've got something called the double bottleneck, which means that when you know that there's a part of your system There's a bottleneck that makes it slow. What you normally do is that you try to You try to remove this and then you run it again and see if it's faster But it can be difficult to figure out where it is and removing the problems is really time-consuming So what they did instead was that if they thought that it was here, like fetching something from the database or going on that Boss or something, they would make a double bottleneck. They would run it twice And it's much easier to make something run twice than to solve the problem So for them it was an efficient solution to an optimization problem that if they had the idea that this could be the point They would do it twice and then they would look at how long it took and if it then took significantly longer than maybe that was a place And then they would start working on it. Otherwise they would move to something else So they had a pattern as well and they were actually using that pattern, but they didn't think about it as a pattern And you probably have patterns as well. Maybe you don't think about them, but they're really worth gold When you are explaining to novice in your company how you're doing it here putting a name on something It's actually really important But what if the apprentice still doesn't get it? What if it's still a problem, even with all the patterns? What if it's still not, well, evident? Here I have to take you back to 2001 An anecdote from my teaching. I just came out of university. All I knew was object orientation Well, I had heard about the Aura paradigms as well, but I had only really worked with Java and object orientation So that was my world and they sent me out to teach in a company where they had 70 developers It was all men. They were about 40, 50 years old. I thought they were ancient at the time I don't think so anymore for various reasons So they wanted me to teach all 70 engineers 10 at a time about object orientation and Java programming And I was told that they were intelligent. So that was my assumption. They'll get it like this. They're smart people So I told them blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah nice round things Easy peasy. And they said, yeah that's easy And so I gave them the problem And this is what I thought they would come up with. But this is what they came up with, something hideously ugly and square and things that went out of the classes and into other classes and global variables everywhere. It was really, really ugly code. And I couldn't understand because I had been told that they were so smart, why didn't they get it? And I tried everything. I tried even UML to try to make them understand. Nothing worked. After giving a class about three times, I suddenly realized that there was a pattern in what they did because they had been working with procedural programming for years. And they were experts. So they had these patterns in their brain. So whenever they saw a problem, instantly they would come up with a solution, not an object oriented solution, but a procedural solution. And then they tried to put that solution into Java code, which doesn't look very well, but it's doable, right? Better with C++. So that was the problem. That the schemas they had in their head was not the schemas I had in my head. So what I had to do was to break down what they had in their heads to rebuild it. And the first thing I could do was, because I couldn't go into their brains and do anything, I had to make them aware when new engineers started this course, you have a problem because you're experts. It's a good thing that you're experts, but you have a problem because you will be solving these exercises in the wrong way. So what I did was that I tried to break it down in smaller bits and pieces. So instead of giving them a problem and saying, come up with some Java code, I said, here's a problem, try to analyze the problem, try to make a design based on that analysis, try to come up with some software architecture, try to come up with some sequence diagrams. And then I would take them one step at a time so that for every step it was only a small step. But it took longer to teach them. But it was interesting. And now I could see that they were intelligent, they were just experts. So sometimes being an expert can be in your way. And in Denmark, we have this famous philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, and he said something. I'll read it out because you probably can't read Danish. At mann när det i sandheden ska lykkes en, a fyrre mennen ska hent i ett bestämt sted. Først och fremest må passa på och finna ham där hvor han är och begynda där. Obviously, yeah. So I translated it to English. When you want to succeed in bringing a person to a certain place, you must start by finding out where he is from the start. You know that saying, I don't remember who it was, but if you want to go there, you shouldn't start from here, right? And it is very important when you're trying to teach people something that you figure out where they are. Also in order to not insult them. So when I come out as a coach, I try to ask people what they're doing already instead of saying you should do this and this and this and this. You need to figure out what they're doing and why they're doing it because they might have a good reason for doing it that way. And then maybe you have to change that reason, but that's another story. But what if the apprentice still just didn't get it? What if the apprentice still finds it very difficult to understand these things even though you're giving it in chunks as patterns and you know where they are and you start from where they are. They still have problems. Well, maybe they have a learning preference which is different than yours. There's a Felder-Silverman model for learning preferences. You can take the test online. And I know that people don't believe in these tests but I use them anyway in my teaching because when I started teaching I thought about how I wanted to be taught, how I'm learning. And I didn't understand at that time that I'm an extremely global learner. That means that I want to see the whole picture. I can't take in details before I see the whole picture. If I'm taught with details sequentially, it just disappears in my brain and only when I study for the exam and I see the whole thing in one felt swoop then I understand it. So I need to see the global picture. But when I was teaching people I thought everybody learned like me. So I gave them the big picture but the people who are sequential learners they like the nitty gritty details. They think that if you're giving them the abstract view that you're wasting their time. So I had a lot of people being very frustrated with me when I started my courses because I spent a lot of time on this global thing. And of course you cannot change entirely who you are and the way that you want to teach and learn things. But at least you can again be aware of it and think that okay I want to learn like this but maybe other people are thinking in a different way. And also when it comes to active and reflective learners there are some learners that need to reflect they need to be alone to think about it before they can do something and learn something and others are active they need to communicate. And that's why for instance if you are you're facilitating a meeting or something like that and you're asking are there any questions or what you think of this but the active learner people they would just come up right away maybe they won't even raise their arm or they'll say something. But you won't hear from the people who are reflective learners because when they're reflective learners they're reflective in all the way they're doing these things. Some people could call it a sort of introvert but they need time to think. So never just ask what do you think of this or could we hear from you give them some time because there might be somebody who's reflective and on the other hand as well allow people some time to discuss these things or work with these things before you expect them to be able to do it. So when you are teaching a mentor something try to think about that this could be a global or a sequential somewhere on this scale or active or reflective and there are other scales as well but I won't get into that if you're interested you can look it up. So there are many different ways of thinking about learning but let's get back to the activity. Now please write down on a piece of paper or your phone as many words as you remember. Don't talk to each other just write it down. The words that I showed exactly. Thank you. You almost had me there. No, no, I asked you to say the number in your head. I didn't tell you why but the reason why was I wanted to see how many words you remember. Or you can write that down that's okay but. Yeah, yeah, I know that's exactly the problem. I have one more minute to write. Raise your hand if you think you're done writing it down so that I can see. Okay, you need a little bit more time then. Counting now from 30 seconds now. Okay, step away from your paper. These are the words. Look at these words. Count how many you remembered and write that number down on your paper. Okay, I need that number for later. Don't say it out loud, just write it down. Yeah, don't say it out loud yet. I don't believe that. That's insane. Oh, oh, you didn't remember 10 words. I've got 10 minutes left. God. I was so impressed up until that moment. Okay, so you got the number, right. Put your hand in the air if you remembered at least one word. Right. Now, keep it in the air. Keep it in the air if you remember two words. Keep it in the air if you remember three words. Keep it in the air if you remembered four words. Right, now keep your hands up. Look at the two sides of the room. Are these the intelligent crowd or what happened? Yeah, you were looking at the numbers and you can take your hands down now. Yeah, yeah, that's right. And they had a related word which made it easier. Still, it was a related word. It wasn't the same word. So that sort of leads up to the next thing because what have you done all these things and the apprentice still just didn't get it? Should you fire him? Should you fire her? Is it just too stupid or what is wrong? There's something else about research about brains and learning which is called constructivism. This is again a brain. It's got some content lying in there. If you're teaching something, you give them something in the working memory and they try to put it into the long-term memory, if these things are not attached to what they already have in their brain, they will forget about them. I'm sure you've tried this. You're explaining something to somebody. And they say, yes, yes, I understand and they can even repeat what you said and maybe they can do it on the computer. They understand correctly. You talk to them again two days after it's gone. What happened? See, what happened is that if you're learning something and it is not related to what you have in your head already, constructivism says that you will lose it. It's like a garbage collection. Every night the brain does this garbage collection thing. It drills the things that has the references and it's mark and sweep. Everything else goes away. Or maybe it doesn't go away, but when you don't have a reference to it, it's like a computer, you can't find it. And that's very interesting. So what you need to do is that you need to work with construction. So the encoding in the brain, it's not just important to show it as a pattern, as something that goes together as a schema which would make it easier, but also that you encode it constructively to something else. And this is one of the things that I think is a problem. Teaching computer science at university, at least in Denmark, all the examples, all the anecdotes are things related to football or cars or beer, which might be very relevant for the male part of the attendees. But for the women, they had nothing, but some of them of course are interested in beer and football, I'm totally generalizing here. But what I'm saying is that if you're trying to give examples for people, you need to figure out what examples would work for them. And it might be something completely different than work for you. And if you're using something which is not part of what they have in their brain already, you will lose them. But knowing the content is not enough because maybe the apprentice won't even listen to you. Let's see how much of your undergrad math you understand. What does it say here? Anybody? Huh? Yeah, lambda is correct, there's a lambda there. But these are words. Yeah, phi is there as well, epsilon is there. What does it say? If you put these letters together, it says logos, pathos, ethos. Obviously. It's Aristotle's merge of persuasion, which is even all the research, right? This is about how you actually communicate with people. This is something I think about whenever I'm asked to give a talk. Do I have the logos, the pathos, and the ethos? So the logos is what are you saying? Do you know what you're talking about? Do you have the knowledge to talk about this thing? The pathos is how excited are you really in what you're talking about? Are you enthusiastic about it or not? And the last thing is ethos, who are you or who do they think you are? Because sometimes you just come from a big company and they think you're important because you're a big company or you have a title and they think you're important because of the title. Sometimes you're not really important, but your role is important, right? So these three things is important whenever you want to talk to somebody about anything. The interesting thing is that, of course, somebody like Barack Obama, he's got all three. Like, he knows what he's talking about. He's very enthusiastic and he's got ethos. People are expecting to hear something good from him. They want to hear what he's saying. He doesn't have to earn the respect when he goes on stage. He's got it already. But you actually only need two out of three to make this right. If you know what you're talking about and you're enthusiastic, you don't need the ethos. That's me today. I'm a nobody. You don't know my name. You didn't know who I was before I entered this room. So what I have to do to get your attention is that I have to know what I'm talking about and I have to be passionate. Because if I only knew what I was talking about but I was like this about this and you weren't really interested in listening to me, I don't think you would be listening. I think we'd use a lot to see you go out, right? But if I was extremely passionate, I would say things that was totally rubbish, you probably just start tweeting or reading emails or something like that. So I have to have two of these things if I don't have the ethos. But actually you can get away with it without the enthusiasm because if people are willing to listen to what you're saying because you're that person and you know what you're talking about, it doesn't matter that you're dull. It doesn't matter that you don't know how to be on the stage. It's okay, people will listen anyway, right? You've probably seen that. And the last thing, which you probably see at conferences as well, if people would like to listen to you and you're entertaining, it doesn't really matter what you're saying, right? I know this because as I said, one of my jobs is that I ask people to come and speak at conferences and there are definitely some speakers that I invite even though I know that what they're going to say is completely rubbish because what they did was 30 years ago and they don't know what people are doing now but everybody wants to see them and they are brilliant on stage. So I get them anyway and people are happy. And that's the interesting thing that people actually are happy even though they don't learn anything because you think that if you're giving a talk or you're a teacher, you get good feedback from people if they learn something, if you've done your job. But that's actually not true. What I see with feedback is if they like you and they laugh, then they give you good feedback even though if you ask them one day later, they don't know what you were talking about which is a bit sad but that's how it is. So logos, pathos and ethos, every time I'm asked to do a presentation, I'm thinking what do I have of these three? I need to have at least two out of three. Of course, the best would be to have three out of three but that's difficult. Once I gave a talk about databases at university, I didn't have pathos at all. It was terrible. We were all having a terrible time. Me and the students, we all hated it. I don't want to talk about databases again. So that's something that I've learned. So what did you listen to? I had these three takeaways. I wanted to talk about how to become an expert. That was the chess and the drivers. I wanted to talk about how you could improve your own learning and other people's learning trying to understand what actually happens in the brain to take care of that. It's like mechanical sympathy in a computer. You need to have brain sympathy. And then there was the anecdote to entertain the dinner party with. I still think that the chess example, even though it failed miserably in this setting, it's still good for you to use anywhere else. So that's actually my presentation. Thank you for your time. Sorry, can you say that again? How do I? Yeah, because I think that when you are giving a presentation, there's a lot of theory. But if you have an explicit example like the chess example, then it's easier for people to understand the other things that you've talked about as well because it goes together in your head. And if I say that this is an anecdote to entertain the dinner party with, you might be more motivated to listen to this anecdote. So I'm trying to fool your brain. Did that make sense? Do we have time for more questions or? So how would you deal with that problem? Yeah, that's a good question. And I think I forgot to say that. So the question was, okay, it's great that you're aware that some are global and some are sequential learners, but when you're giving a talk or when you're teaching, you will know that there will be a mix of these people and how do you actually deal with that? And I was supposed to say that, so thank you for that question. So what I do now, knowing that, is just the awareness of this being actually as it is. When I'm giving a course where I have more time with the students, I say to them, I am aware that you are learning with different preferences. So I'm now going to give you an overview of the concepts in this course, and I do this for the kind of people in the room who are global learners. And then that's where I'm saying, I'm sorry to all the people who are sequential learners because I know this might not, this might be frustrating to you to hear about this, but I assure you that the sequential details will come later. So I'm bringing out the awareness of it, and I'm starting with some sort of global view of, it could be why are they learning this in relation to the other courses that they're taking, or it could be why are they learning this in relation to the systems that they work out at the workplace, or it could be the different concepts in the course as well. So that's what I did when I did that Java OO course was that I started off having a picture of people starting in the, here's the problem domain with the trees and the people in some sort of rich picture, and over here is the code that we want, but along the way we have these different steps, so I tried to make a global picture of the sequence of how you get from A to B. Yeah, did that answer your question? Good, yes? You can't. If I know that I'm giving a seven week course at university, I sometimes actually send out a link to the students before to make them fill this out so that I get that knowledge before I meet them, and sometimes when I meet them the first time, I just do, as I said before, I try to cater for the different kinds of people, and I say I know that we are different kinds of people, I'm trying to cater for different. If you would like to know what kind of learner you are, you can take this test, just make it voluntarily, because if you're taking the test, it also comes with an explanation of, okay, if I'm a sequential learner and I'm having trouble with this, this is the way I can help myself, or this is what I can ask the teacher for if I need this. Do we have time for more? Okay, so, yeah, I think you were first. How do you judge your own locus pathos? That's an interesting question. So the question is how do you judge your own locus pathos and ethos to find out whether you have all three? So the locus thing should be evident. Do you know what you're talking about? I know because of the Donning Kruger, the people who don't know what they're talking about think they know what they're talking about, but most people know if they know what they're talking about. Think about how much do you know in relation to the people who are with you? And if you're a teacher at university, you definitely know more, and if you're talking about your own experience, you definitely know more, right? So that should be pretty obvious. The pathos, you probably need some people to give you feedback on that, because some people think that they're really exciting on stage and they're really captivating the audience and everybody's listening, but it's not really true for the audience. So I think for pathos, you need feedback. And for ethos, it can be different. It can be different, difficult. I think you need to ask people about that again. I knew that I had no ethos here. So that was an easy one. I know when I'm a teacher at university, I have ethos because I'm the professor. So that's an easy one. But if I come out and give a presentation at some sort of IT industry, I don't know what ethos I have, because in some places, in some cultures, if somebody's coming from the outside, they have ethos because they think that must be an expert because you're coming from the outside. But other places, particularly in Denmark, if somebody's coming from the outside, they'll think she doesn't know what she's talking about. And especially when I came out right after university, and I was a very young blonde woman in Denmark teaching men that were 20 years older than me, I had zero, I had nonexist, and I had negative ethos. They would laugh at me. They would not listen to me. It would be really, really difficult. I had to fight hard. Every time I gave this course, this was a four-day course, the first day it was really a struggle for me. But then after the first day, they knew that I knew what I was talking about because then I had been in discussions with them and things like that, but it can be hard. But you can probably, when you think about it, you can feel whether you have the ethos. You can feel whether people are looking at you when you're talking or whether they keep talking to each other. There's those little body language clues that you can get along with. You can give me a presentation and I'll let you know. I like going to these presentations and looking at people and seeing, okay, one hour or three. I'm not gonna do that again. Two hour three. I might invite him to my conference. Three hour three. Whoa, is he faking this in some way? That was it, wasn't it? I'll be around if there are any more questions. Okay, thank you for your time again.