В свою очередь хотелось бы привести цитату из недавнего поста про Data Science, в котором давался совет сосредоточиться на траектории (и дать ссылку уже, наверное). Сразу предупреждаю, что не хочу проводить никаких параллелей.
Еще один из советов, которые дает автор, – попробовать игнорировать устанавливающее непреодолимые границы поведение окружающих тебя профессионалов. И еще немного про самоопределение, которое конфликтует с мнением других.
Boundary setting behaviour is when people who are part of a group attempt to draw the lines around that group to include themselves and exclude you. For instance, programmers sometimes say things like, “Real programmers use the command line,” or, “You really need to learn Scala if you want to be a programmer.” The motivation for this is not to accurately express the boundaries of the discipline, but instead to make themselves feel better about their own skills. Often, out of insecurity, people will express the importance of their own skills and try to minimize the importance of skills they lack. About half of the stuff you read is written to address that insecurity rather than to help you learn. If possible, you should try to avoid this kind of advice.
But you will definitely encounter it. You will get rejected from jobs, or made to feel like an idiot, because of this kind of behaviour, and there’s nothing you can really do about that.
But when you apply for and get rejected from the job you can’t really ignore that behaviour; you have to deal with it emotionally.
One of the key ways you can recognize boundary setting behaviour is when people start to equate being a member of a profession with being a particularly good member of that profession. For instance someone might tell you that you be a real data scientist you need to have a PHD in statistics, and have mastered R, Python, and big-data query languages, and be an exceptional written and verbal communicator. Having these skills probably makes you an extremely skilled data scientist, but are they really hard boundaries around the profession? I’m not so sure. In most cases we talk about jobs based on the job title, rather than the job requirements. If you’re a baseball player who stands near first base we call you a first baseman, if you write for a living we call you a writer. These things are true even if you write trashy science fiction novels or are a terrible fielder. The boundaries of the profession are set by the market, not by your skills, and so you can be a good or bad example of the profession without having that change your membership in that profession. I think the same thing should be true of programming. Can you get a job writing computer programs? Then you’re a programmer. Do you work with data for a living? You can probably call yourself a data scientist.
Еще раз повторюсь, что, несмотря на то что пост написан о Data Science, наблюдения и пожелания, в нем приведенные, применимы и к другим сложным областям знания. Например, к языкам.