Each of us (I really hope so ) has ever thought about how to effectively organize our development in a particular area. You can approach this issue from different angles: someone is looking for a mentor, others are attending educational courses or watching training videos on YouTube, while others are digging into the information trash, trying to find crumbs of valuable information. But if you approach this issue unsystematically, then you will have to spend most of the time searching for what is really important and interesting, rather than studying it.
But I know a way to streamline this chaos. And, since my area of interest is IT, I propose to discuss a systematic approach to training and my own development in this area. This article reflects only my opinion and does not claim to be true. The ideas reflected in it exist only in the context of the article itself. And I will try to state them very briefly.
I ask all interested under cat !
Step 1 (prologue): Decide what you want
The first thing to start is awareness of the goal. Not staging, but awareness.
"Hasty man"
Surely many of you came up with an idea that required immediate action, and you were eager to implement it right now. They set goals and objectives, decomposed, distributed efforts and worked towards the result. But approaching the final milestone, when almost all the tasks have been solved, and the result is not far off, you looked around and saw ... you saw a sea of time wasted, a lot of other more important and significant tasks that were waiting on the sidelines. We saw vain work.
At that moment, awareness came - is this idea really so important that I spent so many resources on its implementation? The answer is all sorts. And the question does not always arise. This is one of the cognitive errors of your consciousness. Do not do like this.
"The man is not his word"
"" . . , , - /. , , …
. . . . , , , . , . , , , , .
" "
. , . , , . , . …
, — . ? " " . , !
""
, ? , — , .
, .
- " ", , , . ? , ?
- " " — "" . , ( ) . , , , .
- " " . , . , , ? , . .
, "" , , . .
2 ():
, , . . :
, . , , .
3 ():
, , , . , " ", , , . . 8 .
, . . - , , — ( ), !
4 ():
, , , , . , ? . , , .
- (, Telegram, YouTube). , , " ", .
- , ( ), YouTube " ", , ( ). .
- , , , . , .
- , , (, ..), , , , , , , , - .
- , , , . ( ), " ". . .
. , . , . , .
5 (): ,
. . , , , , , . , . , . , YouTube- , , , .
6 ():
, , , . , Telegram- YouTube-, . , .
, , , , . " " !
: " ", " ", " " "" . 6- , , , , , , .
, .
, , , " " .
!
UPD. To improve understanding of conditional types of people, I changed their name a little:
- "Man of business" -> "Man of hasty business"
- "Man of the word" -> "Man of not his word"
- "Man of quantity" -> "Man of thoughtless quantity"