Books on logic, or how to achieve a mathematical mindset?

Question

IT education

Hello!
Dear friends, tell me, please, I'm 80% sure that I don't have a mathematical mindset, I came to this while studying Javascript. Some topics go quite easily, I'm already dumb on functions and things like OOP.

1. 
   
2. Are there any practical tips on how to upgrade yourself as a "humanist from birth"?
   
3. Books, articles, websites, other resources on the development of critical thinking, logic and algorithms that once helped you to level-up?
   

Now I work in the studio, my head of the department reduces it all to inexperience and said that everything will catch up. But, I want to pull myself up much faster than "experience" comes.
Thank you all in advance.

Answer 1

All three points - critical thinking, logic and algorithmization - do not intersect.
All three skills are pretty easy to get and really hard to master
And in the end, how getting all three skills won't get you

don't feel like a fool

You just don't feel like that

for the development of critical thinking

the skill is tied to the theory of probability and mathematical statistics in their applied understanding
. Very few people have this understanding
Start from here https://www.lesswrong.com/
Then to the wiki

logic

https://multipotens.com/logic-books/
https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/logic

drawing up algorithms

books will not help here - practice is needed here
Learn how to draw flowcharts
Draw flowcharts for all situations that you come across in life
On paper, in visio, in special software Redraw
them

which will allow you to rotate in the company of men

IT is characterized by the fact that there is a constant shortage of women.
Because you need to try not to rotate in the company of men

much faster than "experience" will come

do not
overtake those who started earlier you will not succeed - compete with yourself
Develop skills that are easier for you
Bring to mastery what you like
No need to get neurosis out of the blue
PS:
EQ>>>IQ

Answer 2

Logic is brought up in childhood, at school. It's not so much knowledge as skill . So the books won't help much. Although there is formal logic - this is a whole science, you can read textbooks, but again, a mathematical mindset is desirable initially, and then just fill in the gaps and improve.
Skill, as you know, is achieved through training. Namely, by making mistakes and then correcting them, while learning a lesson. Roughly speaking, first you learn the rules of chess, then say "everything is clear, you can play", then they indicate to you that the elephant does not walk like that, etc., you just need to accept it without offense and correct actions, after which there are fewer and fewer errors until they disappear altogether. Further, you can already look at mistakes of another level - the wrong development strategy, incorrect calculation of the exchange of pieces in a complex combination, blundering of pieces (although this is more for attention), skipping a checkmate out of stupidity, etc. By the way, just chess is well suited for training logic, for which the humanities do not particularly like them.
It is quite interesting to study cognitive distortions. This is a whole collection of popular human fallacies in logic. For example, the player's mistake is that if tails fell out ten times in a row, then on the eleventh it will most likely fall heads. Is it logical? And there are more than a hundred of them. There are visual videos on YouTube about some distortions (and logic in general), I personally like the IFO channel in this regard, but it's a matter of taste.
Actually, mathematics itself (mathematical problems) is the best logic coach. You can take problems for grades 5-7 directly and solve them until the percentage of errors becomes zero. You need a textbook with answers to test yourself. Or you can look for interesting mathematical problems such as olympiads (again, for children), with some kind of trick. Every mistake you make will make you better in terms of logic. At the moment of realizing the mistake, you need to stop and take a good taste of the meaning of what happened, how it happened, what got in the way, how to prevent such mistakes in the future, etc. By the way, the Internet even has all sorts of lists of questions to test idiocy like "how many eggs can you eat on an empty stomach" - the questions there are often awkward, but sometimes funny. If you can answer 90% of the questions without prompts, this is a good result. If not, congratulations
Finally, take a logic test (taken from the IFO channel) - this is also a good workout anyway, at the same time you will find out your level. Also, many culture-free intelligence tests are actually logic tests, so you can try them, for example, the Raven test (we could not find a link without registration and SMS). Good luck!

Answer 3

What you're looking for isn't logic, it's just problem solving skill. Like any skill, it trains in practice, the female gender has nothing to do with it :)
Rational thinking: https://lesswrong.ru/w
How to solve problems: https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/ 31172916/
For the first time, this is more than enough, and then you can choose something interesting yourself :)

Answer 4

a person can learn any field of knowledge from archeology to astronomy. It all depends on two factors:
1) Personal desire
2) And how much time you are willing to spend on it.
Somehow I stumbled upon one very useful article on an English-language forum about logic programming, I will find a translation-skin.
please found with a quality translation) Introduction to the basic principles of a logic program ... . The article is divided into several parts.

Answer 5

First of all, I would recommend the book by Barbara Oakley Dumuay as a mathematician
https://www.alpinabook.ru/catalog/lichnaya-effekti...

Answer 6

Anita, to cheer you up about being dumb on OOP. I do not think that high mathematical knowledge is needed for this (although this does not exclude their value). You just need to practice writing programs using OOP more.
If your current language is JavaScript, then it would probably be a great solution to practice OOP using the TypeScript language. It's the same language, only with "correct" OOP.
This language will also be a great plus, because. Angular applications, for example, are written in TS.

Answer 7

Logics. Textbook for secondary school - Vinogradov S.N., Kuzmin A.F.

Answer 8

Altshuller Genrikh Saulovich - "Find an idea. Introduction to TRIZ - the theory of inventive problem solving" (for an example here )

Answer 9

and not feel like a fool for mistakes in the logic of the code that I often make.

This is purely a character issue. It needs to be outgrown.
Everyone makes mistakes, but some feel foolish and upset, others correct them and feel that they are becoming smarter. Change your perception of mistakes.
And you will make fewer mistakes with experience, so write a lot of code, look at someone else's code and disassemble it.
About critical thinking.
You can briefly read about cognitive distortions in order to know what is at stake - lesswrong.ru has already advised you. In any case, this is work on your character, which consists in a constant reassessment of your arguments, your thoughts.
And the line between working on your mistakes and self-digging needs to be seen.

Answer 10

IMHO, the problem is not with a mathematical mindset, but with your lack of problem solving skills necessary to understand the principles of programming, i.e. how to translate logic into mathematics, and then further into code.
(at least that was at me too "humanities"). If you understand the principles, then programming becomes just a matter of practice:
Roland Backhouse "Algorithmic Problem Solving" Anton Spraul
"Think Like a Programmer"
the mindset is, if you haven’t understood yet, such a kind of show-off, i.e. those who know more (and no less important, when faced with a difficult problem, sits and jerks it off, and then finds a solution), the second counterpart, i.e. those who, after a minute, even refuse to somehow think about how to solve the problem / s.