Complex and emergent systems. Certain systems can have only local interactions but have global effects. Some effects in nature are not the result of a single cause, but from the interactions of many local parts. One can design robust behavior (though not necessarily optimal) in the global system through only defining local interactions. Many biological systems have this architecture, such as ant colonies, immune systems, and neural networks, and flocks. So do non-biological ones, such as capitalistic economies, traffic jams, and choosing neighbors. The Atlantic's "Seeing around corners" is a good intro to the topic, as well as "The computational beauty of nature"
Sexual selection is the second child of Darwin that people haven't paid as much attention to, but he spent a significant amount of time devoting study to it. It poses interesting questions on the canonical natural selection mechanisms, when mate selection is factored in. When you look at the mating systems of other animals, there's a wide wide variety. From males that care for the young, polygamy being the norm in birds, homosexuality not all that uncommon in the animal kingdom, and factors that affect male:female size ratio. After learning about it, you dismiss arguments people make about how this or that aspect of nature is 'unnatural'. Chances are, they've never looked, and think all mating systems are like human ones.
Quitting the for-loop through functional programming styles. Hello map, inject, and each. Understanding the power of Lisp, and why it has parens everywhere. Understanding continuations are functions that don't return, and you merely chain them together. Still working on monads though.
Dawkin’s “The Ancestor’s Tale” showed me this pattern in biology, too, and drastically rewrote the way I see the world.
Being able to follow and understand mathematical proofs for the first time was also enlightening. I prefer the simple, clever ones, such as Cantor’s diagonal proof of the uncountability of the real numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument
"Understanding continuations are functions that don't return." I've never heard a clearer explanation of continuations!
I remember when I first read a similarly short explanation of Lisp. Suddenly it clicked. It was something like: "All code can be represented as an AST. S-expressions are just serialized ASTs." Only it was better. Lost the source.
Sexual selection is the second child of Darwin that people haven't paid as much attention to, but he spent a significant amount of time devoting study to it. It poses interesting questions on the canonical natural selection mechanisms, when mate selection is factored in. When you look at the mating systems of other animals, there's a wide wide variety. From males that care for the young, polygamy being the norm in birds, homosexuality not all that uncommon in the animal kingdom, and factors that affect male:female size ratio. After learning about it, you dismiss arguments people make about how this or that aspect of nature is 'unnatural'. Chances are, they've never looked, and think all mating systems are like human ones.
Quitting the for-loop through functional programming styles. Hello map, inject, and each. Understanding the power of Lisp, and why it has parens everywhere. Understanding continuations are functions that don't return, and you merely chain them together. Still working on monads though.