It's fair to say that these are different kinds of "figuring out" though. Learning by trial and error is distinct from learning how to find and synthesize information and each lead to very different outcomes over the long-term.
I'd argue that the "find and synthesize" generation have an advantage within contemporary software paradigms because of their experience but, without deep knowledge of the foundations they are building on, they might be disadvantaged when it comes to imagining/creating new paradigms.
Then again, first-order thinking seems to be easier when you're not marred with the traditions and conventions of the past so maybe this isn't actually a disadvantage.
Trial and error is a fundamental part of how we work as human beings. There is no learning or understanding without it and no "figuring it out" without it. So that dichotomy between "trial and error" and "find and synthesize" doesn't exist. They are the opposite sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
Finding and synthesizing doesn't do you any good if you're unable to meaningfully apply it or understand what you're applying and what you're applying it to.
Trial and error also doesn't do you much good without the ability to back it with knowledge and to find the relevant knowledge.
I'd argue that the "find and synthesize" generation have an advantage within contemporary software paradigms because of their experience but, without deep knowledge of the foundations they are building on, they might be disadvantaged when it comes to imagining/creating new paradigms.
Then again, first-order thinking seems to be easier when you're not marred with the traditions and conventions of the past so maybe this isn't actually a disadvantage.