3 ms·

Essentially, yes. Perhaps not in enough detail to replicate the world's technologies in a time machine disaster, but certainly enough to create a consistent men

by guns 17y ago

Essentially, yes. Perhaps not in enough detail to replicate the world's technologies in a time machine disaster, but certainly enough to create a consistent mental diagram about everything around me. Cars, electricity, furniture, plumbing, health, advertising, the economy, and most certainly, computers. The desire to understand the world around oneself is one of the key qualities of a hacker, and is the central divide between this community and the world at large.

protomyth 17y ago
I think you might have a detailed mental model at the low level we are talking for this scenario in some other areas, but I have a hard time believing you do in some of the fields you mentioned (just to pick one where models seem to be rather tough: economy). I think expecting everyone who drives to be as knowledgeable as a NASCAR driver is foolish, just as I believe expecting everyone who has learned a behavior to adapt every time something subtle changes is too far. usable by experts or prosumers is really not the goal.
- camccann 17y ago
  I think expecting everyone who drives to be as knowledgeable as a NASCAR driver is foolish, just as I believe expecting everyone who has learned a behavior to adapt every time something subtle changes is too far. But I think it is fair to expect people not to use their car keys to try and unlock someone else's car, get angry when it doesn't work, and proceed to blame the owner of the other car and/or the parking lot. Which, honestly, is about the level of what this article is asking for. Is that really so much?
- guns 17y ago
  "I think expecting everyone who drives to be as knowledgeable as a NASCAR driver is foolish, just as I believe expecting everyone who has learned a behavior to adapt every time something subtle changes is too far." The discussion at hand is about whether we can expect people to have at least an acceptable level of competency. The shock that we are collectively feeling at the iPad and the RWW incident is that we have perhaps over-estimated our audience, and that we DID expect users to adapt to our interfaces, because we were already designing for usability. I'm not sure if our expectations are too high, but I think they arise from our own experience in interacting with the world, which is likely characterized not by impatience and confusion, but by curiosity. So no, I would not proffer economic advice a serious investor, but neither would I throw my hands up in the air in a discussion about federal money policy. And yes, I don't expect everyone to be able to disassemble their engines, or build their next dining room table (hobbies I pursued before coming to electronics and programming), but I am often disappointed when people exhibit no curiosity about the objects around them or the circumstances of their existence.
- donaq 17y ago
  And yet, when we find another car in the lot in which we were almost positive we'd parked, we do not call the car manufacturers complaining that our car has spontaneously transformed, do we?
slapshot 17y ago
"Cars, electricity, furniture, plumbing, health, advertising, the economy, and most certainly, computers." The list you gave is almost entirely technology and math-driven. I know plenty of people who would list "emotions, families, friends, sports, celebrities" or other non-technology-based lists and claim to be equally well-educated. A focus on technology is not the only way "to understand the world around oneself"--there are plenty of people who understand non-technology parts of the world around us and expend just as much mental energy doing it. I would say that "the central divide between this community and the world at large" is not a desire to understand the world, but rather a focus on intelligent use of technology. Other very intelligent and motivated people focus their understanding on other aspects of the world.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

by guns 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago

I think you might have a detailed mental model at the low level we are talking for this scenario in some other areas, but I have a hard time believing you do in some of the fields you mentioned (just to pick one where models seem to be rather tough: economy). I think expecting everyone who drives to be as knowledgeable as a NASCAR driver is foolish, just as I believe expecting everyone who has learned a behavior to adapt every time something subtle changes is too far. usable by experts or prosumers is really not the goal.

camccann 17y ago
I think expecting everyone who drives to be as knowledgeable as a NASCAR driver is foolish, just as I believe expecting everyone who has learned a behavior to adapt every time something subtle changes is too far. But I think it is fair to expect people not to use their car keys to try and unlock someone else's car, get angry when it doesn't work, and proceed to blame the owner of the other car and/or the parking lot. Which, honestly, is about the level of what this article is asking for. Is that really so much?
guns 17y ago
"I think expecting everyone who drives to be as knowledgeable as a NASCAR driver is foolish, just as I believe expecting everyone who has learned a behavior to adapt every time something subtle changes is too far." The discussion at hand is about whether we can expect people to have at least an acceptable level of competency. The shock that we are collectively feeling at the iPad and the RWW incident is that we have perhaps over-estimated our audience, and that we DID expect users to adapt to our interfaces, because we were already designing for usability. I'm not sure if our expectations are too high, but I think they arise from our own experience in interacting with the world, which is likely characterized not by impatience and confusion, but by curiosity. So no, I would not proffer economic advice a serious investor, but neither would I throw my hands up in the air in a discussion about federal money policy. And yes, I don't expect everyone to be able to disassemble their engines, or build their next dining room table (hobbies I pursued before coming to electronics and programming), but I am often disappointed when people exhibit no curiosity about the objects around them or the circumstances of their existence.
donaq 17y ago
And yet, when we find another car in the lot in which we were almost positive we'd parked, we do not call the car manufacturers complaining that our car has spontaneously transformed, do we?

slapshot 17y ago

"Cars, electricity, furniture, plumbing, health, advertising, the economy, and most certainly, computers." The list you gave is almost entirely technology and math-driven. I know plenty of people who would list "emotions, families, friends, sports, celebrities" or other non-technology-based lists and claim to be equally well-educated. A focus on technology is not the only way "to understand the world around oneself"--there are plenty of people who understand non-technology parts of the world around us and expend just as much mental energy doing it. I would say that "the central divide between this community and the world at large" is not a desire to understand the world, but rather a focus on intelligent use of technology. Other very intelligent and motivated people focus their understanding on other aspects of the world.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]