6 ms·

I'm pretty sure this is not going to help "ordinary" people. Unless they already think like you and me. When I was a kid, I wanted to know how all the black b

I'm pretty sure this is not going to help "ordinary" people. Unless they already think like you and me. When I was a kid, I wanted to know how all the black boxes worked -- one of my greatest days was when my father explained the internal combustion engine well enough that cars no longer seemed like magic. Later I noticed that many people -- especially when talking about electronics -- would ask "How does it work?", when they actually meant "How do you use it?" I thought this was just a quirk of the Australian dialect, but as I gained more experience with people, I realised it was really an aspect of human thought. To most people, knowing "how it works" is no more than being familiar enough with the magic spells that you can use them with confidence.

braveo 10y ago
It's a matter of time and importance. Sure, I'd love to live forever so I could take the time to fully understand everything, but unfortunately I have to optimize my time, and learning the ins and outs of an engine just isn't that important in my day to day life.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  A little defensive no? While I tried to convey my own excitements and my dislikes, I was careful in my comment not to say that everyone most like the same things. What I will say though is that there is a difference between known how a thing works and how to use it. Very often you only need the latter. But thinking that it equals the former is just an error.
  - braveo 10y ago
    My post wasn't defensive, it was pointing out that treating things like "magic boxes" is a purely rational decision, not an inherent character flaw in people. But then you find a way to try and turn even that into a flaw of some sort, and continue with your narrative that it's somehow a problem that people don't take the time to fully understand everything they use.
bittercynic 10y ago
One of my greatest days also, but my take was that the explanation was good all along and I was finally able to understand.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean to dis my dad there. He explained it as soon as he thought I would be able to understand it. What I meant by "well enough" is that the explanation that he gave -- or even the one that I now have in my head -- is nowhere near the truth. Engines are complicated, and I will never truly understand them. But at least they can be demystified.
alsetmusic 10y ago
> To most people, knowing "how it works" is no more than being familiar enough with the magic spells that you can use them with confidence. It's necessary to see beyond chosen words. I might ask how a computer program works and it could mean "how do you use it," or "how does it function." The other party has to infer my meaning. I don't think you can take a phrase that is common in your life and apply it to everyone else. Words / phrase have different meanings in different contexts for different people.
adrianN 10y ago
> To most people, knowing "how it works" is no more than being familiar enough with the magic spells that you can use them with confidence. I like the (literal) treatment of this topic in Harry Potter and the Method of Rationality.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  Yes, and Hermoine is in no way stupid. Personally I find her more intigent the Harry (even in HPMoR). But that's probably because I finder her to be more rational than Elizer Yudkowsky.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    Which version of Hermione are your referring to? Eliezer did write one of them after all…
    - adrianratnapala 10y ago
      Eliezer's one.
- eriknstr 10y ago
  >Harry Potter and the Method of Rationality Never heard of it before. For anyone else interested; http://www.hpmor.com/ http://www.hpmor.com/
jomkr 10y ago
Isn't "the magic spells that you can use", exactly how we (programmers) use interfaces. I trust that the interface, be it the C++ standard, or boost::whatever, is well enough tested that I don't need to know "how it works". It would be nice to know how everything works but there is only finite time in the working day.
- swiley 10y ago
  This is why some people don't like languages with big runtimes/standard libraries like C++.
  - eru 10y ago
    I don't see how that relates? You can understand the source of your libraries just fine, but still be grateful that they are usually hidden behind interfaces that let the compiler help you spot silly mistakes. (OK, less so in C++, more so in eg Haskell.)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Berobero 10y ago
  Is it truly possible to have a solid understanding of the interface and its use, though, without having a reasonable insight into, at least, the likely implementation of something?
  - aynsof 10y ago
    I'm sure this isn't what you meant, but how about something like movement? I've met doctors who know anatomy like the (ahem) back of their hand, but they couldn't perform coordinated physical tasks to save their life.
  - sullyj3 10y ago
    Yes, that's the whole point of abstraction, to reduce cognitive load by ignoring irrelevant implementation details.
contingencies 10y ago
This week I've started reading The Design of Everyday Things after HN recommendations, and the author makes a distinction between objects themselves, and their 'conceptual models', which may differ for the designer and the user. A single user may even have multiple, conflicting conceptual models of a device and its use. These are sourced from what he calls the 'system image', or overall set of information available about the device including past experience, appearance, sales literature, manuals, websites, advertising, etc. Needless to say, people can operate successfully on an incorrect mental model as long as it serves its purpose. PS. Australian here. Yes, people do speak like that, but I agree with your conclusion.
- d0mine 10y ago
  A model that you need to use a device can be much simpler than a model that you need to fix the device if it is broken which in turn may be simpler than a model required to build the device from scratch, etc. I saw "how does it work" used as "how to use it" on American TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEFXhopARyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEFXhopARyw

braveo 10y ago

It's a matter of time and importance. Sure, I'd love to live forever so I could take the time to fully understand everything, but unfortunately I have to optimize my time, and learning the ins and outs of an engine just isn't that important in my day to day life.

adrianratnapala 10y ago
A little defensive no? While I tried to convey my own excitements and my dislikes, I was careful in my comment not to say that everyone most like the same things. What I will say though is that there is a difference between known how a thing works and how to use it. Very often you only need the latter. But thinking that it equals the former is just an error.
- braveo 10y ago
  My post wasn't defensive, it was pointing out that treating things like "magic boxes" is a purely rational decision, not an inherent character flaw in people. But then you find a way to try and turn even that into a flaw of some sort, and continue with your narrative that it's somehow a problem that people don't take the time to fully understand everything they use.

bittercynic 10y ago

One of my greatest days also, but my take was that the explanation was good all along and I was finally able to understand.

adrianratnapala 10y ago
Sorry, I didn't mean to dis my dad there. He explained it as soon as he thought I would be able to understand it. What I meant by "well enough" is that the explanation that he gave -- or even the one that I now have in my head -- is nowhere near the truth. Engines are complicated, and I will never truly understand them. But at least they can be demystified.

alsetmusic 10y ago

> To most people, knowing "how it works" is no more than being familiar enough with the magic spells that you can use them with confidence. It's necessary to see beyond chosen words. I might ask how a computer program works and it could mean "how do you use it," or "how does it function." The other party has to infer my meaning. I don't think you can take a phrase that is common in your life and apply it to everyone else. Words / phrase have different meanings in different contexts for different people.

adrianN 10y ago

> To most people, knowing "how it works" is no more than being familiar enough with the magic spells that you can use them with confidence. I like the (literal) treatment of this topic in Harry Potter and the Method of Rationality.

adrianratnapala 10y ago
Yes, and Hermoine is in no way stupid. Personally I find her more intigent the Harry (even in HPMoR). But that's probably because I finder her to be more rational than Elizer Yudkowsky.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  Which version of Hermione are your referring to? Eliezer did write one of them after all…
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    Eliezer's one.
eriknstr 10y ago
>Harry Potter and the Method of Rationality Never heard of it before. For anyone else interested; http://www.hpmor.com/ http://www.hpmor.com/

jomkr 10y ago

Isn't "the magic spells that you can use", exactly how we (programmers) use interfaces. I trust that the interface, be it the C++ standard, or boost::whatever, is well enough tested that I don't need to know "how it works". It would be nice to know how everything works but there is only finite time in the working day.

swiley 10y ago
This is why some people don't like languages with big runtimes/standard libraries like C++.
- eru 10y ago
  I don't see how that relates? You can understand the source of your libraries just fine, but still be grateful that they are usually hidden behind interfaces that let the compiler help you spot silly mistakes. (OK, less so in C++, more so in eg Haskell.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Berobero 10y ago
Is it truly possible to have a solid understanding of the interface and its use, though, without having a reasonable insight into, at least, the likely implementation of something?
- aynsof 10y ago
  I'm sure this isn't what you meant, but how about something like movement? I've met doctors who know anatomy like the (ahem) back of their hand, but they couldn't perform coordinated physical tasks to save their life.
- sullyj3 10y ago
  Yes, that's the whole point of abstraction, to reduce cognitive load by ignoring irrelevant implementation details.

contingencies 10y ago

This week I've started reading The Design of Everyday Things after HN recommendations, and the author makes a distinction between objects themselves, and their 'conceptual models', which may differ for the designer and the user. A single user may even have multiple, conflicting conceptual models of a device and its use. These are sourced from what he calls the 'system image', or overall set of information available about the device including past experience, appearance, sales literature, manuals, websites, advertising, etc. Needless to say, people can operate successfully on an incorrect mental model as long as it serves its purpose. PS. Australian here. Yes, people do speak like that, but I agree with your conclusion.

d0mine 10y ago
A model that you need to use a device can be much simpler than a model that you need to fix the device if it is broken which in turn may be simpler than a model required to build the device from scratch, etc. I saw "how does it work" used as "how to use it" on American TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEFXhopARyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEFXhopARyw