4 ms·

I feel he makes a mistake in introducing the issue of engineering introversion and (dread the word) the spectrum. This desire to reduce human interaction is dr

I feel he makes a mistake in introducing the issue of engineering introversion and (dread the word) the spectrum. This desire to reduce human interaction is driven by the desires of the average consumer. In many of the projects I've worked on this is explicit. People want control, transparency and automation. There are services whose entire selling point is reducing the unpredictability of human interactions for consumers. For example, many people would not use taxis historically because they felt the pricing was not transparent and at the whim of a person they would have to negotiate with. People find this stressful. Sometimes the automation makes the rules of interaction much more explicit too. A lot of people are nervous of picking up the phone to, say, something as simple as a restaurant and being told, NO you can't have a table for Saturday. If they book online they can see the availability and not have what they find the social embarrassment of even such a mild rejection. Personally, I am all for human interaction. I positively seek it out. But I do not think this is the trend. A lot of people are almost afraid to pick up the phone, or ask for something that isn't on a menu, or ask for a discount, or negotiate a price. And the number of those people is, in my personal experience, growing.

smelendez 9y ago
I can think of a few reasons this might be growing, at least in the US. The types of restaurants that typically require reservations seem increasingly hectic, perhaps because real estate costs mean they need more seatings worth of diners per night to break even. Whatever the case, I try to keep my interactions with hosts and hosts servers, pleasant and brief, because they're so obviously harried. (I actually think this is a problem for big city fine dining restaurants, where servers are expected to do things like refill your water glass every time it drops below full--you feel like you're creating a burden by eating your meal, and it's just stressful to spend a lot of money to eat in someone else's hectic workplace). The same seems true at medical practices and some other kinds of businesses--I just feel bad spending a lot of time on the phone with an obviously extremely busy receptionist trying to find a convenient appointment time.
itchyouch 9y ago
I have definitely observed a similar phenomena of people looking to minimize social interactions, especially amongst kids growing up today. I can't tell whether this social anxiety is merely a phase in growing up or becoming wider spread, but I feel like the convenience of growing up in an environment where social interaction can be actively avoided (goto a restaurant with online ordering) may actually be a cycle that reinforces the preference not to interact with others. I've noticed that some folks are abhorrent to the idea that rules and policy can be bended or broken for various circumstances and it isn't until they get older that that they realize that bending the rules is an actual option that can be invoked by asking in-person outside of the standard system (usually an automated site). For example, an individual was having a small melt down as they needed an accommodation to show up to a minimum-wage job 30 minutes later than usual for medical appointments. What was actually a simple explanation of what is going on and shifting the hours appropriately took quite a bit of encouragement and anxiety to get over prior to making the request. I have another friend who will wait months to find the absolute best deal on a gadget, yet will pay more for day-to-day goods on Amazon, than the grocery store to simply minimizes interacting with folks at the grocery store and cites interacting with people the primary reason to avoid the store. Just 30-40+ years ago, by design, everyone had to interact with each other and became practiced at it, but now a days, it's possible to say nothing but "hi" "thanks" "bye" and get just about everything necessary done for you. While I think that productivity and expectations have come so far, I feel like we have lost a little bit of that human-to-human connection while engaging in the day-to-day mundane activities through an interface.
- jpetso 9y ago
  I don't like the idea that rules can be bent because it causes unfair advantages. And it's not sustainable or beneficial for the greater good if everyone does it. Dozens of cars stop at a red light, yet someone thinks they can cross because everybody else is stopping. Hundreds of companies take great pains to follow mandated regulation, but one CEO thinks those rules are nonsense and fucks up the marketplace for everyone in the industry, including themselves, only for a shot at personal wealth. Six roommates each agree to split chores, but one lazy bastard evades any sense of responsibility. Software project contributors all follow the same coding style and review process, except the one who really needs to get a patch in RIGHT NOW because it's so important for whatever reason. The thing is that if there are rules, they were made for a reason. In many cases, the underlying pattern has something to do with us being able to get along with each other instead of ending up at each others' throats, or having our economy implode, or losing innocent people to accidents or poverty. Common standards allow us to work together efficiently. When we can rely on each other, we can do more with less effort. That's just as important in traffic management as it is in hiring or relationships. When groups are small, it's easier to agree on rules and values. With larger groups, communities, states and whatnot, you'll have someone who doesn't mind wrecking it for everyone else just so they can get ahead. The solution is not to nod and say yeah, that's okay. It's not okay to cross red lights. It's not okay to kill people and take their money. It's not okay to steal someone else's confidential property and use it to destroy your competitor in the marketplace. We shouldn't accept any of these just because they're "the human condition". We should police our standards and improve on those failings so we can maintain a workable system. Some rules are not great. That's a fact, and that need to be improved. But the sustainable solution is not to bend the rule. It's to change the rules so they work well in more cases, for more people, with better overall outcomes. And then everyone follows the new rules. Fuck everyone who thinks they're above the rest of us and use others' "weakness" of caring about the common benefit to reap rewards just for themselves, without making the system sustainably better for all parties involved. I'd rather have a highway like the ones in Germany than the chaos that you see on a wide street in India. Both systems work, but one works better than the other because people agree that by not bending the rules to your own personal advantage, I can get a better outcome for everyone including myself. And to get back to your actual, much tamer example of bending the rules - in many cases the outcome is alright, but the principle still stands. I shouldn't have to call my bank to get a better interest rate. I shouldn't have to be personable and accommodating just so I can ask for something obvious like getting half an hour off for a doctor's appointment. Things like that should be available to everyone, regardless of their social aptitude. So let's make sure we have rules in place to make that the "rule", not the exception.
_rpd 9y ago
> This desire to reduce human interaction is driven by the desires of the average consumer. Yes, every example Byrne gives is opt-in. Want to increase human interaction? Simply don't use these new services.

smelendez 9y ago

I can think of a few reasons this might be growing, at least in the US. The types of restaurants that typically require reservations seem increasingly hectic, perhaps because real estate costs mean they need more seatings worth of diners per night to break even. Whatever the case, I try to keep my interactions with hosts and hosts servers, pleasant and brief, because they're so obviously harried. (I actually think this is a problem for big city fine dining restaurants, where servers are expected to do things like refill your water glass every time it drops below full--you feel like you're creating a burden by eating your meal, and it's just stressful to spend a lot of money to eat in someone else's hectic workplace). The same seems true at medical practices and some other kinds of businesses--I just feel bad spending a lot of time on the phone with an obviously extremely busy receptionist trying to find a convenient appointment time.

itchyouch 9y ago

I have definitely observed a similar phenomena of people looking to minimize social interactions, especially amongst kids growing up today. I can't tell whether this social anxiety is merely a phase in growing up or becoming wider spread, but I feel like the convenience of growing up in an environment where social interaction can be actively avoided (goto a restaurant with online ordering) may actually be a cycle that reinforces the preference not to interact with others. I've noticed that some folks are abhorrent to the idea that rules and policy can be bended or broken for various circumstances and it isn't until they get older that that they realize that bending the rules is an actual option that can be invoked by asking in-person outside of the standard system (usually an automated site). For example, an individual was having a small melt down as they needed an accommodation to show up to a minimum-wage job 30 minutes later than usual for medical appointments. What was actually a simple explanation of what is going on and shifting the hours appropriately took quite a bit of encouragement and anxiety to get over prior to making the request. I have another friend who will wait months to find the absolute best deal on a gadget, yet will pay more for day-to-day goods on Amazon, than the grocery store to simply minimizes interacting with folks at the grocery store and cites interacting with people the primary reason to avoid the store. Just 30-40+ years ago, by design, everyone had to interact with each other and became practiced at it, but now a days, it's possible to say nothing but "hi" "thanks" "bye" and get just about everything necessary done for you. While I think that productivity and expectations have come so far, I feel like we have lost a little bit of that human-to-human connection while engaging in the day-to-day mundane activities through an interface.

jpetso 9y ago
I don't like the idea that rules can be bent because it causes unfair advantages. And it's not sustainable or beneficial for the greater good if everyone does it. Dozens of cars stop at a red light, yet someone thinks they can cross because everybody else is stopping. Hundreds of companies take great pains to follow mandated regulation, but one CEO thinks those rules are nonsense and fucks up the marketplace for everyone in the industry, including themselves, only for a shot at personal wealth. Six roommates each agree to split chores, but one lazy bastard evades any sense of responsibility. Software project contributors all follow the same coding style and review process, except the one who really needs to get a patch in RIGHT NOW because it's so important for whatever reason. The thing is that if there are rules, they were made for a reason. In many cases, the underlying pattern has something to do with us being able to get along with each other instead of ending up at each others' throats, or having our economy implode, or losing innocent people to accidents or poverty. Common standards allow us to work together efficiently. When we can rely on each other, we can do more with less effort. That's just as important in traffic management as it is in hiring or relationships. When groups are small, it's easier to agree on rules and values. With larger groups, communities, states and whatnot, you'll have someone who doesn't mind wrecking it for everyone else just so they can get ahead. The solution is not to nod and say yeah, that's okay. It's not okay to cross red lights. It's not okay to kill people and take their money. It's not okay to steal someone else's confidential property and use it to destroy your competitor in the marketplace. We shouldn't accept any of these just because they're "the human condition". We should police our standards and improve on those failings so we can maintain a workable system. Some rules are not great. That's a fact, and that need to be improved. But the sustainable solution is not to bend the rule. It's to change the rules so they work well in more cases, for more people, with better overall outcomes. And then everyone follows the new rules. Fuck everyone who thinks they're above the rest of us and use others' "weakness" of caring about the common benefit to reap rewards just for themselves, without making the system sustainably better for all parties involved. I'd rather have a highway like the ones in Germany than the chaos that you see on a wide street in India. Both systems work, but one works better than the other because people agree that by not bending the rules to your own personal advantage, I can get a better outcome for everyone including myself. And to get back to your actual, much tamer example of bending the rules - in many cases the outcome is alright, but the principle still stands. I shouldn't have to call my bank to get a better interest rate. I shouldn't have to be personable and accommodating just so I can ask for something obvious like getting half an hour off for a doctor's appointment. Things like that should be available to everyone, regardless of their social aptitude. So let's make sure we have rules in place to make that the "rule", not the exception.

_rpd 9y ago

> This desire to reduce human interaction is driven by the desires of the average consumer. Yes, every example Byrne gives is opt-in. Want to increase human interaction? Simply don't use these new services.