4 ms·

This is a nice little interview, but the title is very misleading! The word "humanities" only appears once outside the title and the answer doesn't really addre

This is a nice little interview, but the title is very misleading! The word "humanities" only appears once outside the title and the answer doesn't really address the title's claim. I think it's an interesting topic, though. Do tech companies need more humanities grads? I'm skeptical because plenty of other industries have caused their own social problems, and the humanities haven't saved them. Look at advertising, which was originally built by artists rather than hackers. It may well be true that big tech companies need to be more socially aware and environmentally conscious, but that doesn't mean "the humanities" is necessarily the answer.

torpcoms 9y ago
I think big tech companies are perfectly aware of how people react to their actions.
- ikeyany 9y ago
  In fact, do they not study reactions in order to maximize the amount of time spent on their platforms?
pjonesdotca 9y ago
Actually modern advertising ( post WW2 ) was built by psychologists - the artists just dressed up the intentions. Edward Bernays pivoted from being a propagandist to advertising and virtually created the foundation for Madison Avenue as we understand it. Until social media and it's dopamine manipulation strategies, advertising was focused on the manipulation of the viewer.
- iainmerrick 9y ago
  Huh, interesting! I was under the impression that the typical ad executive of the 50s and 60s would have studied philosophy or classics or something like that -- wannabe writers and artists who got tempted into high-paying jobs on Madison Avenue, similar to today's wannabe mathematicians and physicists who end up working at tech companies and hedge funds. But maybe that's an incorrect stereotype.
matt4077 9y ago
I don't believe she's necessarily calling for the hiring of humanities grads. What would help, as a start, is an appreciation for the values (and value) of the humanities. On HN specifically, you frequently see something akin to Schadenfreude when referring to students of the liberal arts serving fries to tech grads. That is to some degree just factually wrong, considering many liberal arts undergrads go on to rather lucrative careers in law, or powerful careers in politics. But it is also short-sighted, because history has always been a two-step process, with technology enabling us to do new things, and other disciplines enabling us to use these capabilities for something resembling the "common good". I always like this thought experiment: Would you rather live in a world with the middle age's social/political/law system and today's technology–or the other way around? This doesn't mean that social and political progress are the exclusive domain of those who studied greek mythology. In fact, this article explicitly argues that it shouldn't be: Hackers should engage with that community. But what it does take is, sometimes, a bit of humility. Too often, I feel the tech community is looking at technological solutions to social and political problems. See cryptocurrencies, or the encryption debate as examples where you can feel cynicism, bordering on disdain, for the political process. The problem with that is, first, that it's wrong: a lot of power rests in politics, and China is a living example that the internet community is currently unable to win a direct confrontation with the power of the state. It is also wrong in that it portraits all governments as equally bad, all laws as subject to changed or broken when expedient, when clearly there are differences in the rule of law between countries, and there are differences in the willingness of politicians to act with integrity. Secondly, using technology to create facts is somewhat undemocratic in itself. The Federal Reserve may be committing all sorts of errors. But it is hard to deny that derives legitimacy through a transparent, tested, process much more democratic than bitcoin. It is also an illusion to suggest that bitcoin is free of ideology, only because that ideology takes the form of an algorithm decided in the past, ticking away with almost no method to influence it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 9y ago
  I agree that it's an error to describe bitcoin as free of ideology, but regarding the fact that it's an algorithm decided in the past and hard to change, wouldn't that describe Constitutions too?

torpcoms 9y ago

I think big tech companies are perfectly aware of how people react to their actions.

ikeyany 9y ago
In fact, do they not study reactions in order to maximize the amount of time spent on their platforms?

pjonesdotca 9y ago

Actually modern advertising ( post WW2 ) was built by psychologists - the artists just dressed up the intentions. Edward Bernays pivoted from being a propagandist to advertising and virtually created the foundation for Madison Avenue as we understand it. Until social media and it's dopamine manipulation strategies, advertising was focused on the manipulation of the viewer.

iainmerrick 9y ago
Huh, interesting! I was under the impression that the typical ad executive of the 50s and 60s would have studied philosophy or classics or something like that -- wannabe writers and artists who got tempted into high-paying jobs on Madison Avenue, similar to today's wannabe mathematicians and physicists who end up working at tech companies and hedge funds. But maybe that's an incorrect stereotype.

matt4077 9y ago

I don't believe she's necessarily calling for the hiring of humanities grads. What would help, as a start, is an appreciation for the values (and value) of the humanities. On HN specifically, you frequently see something akin to Schadenfreude when referring to students of the liberal arts serving fries to tech grads. That is to some degree just factually wrong, considering many liberal arts undergrads go on to rather lucrative careers in law, or powerful careers in politics. But it is also short-sighted, because history has always been a two-step process, with technology enabling us to do new things, and other disciplines enabling us to use these capabilities for something resembling the "common good". I always like this thought experiment: Would you rather live in a world with the middle age's social/political/law system and today's technology–or the other way around? This doesn't mean that social and political progress are the exclusive domain of those who studied greek mythology. In fact, this article explicitly argues that it shouldn't be: Hackers should engage with that community. But what it does take is, sometimes, a bit of humility. Too often, I feel the tech community is looking at technological solutions to social and political problems. See cryptocurrencies, or the encryption debate as examples where you can feel cynicism, bordering on disdain, for the political process. The problem with that is, first, that it's wrong: a lot of power rests in politics, and China is a living example that the internet community is currently unable to win a direct confrontation with the power of the state. It is also wrong in that it portraits all governments as equally bad, all laws as subject to changed or broken when expedient, when clearly there are differences in the rule of law between countries, and there are differences in the willingness of politicians to act with integrity. Secondly, using technology to create facts is somewhat undemocratic in itself. The Federal Reserve may be committing all sorts of errors. But it is hard to deny that derives legitimacy through a transparent, tested, process much more democratic than bitcoin. It is also an illusion to suggest that bitcoin is free of ideology, only because that ideology takes the form of an algorithm decided in the past, ticking away with almost no method to influence it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 9y ago
I agree that it's an error to describe bitcoin as free of ideology, but regarding the fact that it's an algorithm decided in the past and hard to change, wouldn't that describe Constitutions too?