3 ms·

I've noticed many programmers have difficulty with nuance and shades of gray on policy or social issues, which are complicated, fuzzy, and irreducible to simple

I've noticed many programmers have difficulty with nuance and shades of gray on policy or social issues, which are complicated, fuzzy, and irreducible to simple rules. I think this might be a reason why the field has such a strong libertarian presence.

notacoward 8y ago
I think "irreducible to simple rules" is really the heart of that. A program is a finite set of rules which are followed consistently and deterministically[1]. Programs are also almost infinitely malleable. Find a bug, fix a bug, it's gone forever[2]. People, societies, and markets have none of these properties. Everyone has their own rules, which they don't even follow consistently, and change is very difficult. People who are drawn toward one kind of reasoning are often literally incapable of the other. How many economists really understand programming[3]? The appeal of Asimov's "psychohistory" to programmers is obvious, but it's fiction. Unfortunately it's fiction that many programmers believe when they try their hand at economics or political science. [1] Mostly. I could write a whole "falsehoods programmers believe about programming" about the cases where that model doesn't apply. [2] Again, mostly. Updates take time, old versions persist, etc. [3] A few, I'm sure, but that doesn't affect the point.
malvosenior 8y ago
Given the replication crisis is it not more accurate to say that social "scientists" have difficulty understanding data and logic? It's no wonder that programmers who are grounded in both of those can see through the holes in their subjective and feeling driven arguments so often.
- lenticular 8y ago
  I'm a former physical scientist, and I am very critical of statistical practices in the sciences. Also, biology and biomedicine is just as bad, so don't act like like the super-smart physical scientists are somehow superior. Rigor in social sciences is difficult because there are no solid axioms as there are in physics or math to guide hypotheses. Folks with your type of opinions act like there are such axioms, but that is just simply wrong. This kind of thinking is exactly what I was talking about in my above comment.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    > Folks with your type of opinions act like there are such axioms No, I agree with you that there are no such axioms which is why the value of social "science" is near zero.

notacoward 8y ago

I think "irreducible to simple rules" is really the heart of that. A program is a finite set of rules which are followed consistently and deterministically[1]. Programs are also almost infinitely malleable. Find a bug, fix a bug, it's gone forever[2]. People, societies, and markets have none of these properties. Everyone has their own rules, which they don't even follow consistently, and change is very difficult. People who are drawn toward one kind of reasoning are often literally incapable of the other. How many economists really understand programming[3]? The appeal of Asimov's "psychohistory" to programmers is obvious, but it's fiction. Unfortunately it's fiction that many programmers believe when they try their hand at economics or political science. [1] Mostly. I could write a whole "falsehoods programmers believe about programming" about the cases where that model doesn't apply. [2] Again, mostly. Updates take time, old versions persist, etc. [3] A few, I'm sure, but that doesn't affect the point.

malvosenior 8y ago

Given the replication crisis is it not more accurate to say that social "scientists" have difficulty understanding data and logic? It's no wonder that programmers who are grounded in both of those can see through the holes in their subjective and feeling driven arguments so often.

lenticular 8y ago
I'm a former physical scientist, and I am very critical of statistical practices in the sciences. Also, biology and biomedicine is just as bad, so don't act like like the super-smart physical scientists are somehow superior. Rigor in social sciences is difficult because there are no solid axioms as there are in physics or math to guide hypotheses. Folks with your type of opinions act like there are such axioms, but that is just simply wrong. This kind of thinking is exactly what I was talking about in my above comment.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  > Folks with your type of opinions act like there are such axioms No, I agree with you that there are no such axioms which is why the value of social "science" is near zero.