8 ms·

I did an undergrad in English and then went on to do grad work in CS, I definitely feel that a background in the humanities has been able to give me insights in

I did an undergrad in English and then went on to do grad work in CS, I definitely feel that a background in the humanities has been able to give me insights into technical problems that people with purely technical background do not typically seem to have (not to mention all the communication skills that come in handy). My personal opinion is that degrees in the humanities are excellent, but that they should be followed up with a more pragmatic graduate degree (or pragmatic skill-set if grad school isn't your interest). There is way too much of a divided between technical fields and the humanities, and most people I've known are trained to think that interest in one completely excludes interest in the other.

jessedhillon 15y ago
I did a double major in Political Science and CS, and also several semesters of philosophy courses. I would agree that there is a roundedness in my education that I don't perceive in my engineering peers -- like an interest in the minutiae of politics; pausing to ask abstract and esoteric questions. (Maybe that's just my personal bias to consider those things I do as being in the set of well-rounded behaviors.) Additionally, I don't feel that I struggle in understanding social situations and norms, not as much as the typical engineer. But also I feel at times that my CS knowledge is not as deep as it could be -- I am probably at or below average for CS majors in my theoretical understanding, despite having some major engineering accomplishments.
- irahul 15y ago
  > pausing to ask abstract and esoteric questions Is there something in CS that prevents CS majors from asking abstract questions? The CS I know has a large, abstract part and any and all concrete things you see today originated from abstract reasoning. Didn't Lisp originate from an abstract paper implementing a turing-complete machine from basic operators? This is the second post I am replying to which talks about insights and abstract questions which technical(or CS) people supposedly lack. It would really help to have a couple of concrete examples.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    The abstractions that philosophy deals with have to do with things like the nature of knowledge and being. For some CS folks this comes as a natural extension of what they know -- thinking about daily experience categorically. If you consider the knowledge and abstraction capability it takes to design the schema for an app -- thinking about the knowledge in the system at a meta level -- philosophy is in some ways analogous to that. However, even if there was a perfectly obvious analogy between ontology in CS and philosophical ontology, I think that many engineers would still forgo thinking deeper about life. (Sorry, I know how condescending that sounds and I don't mean it that way.) > Is there something in CS that prevents CS majors from asking abstract questions? This type of response is annoying. Is there anything that prevents an eight-year-old from learning C and doing your job? Theoretically, no. Practically, yes. It's not the right question, because whether there or isn't something that prevents them from asking those questions, the perception is that they don't do it.
    - irahul 15y ago
      > thinking about the knowledge in the system at a meta level -- philosophy is in some ways analogous to that. That isn't what I was looking for. I was responding to "abstract and esoteric questions" and the implications that somehow CS people don't have the knack for the abstract. I am just saying that philosophy might or might not have abstract and esoteric questions(I don't know and don't care), but CS has them for sure and have had even since its genesis. > However, even if there was a perfectly obvious analogy between ontology in CS and philosophical ontology, Why would I care? How does this come into picture at all? I was responding to your abstract questions, which to me came out as somehow philosophy helps you understand CS better. If you didn't mean that, we aren't discussing the same topic. > I think that many engineers would still forgo thinking deeper about life. Again, how does this relate to philosophy and CS majors? And what is deep for me isn't necessarily deep for me. You might like pondering over if god exists and what's the meaning of existence. Sorry to sound condescending, but if that's what you meant about thinking deeper about life, that isn't deep enough for me. I have my personal belief system which changes based on my perception and that's good enough for me.
irahul 15y ago
> I definitely feel that a background in the humanities has been able to give me insights into technical problems that people with purely technical background do not typically seem to have People with technical backgrounds have insights on things which you won't have when you are beginning. More often than not, insights originate from relevant background. Not trying to prove you wrong or anything, but can you quote one or two specific examples of these insights which you think people coming from technical background don't seem to have. > not to mention all the communication skills that come in handy In my experience, technical people have above average communication skills. I am talking communication skills - not social skills(how to be nice when you actually aren't). Technical people hone their communication skills the same way you do - they read and write a lot - blogs, mails, books etc. Sure they aren't going to go win a booker(neither do most of English majors; if we are talking literary achievement of that scale, you undergrad isn't going to be a significant impact) but as far as communication goes, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Take HN for example. There are a lot of people with purely technical background here. Do you think HN crowd has poorer communication skill compared to your non-technical crowd? > most people I've known are trained to think that interest in one completely excludes interest in the other. I don't know about people you know but I would rather read "Coders at work", GEB, "You must be joking, Mr Feynman" etc than Ancient Indian civilizations or romans contribution to science. I haven't been trained not to like it. I simply have no interest or use for it.
- ohyes 15y ago
  > More often than not, insights originate from relevant background. The really excellent insights come from people with seemingly irrelevant background who are making a connection that people with only the typical backgrounds wouldn't. Philosophy of science and philosophy of language have helped me immensely in computer science. As has use of deductive sorts of processes (philosophy is a lot like debugging). >Do you think HN crowd has poorer communication skill compared to your non-technical crowd? That's not really a good comparison. You would have to compare a randomly selected set of humanities majors against a randomly selected set of engineers. On average, I'd say both groups would lose to people on HN. GEB and the Feynman book are as much works of literature as they are technical pieces. GEB in particular requires knowledge of multiple realms, which is what makes it difficult.

jessedhillon 15y ago

I did a double major in Political Science and CS, and also several semesters of philosophy courses. I would agree that there is a roundedness in my education that I don't perceive in my engineering peers -- like an interest in the minutiae of politics; pausing to ask abstract and esoteric questions. (Maybe that's just my personal bias to consider those things I do as being in the set of well-rounded behaviors.) Additionally, I don't feel that I struggle in understanding social situations and norms, not as much as the typical engineer. But also I feel at times that my CS knowledge is not as deep as it could be -- I am probably at or below average for CS majors in my theoretical understanding, despite having some major engineering accomplishments.

irahul 15y ago
> pausing to ask abstract and esoteric questions Is there something in CS that prevents CS majors from asking abstract questions? The CS I know has a large, abstract part and any and all concrete things you see today originated from abstract reasoning. Didn't Lisp originate from an abstract paper implementing a turing-complete machine from basic operators? This is the second post I am replying to which talks about insights and abstract questions which technical(or CS) people supposedly lack. It would really help to have a couple of concrete examples.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  The abstractions that philosophy deals with have to do with things like the nature of knowledge and being. For some CS folks this comes as a natural extension of what they know -- thinking about daily experience categorically. If you consider the knowledge and abstraction capability it takes to design the schema for an app -- thinking about the knowledge in the system at a meta level -- philosophy is in some ways analogous to that. However, even if there was a perfectly obvious analogy between ontology in CS and philosophical ontology, I think that many engineers would still forgo thinking deeper about life. (Sorry, I know how condescending that sounds and I don't mean it that way.) > Is there something in CS that prevents CS majors from asking abstract questions? This type of response is annoying. Is there anything that prevents an eight-year-old from learning C and doing your job? Theoretically, no. Practically, yes. It's not the right question, because whether there or isn't something that prevents them from asking those questions, the perception is that they don't do it.
  - irahul 15y ago
    > thinking about the knowledge in the system at a meta level -- philosophy is in some ways analogous to that. That isn't what I was looking for. I was responding to "abstract and esoteric questions" and the implications that somehow CS people don't have the knack for the abstract. I am just saying that philosophy might or might not have abstract and esoteric questions(I don't know and don't care), but CS has them for sure and have had even since its genesis. > However, even if there was a perfectly obvious analogy between ontology in CS and philosophical ontology, Why would I care? How does this come into picture at all? I was responding to your abstract questions, which to me came out as somehow philosophy helps you understand CS better. If you didn't mean that, we aren't discussing the same topic. > I think that many engineers would still forgo thinking deeper about life. Again, how does this relate to philosophy and CS majors? And what is deep for me isn't necessarily deep for me. You might like pondering over if god exists and what's the meaning of existence. Sorry to sound condescending, but if that's what you meant about thinking deeper about life, that isn't deep enough for me. I have my personal belief system which changes based on my perception and that's good enough for me.

irahul 15y ago

> I definitely feel that a background in the humanities has been able to give me insights into technical problems that people with purely technical background do not typically seem to have People with technical backgrounds have insights on things which you won't have when you are beginning. More often than not, insights originate from relevant background. Not trying to prove you wrong or anything, but can you quote one or two specific examples of these insights which you think people coming from technical background don't seem to have. > not to mention all the communication skills that come in handy In my experience, technical people have above average communication skills. I am talking communication skills - not social skills(how to be nice when you actually aren't). Technical people hone their communication skills the same way you do - they read and write a lot - blogs, mails, books etc. Sure they aren't going to go win a booker(neither do most of English majors; if we are talking literary achievement of that scale, you undergrad isn't going to be a significant impact) but as far as communication goes, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Take HN for example. There are a lot of people with purely technical background here. Do you think HN crowd has poorer communication skill compared to your non-technical crowd? > most people I've known are trained to think that interest in one completely excludes interest in the other. I don't know about people you know but I would rather read "Coders at work", GEB, "You must be joking, Mr Feynman" etc than Ancient Indian civilizations or romans contribution to science. I haven't been trained not to like it. I simply have no interest or use for it.

ohyes 15y ago
> More often than not, insights originate from relevant background. The really excellent insights come from people with seemingly irrelevant background who are making a connection that people with only the typical backgrounds wouldn't. Philosophy of science and philosophy of language have helped me immensely in computer science. As has use of deductive sorts of processes (philosophy is a lot like debugging). >Do you think HN crowd has poorer communication skill compared to your non-technical crowd? That's not really a good comparison. You would have to compare a randomly selected set of humanities majors against a randomly selected set of engineers. On average, I'd say both groups would lose to people on HN. GEB and the Feynman book are as much works of literature as they are technical pieces. GEB in particular requires knowledge of multiple realms, which is what makes it difficult.