5 ms·

> response is annyoying Hive mind at work? You wait to see how others are responding to my posts and then use annoying language? > Is there anything that prev

by irahul 15y ago

> response is annyoying Hive mind at work? You wait to see how others are responding to my posts and then use annoying language? > Is there anything that prevents an eight-year-old from learning C and doing your job? Theoretically, no. Practically, yes. Is there anything that prevents a CS major from thinking at abstract level? Theoretically, no. Practically, no. Does CS encourage abstract reasoning? 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. CS comprises both abstract, theoretical aspects as well as concrete applications. If we are talking about that they don't do it in CS context, where does "CS doesn't do abstract" perception came from?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jessedhillon 15y ago
> where does "CS doesn't do abstract" perception came from? Hell if I know -- you should be asking yourself, since you're the only one who is making this imaginary claim. If I had to guess, it comes from your deep-seated psychological need to make sure that getting an engineering degree was the correct decision in life, and not one that will ultimately lead you to a lonesome, unhappy and desperate existence in your middle years as a mid-tier engineer of no particular importance. And worse, you might spend those years watching the guys with the humanities degrees become successful leaders of their fields (and yours), starting families and having many children with their beautiful wives. (This foray into the source of that claim, which only you have made, was facetious, mind you.) Or at least that's what I would guess from the degree of defensiveness you've employed to protect your choice of major from attacks that you imagine are being leveled against you -- despite the record clearly showing no such thing has been said. I can't imagine why else you would interpret relatively benign statements about the benefits of other fields as being pointed and offensive like you have.
- scott_s 15y ago
  I have read several comments on this thread where my understanding of what the commenter meant was that their humanities background gave them a perspective in a technical field that those with purely technical backgrounds did not have. I think that's a similar sentiment to the one that irahul is responding to. You deleted your first reply, probably because you decided it was inappropriate. (I downvoted and flagged it - something I have done only a handful of times.) I don't think this one is much better.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    irahul has been exceedingly rude and hostile, and demonstrated not even a hint of intellectual curiosity. It's pretty clear that he's already decided that nobody, claiming that a humanities education provides benefits vis-a-vis a technical education, can be right. All of his responses have been a defensive, reactionary manifestation of that prejudiced conclusion. My response is largely in jest -- a lighthearted guess as to why somebody would be so rigidly opposed to the benign and obvious concept of comparative advantages -- since it's either that or flame him back. I can't provide a defense for what he thinks other people have said on other comments. The first response was out of line, that's why I removed it. I think this one is much better.
    - scott_s 15y ago
      I disagree. I have not found his comments rude, hostile, or lacking in intellectual curiosity. I think you are too emotionally invested in the discussion to evaluate his comments fairly.
      - jessedhillon 15y ago
        Well, you're welcome to your opinion and thanks for sharing it. I think as someone who has both an engineering and a humanities education, I am the last person who would have an emotional stake one way or another. On the other hand, a cursory examination of his comments would show that every response to "the benefit of a humanities education is X" is met with a reaction with something of the form "engineering students can also do X" (meaning that they are physically capable of doing it). This reaction occurs regardless of the merits of the initial claim, and without a basic examination of its points. He then delves into what I can only call a petty dissection of the semantics of the argument. If I had said that a benefit of my education was the prominent role of public speaking and debate, no doubt that would immediately have been met by a predictable, worthless (in the literal sense of providing no value) rejoinder: CS students can debate also. This is a degenerate point and not at relevant to a serious discussion of what benefits are provided by a humanities education. That sort of criticism can be leveled at anything. This doesn't even address the fact that the way he has chosen to frame this conversation is totally absurd. "CS doesn't do abstract" is what he thinks people are saying, which would be a ridiculous statement to make. The terms of the debate don't allow for any sort of gradation or nuance -- this perspective can't admit that there is a qualitative difference in abstract reasoning between engineers and philosophy, while still allowing that both receive an education in it.

by irahul 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jessedhillon 15y ago

> where does "CS doesn't do abstract" perception came from? Hell if I know -- you should be asking yourself, since you're the only one who is making this imaginary claim. If I had to guess, it comes from your deep-seated psychological need to make sure that getting an engineering degree was the correct decision in life, and not one that will ultimately lead you to a lonesome, unhappy and desperate existence in your middle years as a mid-tier engineer of no particular importance. And worse, you might spend those years watching the guys with the humanities degrees become successful leaders of their fields (and yours), starting families and having many children with their beautiful wives. (This foray into the source of that claim, which only you have made, was facetious, mind you.) Or at least that's what I would guess from the degree of defensiveness you've employed to protect your choice of major from attacks that you imagine are being leveled against you -- despite the record clearly showing no such thing has been said. I can't imagine why else you would interpret relatively benign statements about the benefits of other fields as being pointed and offensive like you have.

scott_s 15y ago
I have read several comments on this thread where my understanding of what the commenter meant was that their humanities background gave them a perspective in a technical field that those with purely technical backgrounds did not have. I think that's a similar sentiment to the one that irahul is responding to. You deleted your first reply, probably because you decided it was inappropriate. (I downvoted and flagged it - something I have done only a handful of times.) I don't think this one is much better.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  irahul has been exceedingly rude and hostile, and demonstrated not even a hint of intellectual curiosity. It's pretty clear that he's already decided that nobody, claiming that a humanities education provides benefits vis-a-vis a technical education, can be right. All of his responses have been a defensive, reactionary manifestation of that prejudiced conclusion. My response is largely in jest -- a lighthearted guess as to why somebody would be so rigidly opposed to the benign and obvious concept of comparative advantages -- since it's either that or flame him back. I can't provide a defense for what he thinks other people have said on other comments. The first response was out of line, that's why I removed it. I think this one is much better.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    I disagree. I have not found his comments rude, hostile, or lacking in intellectual curiosity. I think you are too emotionally invested in the discussion to evaluate his comments fairly.
    - jessedhillon 15y ago
      Well, you're welcome to your opinion and thanks for sharing it. I think as someone who has both an engineering and a humanities education, I am the last person who would have an emotional stake one way or another. On the other hand, a cursory examination of his comments would show that every response to "the benefit of a humanities education is X" is met with a reaction with something of the form "engineering students can also do X" (meaning that they are physically capable of doing it). This reaction occurs regardless of the merits of the initial claim, and without a basic examination of its points. He then delves into what I can only call a petty dissection of the semantics of the argument. If I had said that a benefit of my education was the prominent role of public speaking and debate, no doubt that would immediately have been met by a predictable, worthless (in the literal sense of providing no value) rejoinder: CS students can debate also. This is a degenerate point and not at relevant to a serious discussion of what benefits are provided by a humanities education. That sort of criticism can be leveled at anything. This doesn't even address the fact that the way he has chosen to frame this conversation is totally absurd. "CS doesn't do abstract" is what he thinks people are saying, which would be a ridiculous statement to make. The terms of the debate don't allow for any sort of gradation or nuance -- this perspective can't admit that there is a qualitative difference in abstract reasoning between engineers and philosophy, while still allowing that both receive an education in it.