3 ms·

> Coming from an engineering degree, I simply could not believe that policy studies were a science. Since I was in law school, I couldn't catch on fast enough t

> Coming from an engineering degree, I simply could not believe that policy studies were a science. Since I was in law school, I couldn't catch on fast enough that for ecology students, habitat preservation was the sole and overriding goal of everything and not a subject with trade-offs that we should discuss. While I took econ, I didn't understand why you would have any faith in a law you couldn't derive and prove with data. I wasn't sure about econ's laws either, because after taking all that physics I thought that real laws enforce themselves every single time. In law school, the justice issues behind a decision were worth pointing out. But not in econ or ecology. This is hilarious. I did engineering as well, and business school. I just couldn't believe it, you had these just-so stories in prose about why VHS beat Betamax or how great Toyota was, and that somehow qualified you for management. Econ was a bit more sensible, with at least some proper work quantifying things, but also some suspiciously simple models that gave practitioners the ear of government. More and more I distrust non-technical people. It just seems that if someone doesn't come from a technical background, their modus operandi is simply to take stock of the social situation in their field, rather than try to look at the evidence. If they do come from the technical side, then they have a choice, so it's not all smooth sailing either, but at least there's a chance they'll listen to facts. The guy to read about is Kuhn. He talks about how people establish the "facts" socially.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xiaolingxiao 6y ago
Which biz school did you go to if you don't mind me asking? From my experience, it's not that they believe in those stories, it's that they behave as if they believe in it. MBAs is about training pliant middle managers who carry out the wishes of those above regardless of their personal cognitive dissonance. Suppressing this personal desire to benefit shareholder value is a big part of it. And worshipping certain companies or narratives certainly make the suppression of individual easier.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  Oxford. Yeah I don't know if anyone can believe the stories, they might as well be a common myth.
hdhdhsjsbdh 6y ago
> More and more I distrust non-technical people. It just seems that if someone doesn't come from a technical background, their modus operandi is simply to take stock of the social situation in their field, rather than try to look at the evidence. If they do come from the technical side, then they have a choice, so it's not all smooth sailing either, but at least there's a chance they'll listen to facts. In the context of a team environment, where you need to rely on others to either manage or handle their delegated tasks effectively, I can see the merit in this. It’s not uncommon of course to have a non-technical founder who is more adept at bending social realities to their whim than competently managing a technical effort. The risk I see in adopting this attitude whole-cloth though is that it seems to preclude seeing folks from the humanities, social sciences, etc. as having any value whatsoever in tech domains. Sure, we should all base purely technical decisions on the “hard facts”, but another part of understanding reality is to accept that much of what technical product development produces ends up in the hands of users and ultimately has potential to affect individual well-being on a large scale. That’s not to mention its unforeseen but often demonstrated impact on societies, governments, and markets. The enabler for much of the regrettable status quo – rampant tech addiction and vanishing personal privacy, among other things – is myopic, tech- and facts-centered thinking that seeks to solve fine-grained problems at all costs without considering the broader social impact. The unfortunate truth is that the soft sciences must base their reasoning on things a little less certain than the laws of physics (which, since you mention Kuhn – those are also subject to change), but I believe they still have a seat at the table if we have any hope of building a happier, more sustainable, and more ethical future. My question is, how do we bridge that mistrust?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xiaolingxiao 6y ago

Which biz school did you go to if you don't mind me asking? From my experience, it's not that they believe in those stories, it's that they behave as if they believe in it. MBAs is about training pliant middle managers who carry out the wishes of those above regardless of their personal cognitive dissonance. Suppressing this personal desire to benefit shareholder value is a big part of it. And worshipping certain companies or narratives certainly make the suppression of individual easier.

lordnacho 6y ago
Oxford. Yeah I don't know if anyone can believe the stories, they might as well be a common myth.

hdhdhsjsbdh 6y ago

> More and more I distrust non-technical people. It just seems that if someone doesn't come from a technical background, their modus operandi is simply to take stock of the social situation in their field, rather than try to look at the evidence. If they do come from the technical side, then they have a choice, so it's not all smooth sailing either, but at least there's a chance they'll listen to facts. In the context of a team environment, where you need to rely on others to either manage or handle their delegated tasks effectively, I can see the merit in this. It’s not uncommon of course to have a non-technical founder who is more adept at bending social realities to their whim than competently managing a technical effort. The risk I see in adopting this attitude whole-cloth though is that it seems to preclude seeing folks from the humanities, social sciences, etc. as having any value whatsoever in tech domains. Sure, we should all base purely technical decisions on the “hard facts”, but another part of understanding reality is to accept that much of what technical product development produces ends up in the hands of users and ultimately has potential to affect individual well-being on a large scale. That’s not to mention its unforeseen but often demonstrated impact on societies, governments, and markets. The enabler for much of the regrettable status quo – rampant tech addiction and vanishing personal privacy, among other things – is myopic, tech- and facts-centered thinking that seeks to solve fine-grained problems at all costs without considering the broader social impact. The unfortunate truth is that the soft sciences must base their reasoning on things a little less certain than the laws of physics (which, since you mention Kuhn – those are also subject to change), but I believe they still have a seat at the table if we have any hope of building a happier, more sustainable, and more ethical future. My question is, how do we bridge that mistrust?