3 ms·

Well if we're just gonna bash software guys here.... The arrogance stands out for me. I have worked in many different fields and with a range of engineers (EE,

Well if we're just gonna bash software guys here.... The arrogance stands out for me. I have worked in many different fields and with a range of engineers (EE,ME,CE), none come close to the general aura of big ego and arrogance around software guys. It's similar to the levels seen in finance guys. Its like there has to be some relationship between compensation and true value, where ego makes up the difference. Of course there are the humble bunch in there, but god I have no idea how they get along with their colleagues.

agumonkey 5y ago
I wonder if it was the case in the previous decades. I assume that a lot of this comes from the fact that computing is now more than trendy, and being knowledgeable on it makes you feel like king of the hill. Also lots of people going into computing, knowing the recent history. Strong opinions about things based on the last 10-20 years, choosing their little church. While having next to zero knowledge about previous history (tech or even business in general), nor fundamentals about computing, but they have enough data to flood you with their certainty :)
- notacoward 5y ago
  > I wonder if it was the case in the previous decades. Less so, in my memory. Sure there was hubris. Sure there was conflict. But there was also a recognition that we were all small fish in a big pond. And there were still people around from when computing was an even smaller sliver of the economy, who tended me more "grounded" than anyone you'll see today. Now that computing companies are among the richest in the world, the mix of personality types within them has changed a lot and not for the better IMO.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    I'd add: - innate difficulty: it's a bit harder to make an application on a 286 machine, you need to think more, you can't clone a template and tweak a few things to get a fully featured platform - also, more utility driven, can't make shiny visual and presentation. the app has steps toward goals and you get done quicker.
eternalban 5y ago
This is simply because it is an intellectual field that is not subject to professional norms of cognitive workers. You will likely find, if you read period pieces or biographies of similar situtations e.g. 19th century EM engineers, that they too had an inflated sense of the scope of their understanding of matters. This is likely (imo) due to the fact that mastery is gained somewhat independently and not subject to any pseudo-objective critical review (beyond 'my device x works!'), and no professional rigors are selecting for different (professional) mindsets. 'Those that don't know that they don't know' and all that. To amplify, a cognitive worker in an established discipline is buried under domain details and painfully aware of the scope of their field. They specialize, and are certified for that specialization. Their ego is better informed about the realities of their extent of knowledge, and yes, they paid dearly to get schooled and certified for their narrow niche. (So you have the inverse effect of possibly insufferable attitudes of experts regarding novel developments and ideas in their specialization.)
- tjalfi 5y ago
  > This is simply because it is an intellectual field that is not subject to professional norms of cognitive workers. You will likely find, if you read period pieces or biographies of similar situtations e.g. 19th century EM engineers, that they too had an inflated sense of the scope of their understanding of matters. Engineering education in the 19th century was a crucible; only the best and brightest successfully graduated. The following excerpts are from a blog entry[0] on the book The Great Bridge. In three years’ time he had also to master nearly a hundred different courses, including, among others, Analytical Geometry of Three Dimensions, … Calculus of Variations, Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis, Determinative Mineralogy, Higher Geodesy, …, Orthographic and Spherical Projections, Acoustics, Optics, Thermotics, Geology of Mining, Paleontology, Rational Mechanics of Solids and Fluids, Spherical Astronomy, … Machine Design, Hydraulic Motors, Steam Engines, Stability of Structures, Engineering and Architectural Design and Construction, and Intellectual and Ethical Philosophy. A century later, D.B. Steinman, a noted bridgebuilder and professor of civil engineering, would write, “Under such a curriculum the average college boy of today woul be left reeling and staggering. In that earlier, era, before colleges embarked upon mass production, engineering education was a real test and training, an intensive intellectual discipline and professional equipment for a most exacting life work. Only the ablest and the most ambitious could stand the pace and survive the ordeal. … Of the sixty-five students who started out in [Roebling’s class], only twelve finished. And among those who did not finish there had been some rather severe breakdowns, it appears, and one suicide. [0] https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2006/01/26/favorite-extracts-from-the-great-bridge-by-david-mccullough/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2006/01/26/favorite-extrac...

agumonkey 5y ago

I wonder if it was the case in the previous decades. I assume that a lot of this comes from the fact that computing is now more than trendy, and being knowledgeable on it makes you feel like king of the hill. Also lots of people going into computing, knowing the recent history. Strong opinions about things based on the last 10-20 years, choosing their little church. While having next to zero knowledge about previous history (tech or even business in general), nor fundamentals about computing, but they have enough data to flood you with their certainty :)

notacoward 5y ago
> I wonder if it was the case in the previous decades. Less so, in my memory. Sure there was hubris. Sure there was conflict. But there was also a recognition that we were all small fish in a big pond. And there were still people around from when computing was an even smaller sliver of the economy, who tended me more "grounded" than anyone you'll see today. Now that computing companies are among the richest in the world, the mix of personality types within them has changed a lot and not for the better IMO.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  I'd add: - innate difficulty: it's a bit harder to make an application on a 286 machine, you need to think more, you can't clone a template and tweak a few things to get a fully featured platform - also, more utility driven, can't make shiny visual and presentation. the app has steps toward goals and you get done quicker.

eternalban 5y ago

This is simply because it is an intellectual field that is not subject to professional norms of cognitive workers. You will likely find, if you read period pieces or biographies of similar situtations e.g. 19th century EM engineers, that they too had an inflated sense of the scope of their understanding of matters. This is likely (imo) due to the fact that mastery is gained somewhat independently and not subject to any pseudo-objective critical review (beyond 'my device x works!'), and no professional rigors are selecting for different (professional) mindsets. 'Those that don't know that they don't know' and all that. To amplify, a cognitive worker in an established discipline is buried under domain details and painfully aware of the scope of their field. They specialize, and are certified for that specialization. Their ego is better informed about the realities of their extent of knowledge, and yes, they paid dearly to get schooled and certified for their narrow niche. (So you have the inverse effect of possibly insufferable attitudes of experts regarding novel developments and ideas in their specialization.)

tjalfi 5y ago
> This is simply because it is an intellectual field that is not subject to professional norms of cognitive workers. You will likely find, if you read period pieces or biographies of similar situtations e.g. 19th century EM engineers, that they too had an inflated sense of the scope of their understanding of matters. Engineering education in the 19th century was a crucible; only the best and brightest successfully graduated. The following excerpts are from a blog entry[0] on the book The Great Bridge. In three years’ time he had also to master nearly a hundred different courses, including, among others, Analytical Geometry of Three Dimensions, … Calculus of Variations, Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis, Determinative Mineralogy, Higher Geodesy, …, Orthographic and Spherical Projections, Acoustics, Optics, Thermotics, Geology of Mining, Paleontology, Rational Mechanics of Solids and Fluids, Spherical Astronomy, … Machine Design, Hydraulic Motors, Steam Engines, Stability of Structures, Engineering and Architectural Design and Construction, and Intellectual and Ethical Philosophy. A century later, D.B. Steinman, a noted bridgebuilder and professor of civil engineering, would write, “Under such a curriculum the average college boy of today woul be left reeling and staggering. In that earlier, era, before colleges embarked upon mass production, engineering education was a real test and training, an intensive intellectual discipline and professional equipment for a most exacting life work. Only the ablest and the most ambitious could stand the pace and survive the ordeal. … Of the sixty-five students who started out in [Roebling’s class], only twelve finished. And among those who did not finish there had been some rather severe breakdowns, it appears, and one suicide. [0] https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2006/01/26/favorite-extracts-from-the-great-bridge-by-david-mccullough/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2006/01/26/favorite-extrac...