3 ms·

Good article. Nothing unexpected for me but a good, calm summary of the matter. I appreciated the distinct lack of "us vs them" jingoism - it comes down to the

by enko 15y ago

Good article. Nothing unexpected for me but a good, calm summary of the matter. I appreciated the distinct lack of "us vs them" jingoism - it comes down to the numbers, nothing more. One thing that bothered me was the attitude of "Maddie", though, towards her lot in life. I've seen it before and it baffles me: > “If you don’t know jack about computers and electronics, then you don’t have anything in this life anymore. One day, they’re not going to need people; the machines will take over. People like me, we’re not going to be around forever.” I just cannot fathom this blithe indifference to her fate, and this assumption that, as someone who doesn't "know jack about computers and electronics" she is basically doomed. Why doesn't she instead feel like she might want to start reading up on these critical topics? The article doesn't paint her as lazy or unwilling to learn. It just doesn't seem to occur to her, for whatever reason, that the option of self-study is open to her. I can't figure it out.

funkah 15y ago
I was irked by her insisting how smart she is at the outset of the article. In my experience, people who think this don't see the need to learn anything new, or to change themselves in any way because they're just fine the way they are. All I can think is, Well, enjoy that smartness on your way to the dustbin of history.
- enko 15y ago
  Hm. I did find that bemusing but am reluctant to jump to conclusions, given the format. Who knows what the context was? Perhaps it was said defensively by someone somewhat ashamed of their modest employment? I can certainly imagine a 22yo girl saying "I know I work in a factory, but I'm smart .. really ..." Same with the claim to be a redneck. Said with genuine pride I would find that pretty offputting (and there are certainly people like that around). But said as a joke it wouldn't be bad at all. Not trying to disagree. Her later quote, the one I copied, doesn't inspire hope. But reading too much into out-of-context quotes is fraught with dangers...
SatvikBeri 15y ago
Psychology is complicated. As another example, a lot of Hackers are probably at least somewhat aware that learning some marketing and self-promotion skills would massively improve their quality of life, yet will make endless excuses as to why they can't/won't.
_delirium 15y ago
Some people I think could read up, at least on some aspects, but I don't think it's equally easy for everyone to learn all topics. If we woke up in a world tomorrow where technical skills were not highly in demand, but, say, the two main growth sectors involved writing and music, how many of today's Google employees would be able to successfully retrain as novelists, journalists, violinists, poets, historians, and editors? My guess is some would and some wouldn't; and a number would need significant time to do so, and/or would end up as only mediocre employees in their new occupation. That's how I feel with computers, anyway, that I've in effect pulled a lucky straw: I've been interested in and good at computers since I was like 8, and it turns out they pay. If the money was elsewhere, I'm not sure how easily I'd be able to switch. Likewise, I'm not sure how easy it'd be for an adult who was never fascinated with and adept at technology to go the other way, and "become a techie" through self-study, purely because they think it's important/lucrative, as opposed to because they have the sort of interest/drive/skill that most techies have. Or put differently, I don't think everyone is the same or perfectly malleable; not necessarily due to genetics, but at least by the time they reach adulthood people have different skills/proclivities and are more or less adept at learning certain things. Since the universe isn't aligned in some cosmically fair manner, some people's skills/interests align with what's currently in demand, and other people's don't, which puts the people out of alignment in a more difficult place, like me in an age where being court poet, painter, or musician was the main path for middle-class kids to advance, and engineering was seen as a more working-class endeavor.
- enko 15y ago
  I won't deny genetic predisposition exists. You can have your 10,000 hours and what not but some people are just better than others at $task. I remember a high school friend of mine who, after hundreds or thousands of hours of guitar practise, still could not play by ear, something I could do at age five. Yes, there are differences. But I think a great many things can be learned. I actually disagree that all those Google engineers couldn't re-educate, should they have to. They would just have to choose carefully their new vocation. You have (perhaps inadvertently) given a great example in your list of future Google employee vocations: > novelists, journalists, violinists, poets, historians, and editors Think about these careers for a second. - novelist: writing skill, internal subject, long term - journalist: writing skill, external subject, short term - violinist: focus on repetition and incremental improvement - poets: writing skill, internal subject, taste - historian: external subject,long term - editor: writing skill, external subject, taste Do you see what I'm getting at? They're all so different. And I kind of find myself "choosing" one of them myself (I'm a professional programmer). I think intelligent people tend to be able to bend their mind to whatever purpose they desire, with enough effort. Sure, a bit of genetic predisposition helps, but that's just tweaking the dials. You can go in the general direction just with intellect and effort. And I'd wager that the reason you were interested in computers since age 8 was simply because you were exposed to them. If your Dad had been a typesetter for the NYT, could things have turned out differently?

by enko 15y ago

funkah 15y ago

I was irked by her insisting how smart she is at the outset of the article. In my experience, people who think this don't see the need to learn anything new, or to change themselves in any way because they're just fine the way they are. All I can think is, Well, enjoy that smartness on your way to the dustbin of history.

enko 15y ago
Hm. I did find that bemusing but am reluctant to jump to conclusions, given the format. Who knows what the context was? Perhaps it was said defensively by someone somewhat ashamed of their modest employment? I can certainly imagine a 22yo girl saying "I know I work in a factory, but I'm smart .. really ..." Same with the claim to be a redneck. Said with genuine pride I would find that pretty offputting (and there are certainly people like that around). But said as a joke it wouldn't be bad at all. Not trying to disagree. Her later quote, the one I copied, doesn't inspire hope. But reading too much into out-of-context quotes is fraught with dangers...

SatvikBeri 15y ago

Psychology is complicated. As another example, a lot of Hackers are probably at least somewhat aware that learning some marketing and self-promotion skills would massively improve their quality of life, yet will make endless excuses as to why they can't/won't.

_delirium 15y ago

Some people I think could read up, at least on some aspects, but I don't think it's equally easy for everyone to learn all topics. If we woke up in a world tomorrow where technical skills were not highly in demand, but, say, the two main growth sectors involved writing and music, how many of today's Google employees would be able to successfully retrain as novelists, journalists, violinists, poets, historians, and editors? My guess is some would and some wouldn't; and a number would need significant time to do so, and/or would end up as only mediocre employees in their new occupation. That's how I feel with computers, anyway, that I've in effect pulled a lucky straw: I've been interested in and good at computers since I was like 8, and it turns out they pay. If the money was elsewhere, I'm not sure how easily I'd be able to switch. Likewise, I'm not sure how easy it'd be for an adult who was never fascinated with and adept at technology to go the other way, and "become a techie" through self-study, purely because they think it's important/lucrative, as opposed to because they have the sort of interest/drive/skill that most techies have. Or put differently, I don't think everyone is the same or perfectly malleable; not necessarily due to genetics, but at least by the time they reach adulthood people have different skills/proclivities and are more or less adept at learning certain things. Since the universe isn't aligned in some cosmically fair manner, some people's skills/interests align with what's currently in demand, and other people's don't, which puts the people out of alignment in a more difficult place, like me in an age where being court poet, painter, or musician was the main path for middle-class kids to advance, and engineering was seen as a more working-class endeavor.

enko 15y ago
I won't deny genetic predisposition exists. You can have your 10,000 hours and what not but some people are just better than others at $task. I remember a high school friend of mine who, after hundreds or thousands of hours of guitar practise, still could not play by ear, something I could do at age five. Yes, there are differences. But I think a great many things can be learned. I actually disagree that all those Google engineers couldn't re-educate, should they have to. They would just have to choose carefully their new vocation. You have (perhaps inadvertently) given a great example in your list of future Google employee vocations: > novelists, journalists, violinists, poets, historians, and editors Think about these careers for a second. - novelist: writing skill, internal subject, long term - journalist: writing skill, external subject, short term - violinist: focus on repetition and incremental improvement - poets: writing skill, internal subject, taste - historian: external subject,long term - editor: writing skill, external subject, taste Do you see what I'm getting at? They're all so different. And I kind of find myself "choosing" one of them myself (I'm a professional programmer). I think intelligent people tend to be able to bend their mind to whatever purpose they desire, with enough effort. Sure, a bit of genetic predisposition helps, but that's just tweaking the dials. You can go in the general direction just with intellect and effort. And I'd wager that the reason you were interested in computers since age 8 was simply because you were exposed to them. If your Dad had been a typesetter for the NYT, could things have turned out differently?