5 ms·

Have you heard (intelligent!) non-tech people talking about tech? Why would (intelligent!) tech people fare better talking about non-tech? Domain knowledge is

by bla3 3y ago

Have you heard (intelligent!) non-tech people talking about tech? Why would (intelligent!) tech people fare better talking about non-tech? Domain knowledge is more important than intelligence almost everywhere.

coldtea 3y ago
>Have you heard (intelligent!) non-tech people talking about tech? Yes, and a technologist, I assure you that they often make very valid points, can often see things tech people miss, and even when they're wrong, they should have the right to discuss. Unless you want to shut them up, what over purpose does such a protestation serve? >Domain knowledge is more important than intelligence almost everywhere. Domain knowledge built by stupid people (or by ideology, or for profit, etc) will be stupid domain knowledge, that intelligence can often see right through. Homeopathy also has its "domain knowledge", for example. As for domain knowledge built by smart people, it can still have its blind spots, if not for anything else, because of professional bias or some accepted wisdom few dare to contest.
dagaci 3y ago
The amazing thing about tech-people and especially developer and related is that they are expected to and required to grasp an understanding of other people’s professions in order provide products/services. So I would actually expect tech-people to be able to talk reasonably about non -tech areas and to be quite happy to be corrected when they are way off the track..
- uoaei 3y ago
  Nah, they think they understand, and run with an under-informed opinion on something they have no to little real-world experience with until they've replaced the client's original concerns with something that's oversimplified for the sake of shoving into this or that software architecture pattern. There are of course trans-disciplinary efforts done right but those take orders of magnitude more time than your typical VCs or zealous ladder-climbers allow in development timelines. Software developers have been bailed out from having to confront this situation up to now because those who ask for software tend to ask for extremely simple workflow-helper type stuff rather than domain-expert-amplifier type stuff (see: pretty much every SaaS webapp ever). But the low-hanging fruit are getting pretty sparse by this point in the bubble.
  - germinalphrase 3y ago
    “those who ask for software tend to ask for extremely simple workflow-helper type stuff rather than domain-expert-amplifier type stuff” I was a HS English teacher for about ten years before moving into tech, and this reality was a source of frequent frustration with (most/almost all) new ed-tech offerings. There are enough practical constraints on instruction quality that amplification tools would be welcome; however, improving educational quality through improving instrumental performance does not appear to be a notable focus. FWIW: I believe the low hanging fruit begins with assessment.
naasking 3y ago
> Have you heard (intelligent!) non-tech people talking about tech? Why would (intelligent!) tech people fare better talking about non-tech? Becoming an effective programmer trains one's strict logical and causal reasoning skills, since we're always building or debugging large and complex systems from simpler components. We see all kinds of crazy emergent behaviours all of the time, and learn to understand how such things can happen. There are few other disciplines that exercise such skills so intensely (probably math and physics). I would love to see a study on how effective various experts are at making predictions about something outside of their domain knowledge. I suspect computer scientists and physicists would fare better than most.
- throw4847285 3y ago
  I think they would fare far worse. Because of the way that our economy is structured, tech people are overpaid and overvalued, and thus have an inflated sense of their own importance which causes them to overestimate their intelligence.
  - naasking 3y ago
    I don't think we're disagreeing. I was specific to use "computer scientists" rather than "tech people". Lots of tech people are not programmers, which is mainly who I was talking about.
    - throw4847285 3y ago
      We are disagreeing. In my experience computer scientists are the dumbest "tech people" of all. I'm being facetious here, because I'm on a forum dominated by coders and it's a cheap thrill to troll a little bit. So to restate my opinion with less snark, I don't believe software engineers are any more rational or intelligent than other folks in the tech field. Most of the smartest tech people I've encountered have been product folks, designers, researchers, or engineering managers who don't touch so much code any more. The reason? All those people acknowledge that all the important problems can only be solved collaboratively. They're also less likely to have come in through the comp sci funnel, and they have a more well rounded set of life experiences. Tunnel vision is exactly the problem being discussed. It's like if you're really good at crossword puzzles and you think that would make you a good English Lit Professor. That's coders thinking that their puzzle solving abilities yield philosophical insights. All the best software engineers are the ones with an intellectual life beyond coding.
HFguy 3y ago
FWIW, I work in finance and often listen to Hackernews discussions on finance and investing. It is often some horrendously bad takes. I then have the thought, "Am I doing this in areas where I don't have much experience?". I can only assume there are some pretty stupid thoughts bouncing around my brain.

by bla3 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

>Have you heard (intelligent!) non-tech people talking about tech? Yes, and a technologist, I assure you that they often make very valid points, can often see things tech people miss, and even when they're wrong, they should have the right to discuss. Unless you want to shut them up, what over purpose does such a protestation serve? >Domain knowledge is more important than intelligence almost everywhere. Domain knowledge built by stupid people (or by ideology, or for profit, etc) will be stupid domain knowledge, that intelligence can often see right through. Homeopathy also has its "domain knowledge", for example. As for domain knowledge built by smart people, it can still have its blind spots, if not for anything else, because of professional bias or some accepted wisdom few dare to contest.

dagaci 3y ago

The amazing thing about tech-people and especially developer and related is that they are expected to and required to grasp an understanding of other people’s professions in order provide products/services. So I would actually expect tech-people to be able to talk reasonably about non -tech areas and to be quite happy to be corrected when they are way off the track..

uoaei 3y ago
Nah, they think they understand, and run with an under-informed opinion on something they have no to little real-world experience with until they've replaced the client's original concerns with something that's oversimplified for the sake of shoving into this or that software architecture pattern. There are of course trans-disciplinary efforts done right but those take orders of magnitude more time than your typical VCs or zealous ladder-climbers allow in development timelines. Software developers have been bailed out from having to confront this situation up to now because those who ask for software tend to ask for extremely simple workflow-helper type stuff rather than domain-expert-amplifier type stuff (see: pretty much every SaaS webapp ever). But the low-hanging fruit are getting pretty sparse by this point in the bubble.
- germinalphrase 3y ago
  “those who ask for software tend to ask for extremely simple workflow-helper type stuff rather than domain-expert-amplifier type stuff” I was a HS English teacher for about ten years before moving into tech, and this reality was a source of frequent frustration with (most/almost all) new ed-tech offerings. There are enough practical constraints on instruction quality that amplification tools would be welcome; however, improving educational quality through improving instrumental performance does not appear to be a notable focus. FWIW: I believe the low hanging fruit begins with assessment.

naasking 3y ago

> Have you heard (intelligent!) non-tech people talking about tech? Why would (intelligent!) tech people fare better talking about non-tech? Becoming an effective programmer trains one's strict logical and causal reasoning skills, since we're always building or debugging large and complex systems from simpler components. We see all kinds of crazy emergent behaviours all of the time, and learn to understand how such things can happen. There are few other disciplines that exercise such skills so intensely (probably math and physics). I would love to see a study on how effective various experts are at making predictions about something outside of their domain knowledge. I suspect computer scientists and physicists would fare better than most.

throw4847285 3y ago
I think they would fare far worse. Because of the way that our economy is structured, tech people are overpaid and overvalued, and thus have an inflated sense of their own importance which causes them to overestimate their intelligence.
- naasking 3y ago
  I don't think we're disagreeing. I was specific to use "computer scientists" rather than "tech people". Lots of tech people are not programmers, which is mainly who I was talking about.
  - throw4847285 3y ago
    We are disagreeing. In my experience computer scientists are the dumbest "tech people" of all. I'm being facetious here, because I'm on a forum dominated by coders and it's a cheap thrill to troll a little bit. So to restate my opinion with less snark, I don't believe software engineers are any more rational or intelligent than other folks in the tech field. Most of the smartest tech people I've encountered have been product folks, designers, researchers, or engineering managers who don't touch so much code any more. The reason? All those people acknowledge that all the important problems can only be solved collaboratively. They're also less likely to have come in through the comp sci funnel, and they have a more well rounded set of life experiences. Tunnel vision is exactly the problem being discussed. It's like if you're really good at crossword puzzles and you think that would make you a good English Lit Professor. That's coders thinking that their puzzle solving abilities yield philosophical insights. All the best software engineers are the ones with an intellectual life beyond coding.

HFguy 3y ago

FWIW, I work in finance and often listen to Hackernews discussions on finance and investing. It is often some horrendously bad takes. I then have the thought, "Am I doing this in areas where I don't have much experience?". I can only assume there are some pretty stupid thoughts bouncing around my brain.