4 ms·

I think that you somehow did an analysis of writing style instead of the meaning. The distinction is quite simple, some people are interested in how things work

I think that you somehow did an analysis of writing style instead of the meaning. The distinction is quite simple, some people are interested in how things work and why, others just use them (usually in a wrong way). I suggest you to read Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it is about exactly the same segregation, but in a much more poetical wording. And then at least a half of Atlas Shrugged, to complete enlightenment.)

btilly 13y ago
The distinction is quite simple, some people are interested in how things work and why, others just use them (usually in a wrong way). If you truly believe that, and believe that people can be so divided, then I suggest that you read https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe and discover that for all you think you understand about how things work and why, there are things you just use. Indeed I can give you dozens of examples of important things that impact your life, ranging from the reason why fertilizer makes good high explosives to how airplane wings work, and you'll find that for all that you pat yourself on the back for being such an intelligent and curious person, you're far more someone who just uses that which you find around you than someone who understands your world. If you can accept that, then you might get beyond your naive belief that you bring enlightenment that I have failed to grasp, and you may come to see why I think that the purported distinction is BS. After that, you might realize why I became curious about how a theory that is so obviously BS would appeal to otherwise intelligent people. And then you might find my theory about it to be enlightening.
- dschiptsov 13y ago
  I sense lack of familiarity with suggested readings, so I doubt that "otherwise intelligent people" stuff. Hint: the distinction is not between so-called technologist and non-technologist, not even between engineering and liberal arts education, so the link is irrelevant. If one choosed to be a software engineer, note the word "engineer" one have to have understanding of underlying principles, general ideas upon which design of this or that component is based, and implementation strategy which was used. One cannot just ignore complexity and treat everything as black boxes and someone else problems. But so many do. This is the distinction. You you got a motorcycle you better have to understand how it works and why important design decision has been made, based on what line of reasoning. Then you will be able to have real confidence, based on understanding, not that anxious one which is based on a belief and hope. With this you will be able to do maintenance, fix problems, and complete your journey, instead of praying that nothing will go wrong. It is that simple. Lots of people are very comfortable with beliefs and hope instead of knowing the details. They emphasize the "getting shit done" approach and usually become quite irritated when asked questions beginning with words "why" or "how". We call them "packers". You better read the books. Btw, when MIT guys like Abelson and Sussman are saying "ignore everything below this level of abstraction" or "use the black box abstraction" they doesn't mean being ignorant and literally having no idea what's going on down below. They do have understanding of CS theory, EE and Physics. So no, no country for ignorant.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Actually I have read the suggested readings. I still think the world view that you have on this is a poor match for reality. Just because someone writes something flowery and nice doesn't mean that they are right, or that their distinctions are a useful way to understand the world.
    - dschiptsov 13y ago
      Of course! It is up to a reader to decide what is right and wrong, good book are just beautiful artistic artifacts, much like some violin concerts or very few painting. Sorry for too banal sentiments.)
      - btilly 13y ago
        Here is a fun exercise for you. Take professionals around you who seem uninterested in what you care about. Assume that they are interested in something that they can teach you. Find out what it might be. Learn it from them. If you're like me, you'll quickly find that the mapper/packer dichotomy only served as a fancy intellectual justification for flipping the bozo bit on people whose curiosity about the world happened to be about things other than what you paid attention to. You might also learn something interesting about anything from negotiation to accounting to local laws.
        dschiptsov 13y ago
        It is murderously hard to find a real, no-nonsense competence. Usually all you got are narcissistic types like patio11 and talking heads. I studying good old CS books and AIMs or watching some online courses this way.
        btilly 13y ago
        It really looks to me like you flip the bozo bit where you shouldn't. It is really hard to find a person whose interests and competence match that which you are interested in. But it is easy to find someone you can learn useful stuff from whose interests don't so align. Don't believe me? Consider Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for a second. The main character of that book is mechanically inclined. But are you? Could you, for instance, explain how a simple mechanical device like a differential works? Probably not. Therefore in some sense you fail to be the kind of person that Prisig was describing. Not because you lack interest, but because your interest is in a different area. (BTW if you're curious, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI has an excellent explanation of how a differential works.) When you start doing this, you may find something interesting. You'll notice that people like tptacek, whose actual skills should properly impress you, have great respect for people like patio11. Why? Because tptacek recognizes what patio11 is better at than he is, and can respect patio11 for that, at the same time as patio11 is very clear on what he is and isn't good at. So what is patio11 good at? It is very simple. He's good at figuring out how tech people can market themselves. This may not be a skill you care about. Not one you wish to learn. But one that tptacek sees value in. And that is how life goes. We each specialize. Some things we choose to learn. Other things we need to know who is good so we can know who to go to to do it. And the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts. Just make the transition from looking down on people who choose to be good at things you don't, to accepting and respecting them for what they are. You may be surprised at how much of your life smooths out. Or you can choose to sit in your little corner, on top of your mountain of specialized knowledge, sneering at the world to make up for the fact that others don't respect you in the way you think you deserve to be respected. And then wonder why people don't enjoy being around you.
- benbot 13y ago
  As a polymath, your linked post was hardly enlightening. Additionally, the repeated line "no single company can deal with that entire complexity" is misleading. I can provide examples of companies that deal extensively with most if not all aspects of each individual layer presented. The truth, though, is that thinking about all the layers together can and likely will make most people dizzy. As for companies? I would propose that a hypothetical company, let's name them "IBM" for convenience, could theoretically deal with each and every layer presented, and I'd estimate they could do so successfully for 50 years or more.
  - btilly 13y ago
    My point in the linked post was to show for one common technology how no individual person can really understand it. At some point we have to switch from understanding to just using. That said, there is no company that does deal with each layer in all complexity. Even IBM outsources. But the reason does not have to do with it being too complex as much as too standardized. The economic theory of the firm says that firms divide when the internal stupidity of a large firm exceeds transaction costs between several. But as an area standardizes, stupidity remains unchanged and transaction costs reduce - meaning that you get more smaller firms. There is an excellent chart that I think I saw in The Innovator's Solution which shows the resulting fragmentation of the semi-conductor industry over the decades.

btilly 13y ago

The distinction is quite simple, some people are interested in how things work and why, others just use them (usually in a wrong way). If you truly believe that, and believe that people can be so divided, then I suggest that you read https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe and discover that for all you think you understand about how things work and why, there are things you just use. Indeed I can give you dozens of examples of important things that impact your life, ranging from the reason why fertilizer makes good high explosives to how airplane wings work, and you'll find that for all that you pat yourself on the back for being such an intelligent and curious person, you're far more someone who just uses that which you find around you than someone who understands your world. If you can accept that, then you might get beyond your naive belief that you bring enlightenment that I have failed to grasp, and you may come to see why I think that the purported distinction is BS. After that, you might realize why I became curious about how a theory that is so obviously BS would appeal to otherwise intelligent people. And then you might find my theory about it to be enlightening.

dschiptsov 13y ago
I sense lack of familiarity with suggested readings, so I doubt that "otherwise intelligent people" stuff. Hint: the distinction is not between so-called technologist and non-technologist, not even between engineering and liberal arts education, so the link is irrelevant. If one choosed to be a software engineer, note the word "engineer" one have to have understanding of underlying principles, general ideas upon which design of this or that component is based, and implementation strategy which was used. One cannot just ignore complexity and treat everything as black boxes and someone else problems. But so many do. This is the distinction. You you got a motorcycle you better have to understand how it works and why important design decision has been made, based on what line of reasoning. Then you will be able to have real confidence, based on understanding, not that anxious one which is based on a belief and hope. With this you will be able to do maintenance, fix problems, and complete your journey, instead of praying that nothing will go wrong. It is that simple. Lots of people are very comfortable with beliefs and hope instead of knowing the details. They emphasize the "getting shit done" approach and usually become quite irritated when asked questions beginning with words "why" or "how". We call them "packers". You better read the books. Btw, when MIT guys like Abelson and Sussman are saying "ignore everything below this level of abstraction" or "use the black box abstraction" they doesn't mean being ignorant and literally having no idea what's going on down below. They do have understanding of CS theory, EE and Physics. So no, no country for ignorant.
- btilly 13y ago
  Actually I have read the suggested readings. I still think the world view that you have on this is a poor match for reality. Just because someone writes something flowery and nice doesn't mean that they are right, or that their distinctions are a useful way to understand the world.
  - dschiptsov 13y ago
    Of course! It is up to a reader to decide what is right and wrong, good book are just beautiful artistic artifacts, much like some violin concerts or very few painting. Sorry for too banal sentiments.)
    - btilly 13y ago
      Here is a fun exercise for you. Take professionals around you who seem uninterested in what you care about. Assume that they are interested in something that they can teach you. Find out what it might be. Learn it from them. If you're like me, you'll quickly find that the mapper/packer dichotomy only served as a fancy intellectual justification for flipping the bozo bit on people whose curiosity about the world happened to be about things other than what you paid attention to. You might also learn something interesting about anything from negotiation to accounting to local laws.
      - dschiptsov 13y ago
        It is murderously hard to find a real, no-nonsense competence. Usually all you got are narcissistic types like patio11 and talking heads. I studying good old CS books and AIMs or watching some online courses this way.
        btilly 13y ago
        It really looks to me like you flip the bozo bit where you shouldn't. It is really hard to find a person whose interests and competence match that which you are interested in. But it is easy to find someone you can learn useful stuff from whose interests don't so align. Don't believe me? Consider Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for a second. The main character of that book is mechanically inclined. But are you? Could you, for instance, explain how a simple mechanical device like a differential works? Probably not. Therefore in some sense you fail to be the kind of person that Prisig was describing. Not because you lack interest, but because your interest is in a different area. (BTW if you're curious, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI has an excellent explanation of how a differential works.) When you start doing this, you may find something interesting. You'll notice that people like tptacek, whose actual skills should properly impress you, have great respect for people like patio11. Why? Because tptacek recognizes what patio11 is better at than he is, and can respect patio11 for that, at the same time as patio11 is very clear on what he is and isn't good at. So what is patio11 good at? It is very simple. He's good at figuring out how tech people can market themselves. This may not be a skill you care about. Not one you wish to learn. But one that tptacek sees value in. And that is how life goes. We each specialize. Some things we choose to learn. Other things we need to know who is good so we can know who to go to to do it. And the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts. Just make the transition from looking down on people who choose to be good at things you don't, to accepting and respecting them for what they are. You may be surprised at how much of your life smooths out. Or you can choose to sit in your little corner, on top of your mountain of specialized knowledge, sneering at the world to make up for the fact that others don't respect you in the way you think you deserve to be respected. And then wonder why people don't enjoy being around you.
benbot 13y ago
As a polymath, your linked post was hardly enlightening. Additionally, the repeated line "no single company can deal with that entire complexity" is misleading. I can provide examples of companies that deal extensively with most if not all aspects of each individual layer presented. The truth, though, is that thinking about all the layers together can and likely will make most people dizzy. As for companies? I would propose that a hypothetical company, let's name them "IBM" for convenience, could theoretically deal with each and every layer presented, and I'd estimate they could do so successfully for 50 years or more.
- btilly 13y ago
  My point in the linked post was to show for one common technology how no individual person can really understand it. At some point we have to switch from understanding to just using. That said, there is no company that does deal with each layer in all complexity. Even IBM outsources. But the reason does not have to do with it being too complex as much as too standardized. The economic theory of the firm says that firms divide when the internal stupidity of a large firm exceeds transaction costs between several. But as an area standardizes, stupidity remains unchanged and transaction costs reduce - meaning that you get more smaller firms. There is an excellent chart that I think I saw in The Innovator's Solution which shows the resulting fragmentation of the semi-conductor industry over the decades.