3 ms·

I was more struck by the idea that high paid software engineers have the opposite of 'abstract' thinking. I mean programming is all about abstraction piled upon

by Tycho 12y ago

I was more struck by the idea that high paid software engineers have the opposite of 'abstract' thinking. I mean programming is all about abstraction piled upon abstraction. Maybe they really they meant something else like 'tolerance for ambiguity.'

delinka 12y ago
I'd go so far as to allow the quoted to be referring more generally to tech workers in general, including many that do not function in the abstract. With regard to "tolerance for ambiguity," perhaps there's a point to be made. I know I have a low tolerance for ambiguity, but I work with male co-workers (cough sales weasels cough) that are just as ambiguous about things as anyone else could ever be. However, I think you've illuminated a point that I hadn't considered: that the speaker meant something other than what was said; that this self-described intelligent individual may have not been clear; or didn't understand how their words would be misinterpreted; or is oblivious to their own misuse of language. And this is usually the cause for so much animosity and/or ambivalence: that the speaker/writer can't be bothered to clarify their intent; that they throw up their hands and declare "you wouldn't understand!" rather than explain themselves; and further that their audience is all-to-eager to castigate them for being stubborn, abusive, obtuse, etc.
mercer 12y ago
I've been having trouble expressing the seemingly paradoxical nature of many people in my (our?) field being both 'abstract' but also extremely 'concrete/literal' in their behavior (especially socially). It seems that many people I meet with occupations that involve a lot of abstraction (like programming) also have a tendency to try and abstract things that they perhaps should not. Conversation, discussion, etiquette, and so on, tend to suffer when too much generalization (or 'control) is applied to them in an effort to abstract them. That still doesn't really explain this phenomenon though. One could argue that it's quite possible to 'abstract' the social world: "being correct is often not the point of an interaction", "listening is valuable in itself, even if the subject matter is not always fascinating", and "imagine yourself in the position of the person you're talking to" are all simple rules that I see many people break. Perhaps it's to do with the context where such an abstraction is applied. Especially in the IT world we spend a lot of time being able to think about abstractions, whereas in a social setting we might have to internalize these abstractions more.

by Tycho 12y ago

delinka 12y ago

I'd go so far as to allow the quoted to be referring more generally to tech workers in general, including many that do not function in the abstract. With regard to "tolerance for ambiguity," perhaps there's a point to be made. I know I have a low tolerance for ambiguity, but I work with male co-workers (cough sales weasels cough) that are just as ambiguous about things as anyone else could ever be. However, I think you've illuminated a point that I hadn't considered: that the speaker meant something other than what was said; that this self-described intelligent individual may have not been clear; or didn't understand how their words would be misinterpreted; or is oblivious to their own misuse of language. And this is usually the cause for so much animosity and/or ambivalence: that the speaker/writer can't be bothered to clarify their intent; that they throw up their hands and declare "you wouldn't understand!" rather than explain themselves; and further that their audience is all-to-eager to castigate them for being stubborn, abusive, obtuse, etc.

mercer 12y ago

I've been having trouble expressing the seemingly paradoxical nature of many people in my (our?) field being both 'abstract' but also extremely 'concrete/literal' in their behavior (especially socially). It seems that many people I meet with occupations that involve a lot of abstraction (like programming) also have a tendency to try and abstract things that they perhaps should not. Conversation, discussion, etiquette, and so on, tend to suffer when too much generalization (or 'control) is applied to them in an effort to abstract them. That still doesn't really explain this phenomenon though. One could argue that it's quite possible to 'abstract' the social world: "being correct is often not the point of an interaction", "listening is valuable in itself, even if the subject matter is not always fascinating", and "imagine yourself in the position of the person you're talking to" are all simple rules that I see many people break. Perhaps it's to do with the context where such an abstraction is applied. Especially in the IT world we spend a lot of time being able to think about abstractions, whereas in a social setting we might have to internalize these abstractions more.