4 ms·

To be blunt, I don't think this perspective is accurate or well thought out, and it comes in the form of an emotional attack which is not likely to be well rece

To be blunt, I don't think this perspective is accurate or well thought out, and it comes in the form of an emotional attack which is not likely to be well received as an argument. Inevitably when a sector grows, you're bound to have a diversity of approaches and types of people involved, and in most cases that diversity is a profoundly good thing. It means that not only are there people who are in the work for the zen-like essence ('love of technology' as you put it), but also those who can apply that work to other fields and areas of knowledge. And capitalism (which appears to be the true target of attack here) has its flaws and abstracts away the love in favor of a general approach to value—but it also allows resources to be condensed and put toward big problems that would not otherwise be possible. Sometimes it ends up just extracting wealth from a triviality, but often it is a complex mix of value for a complex mix of people, and sometimes something truly profound and major comes of it. I suggest that there's something else going on here; some personal frustration or observation that is likely true in the right context, but I think it needs development and focus to be a more universal critique.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
A diversity of approaches, tempered by capitalism, can be beneficial. But that's not the same thing as entryism, which unfortunately we have in tech. Entryism is when diverse approaches don't attempt to win in the field of capitalism - instead, they attempt to parasitically take over the capitalistic winners. Capitalistic diversity would consist of MBAs, SJWs, and all the other entrants building their own companies. Then customers could pick the winner. In contrast, entryism consists of some company (e.g. Google) "winning", and then the MBAs, SJWs, etc joining google and changing it from the inside. In fact, entryism is very difficult to combat capitalistically. The problem is simply that creative destruction can't necessarily kill the entrants. For example, suppose the MBAs destroy MS. Then what happens - do they vanish forever, never to kill again, with MBA-ism as a disgraced ideology? Or do they simply shift jobs to Google and Apple and try to do it again? See these two articles for more on entryism and boundaries: http://www.moreright.net/notes-on-boundaries/ http://www.moreright.net/notes-on-boundaries/ http://www.moreright.net/entryism-as-containment-failure/ http://www.moreright.net/entryism-as-containment-failure/ (Moreright has other articles on the topic, mostly focused on how neoreaction has avoided entryism. To a certain extent tech does the same thing by being a bunch of low status nerds, repelling people who don't really like tech.)
- calinet6 12y ago
  That's fascinating, thanks for the links and the insight.
btilly 12y ago
If you feel attacked by this post, then you are not in the target audience that Jacques is trying to talk to. It may make sense for you to be in technology, but you're not in technology for the reasons that he was. If so, then that's fine. He's not trying to change your mind, and his career advice isn't appropriate for you you. Move along. Find something addressed to you. I'm not in his target audience either. I enjoy interacting with people and ideas more than getting a computer to do what I want. This is why in my teens I spent more time reading math books than playing with computers. But I know and respect a lot of people who are like him. I get where he is coming from. And I've seen enough of them burn out of their dream profession that I think he has a point.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  > I'm not in his target audience either. I enjoy interacting with people and ideas more than getting a computer to do what I want. This is why in my teens I spent more time reading math books than playing with computers. Interesting perspective, and similar to mine. I gravitated towards this industry because of the problems to solve, not the means of solving them. I have been taking things apart to figure out how they work since I was 6 or so. I didn't even have a computer until I was 17, but I was already dead set on becoming some sort of engineer because I loved those sorts of challenges. In fact, I ended up going electrical because in undergrad I decided I hated programming but loved physical electronics and electrical wiring. I came back to programming after I had been working for a few years and discovered that real-world programming was not like the classes I hated. I don't know where that puts me in Jacques' eyes. I like using knowledge and technology to solve problems, but I don't care what particular technology it is. Sometimes I feel like an outsider in this industry, because I interact with so many people who love programming in itself and tend to look down on those who do not. I don't feel attacked by this post but I do feel he is drawing up a false dichotomy between those who "[l]earned to program as a kid" and "totally fell in love with it", and those who are in this industry for the money, have little or no technical knowledge, and no desire to gain any more than the bare minimum of technical knowledge required to achieve their financial goals.
  - jacquesm 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

A diversity of approaches, tempered by capitalism, can be beneficial. But that's not the same thing as entryism, which unfortunately we have in tech. Entryism is when diverse approaches don't attempt to win in the field of capitalism - instead, they attempt to parasitically take over the capitalistic winners. Capitalistic diversity would consist of MBAs, SJWs, and all the other entrants building their own companies. Then customers could pick the winner. In contrast, entryism consists of some company (e.g. Google) "winning", and then the MBAs, SJWs, etc joining google and changing it from the inside. In fact, entryism is very difficult to combat capitalistically. The problem is simply that creative destruction can't necessarily kill the entrants. For example, suppose the MBAs destroy MS. Then what happens - do they vanish forever, never to kill again, with MBA-ism as a disgraced ideology? Or do they simply shift jobs to Google and Apple and try to do it again? See these two articles for more on entryism and boundaries: http://www.moreright.net/notes-on-boundaries/ http://www.moreright.net/notes-on-boundaries/ http://www.moreright.net/entryism-as-containment-failure/ http://www.moreright.net/entryism-as-containment-failure/ (Moreright has other articles on the topic, mostly focused on how neoreaction has avoided entryism. To a certain extent tech does the same thing by being a bunch of low status nerds, repelling people who don't really like tech.)

calinet6 12y ago
That's fascinating, thanks for the links and the insight.

btilly 12y ago

If you feel attacked by this post, then you are not in the target audience that Jacques is trying to talk to. It may make sense for you to be in technology, but you're not in technology for the reasons that he was. If so, then that's fine. He's not trying to change your mind, and his career advice isn't appropriate for you you. Move along. Find something addressed to you. I'm not in his target audience either. I enjoy interacting with people and ideas more than getting a computer to do what I want. This is why in my teens I spent more time reading math books than playing with computers. But I know and respect a lot of people who are like him. I get where he is coming from. And I've seen enough of them burn out of their dream profession that I think he has a point.

vonmoltke 12y ago
> I'm not in his target audience either. I enjoy interacting with people and ideas more than getting a computer to do what I want. This is why in my teens I spent more time reading math books than playing with computers. Interesting perspective, and similar to mine. I gravitated towards this industry because of the problems to solve, not the means of solving them. I have been taking things apart to figure out how they work since I was 6 or so. I didn't even have a computer until I was 17, but I was already dead set on becoming some sort of engineer because I loved those sorts of challenges. In fact, I ended up going electrical because in undergrad I decided I hated programming but loved physical electronics and electrical wiring. I came back to programming after I had been working for a few years and discovered that real-world programming was not like the classes I hated. I don't know where that puts me in Jacques' eyes. I like using knowledge and technology to solve problems, but I don't care what particular technology it is. Sometimes I feel like an outsider in this industry, because I interact with so many people who love programming in itself and tend to look down on those who do not. I don't feel attacked by this post but I do feel he is drawing up a false dichotomy between those who "[l]earned to program as a kid" and "totally fell in love with it", and those who are in this industry for the money, have little or no technical knowledge, and no desire to gain any more than the bare minimum of technical knowledge required to achieve their financial goals.
- jacquesm 12y ago