[extropy-chat] Popular Luddism

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 6, 2004, at 4:51 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 2004, at 4:34 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>>> So, perhaps a slight restatement: it doesn't
>> matter
>>> what one calls it - "science", "everyday life", or
>>> whatever.  What matters is its actual (not
>>> theoretical, not planned, but street-level real)
>>> effect on peoples' lives, especially their wallets
>> and
>>> labor allocations.  It is the case that almost
>> anyone
>>> today, even in the most disadvantaged background,
>> can
>>> learn and gain employment in some high-tech trade
>> *if
>>> they want to*.
>>
>> Considering the number of techies still out of work
>> in the US I find
>> this assertion outrageous.   And these are the
>> people already highly
>> trained in various high-tech areas.
>
> Slight misunderstanding.  I said "some".

Nope.  You said "almost anyone".    I assume "disadvantaged background" 
includes little or no previous training.

> This does
> not necessarily mean the field that a particular
> person has had training in, especially if (as is the
> case for many of these particular techies, from
> personal experience having rejected many resumes in
> recent years) the "training" was completely inadequate
> or inappropriate to the job being applied for - and,
> most importantly, they're not willing to even consider
> retraining.

I don't think so.  I know quite a few of these techies, many with as 
broad a base of training and experience and many a still employed 
techie or one we would hire if we had the open reqs.   So again, I 
don't think your assertion is valid.  Also, many of these people are 
attempting to retrain but it is difficult to gauge what to retrain for.

>
> Or, in many cases, even serious training in the first
> place.  "I paid good money for my mail order Computer
> Science degree!  I demand the $200K senior software
> engineer position you're offering!  I'm not about to
> actually sit in front of a computer and learn how to
> program like some intern; that would require effort
> I'm not willing to give!"

Very funny but it has zip to do with reality or my objection.

> I also didn't say it'd be easy, or automatic.
> Flipping burgers is the canonical easy job, for
> someone who doesn't want to find and finance
> appropriate training.  And sometimes it even pays
> better than entry-level technical jobs...sometimes.
>

How long are you going to evade the meat of the actual objection?


>> How will these people support
>> themselves or be
>> supported while gaining training?  What happens to
>> the "superfluous"
>> workers?   Why will their numbers not swell as
>> technology advances ever
>> faster?   And please, none of the standard
>> assertions or references to
>> historical incidents largely not analogous to our
>> current much nearer
>> to Singularity situation.
>
> This, OTOH, summarizes the problem nicely (if one
> includes the poorly-trained-but-thought-they-were-good
> ex-dot-com workers in with the completely untrained).
> I do not have a complete solution to this problem
> right now, merely a suggestion that this seems to be
> the root cause of a lot of the "Luddite"-caused
> problems we currently face.  (For instance, better
> screening of training providers to weed out the
> useless - akin to universities' "accredited
> institution" programs - and greater funding for those
> putting themselves through job retraining might reduce
> this problem, but they won't make it go away by
> themselves.)
>

OK.  This is more reasonable.  What happens as the pace of 
technological change increases more drastically?  At what point are 
there no accredited trainers for what is hot because no one has figured 
out what is good training for it or how long that training will be 
valuable?   Or is good training more a matter of very good basics, some 
programming in depth, aesthetics and a very flexible mind?    What 
happens with this is no longer enough?

>> You can begin with understanding the actual
>> situation a bit more rather
>> than assuming everyone is sufficiently like yourself
>
> I'm not just basing this off myself (though I am, of
> course, the person I am most familiar with).  I'm also
> basing off others who share the particular quality
> being discussed here: success at obtaining technical
> jobs.

Unfortunately I know more than a few people who never ever had trouble 
getting jobs in their pushing two decades careers until the last couple 
of years.   It is a bit scary out there.

> I am far from the first person to note that one
> of the seemingly required qualities of top-level
> techies is curiosity* (a true desire to learn how
> things work), nor the first to wonder how to ignite
> this curiosity in far more human beings than currently
> nurture it.  I do not think I'm even the first person
> to muse about the broader consequences of such a mass
> ignition for our economy and our society, if it could
> be pulled off.  (I do assume that all human beings are
> capable of being curious, and of satisfying that
> curiosity through learning, but I base that assumption
> off of personal observations.)
>
> * Not necessarily curiosity for its own sake.  One
> could be curious about how X works because one expects
> to get paid a lot if one succeeds.  Yet that
> motivation, or at least the logical connection that
> the payment comes for figuring out X (rather than,
> "person does something with X - it doesn't matter
> exactly what - and gets paid"), does not seem to be as
> widespread as it could be.

Learning that understanding X is actually fun not to mention possibly 
lucrative is a core competency that seems difficult to instill in 
adults lacking it.  True enough.  But what happens as the bar of raw 
intelligence required also rises?

>
>> and if they are
>> not like yourself that it is somehow their fault.
>
> It would be more accurate to say that those who suffer
> from Luddist beliefs have some ability to fix that
> situation - but that so many do not want to is,
> itself, a problem.

Luddist beliefs heh?  What a convenient set of labels useful for 
sweeping real problems and concerns of real people under the rug.   
Hopefully you will not personally experience directly why some of these 
folks fear technological change and feel hopelessly left out and 
unneeded/unwanted.

>
>> Casting fault
>> itself is a huge waste of time.
>
> Except when it identifies causes that can be
> corrected, to prevent the problem from continuing or
> reoccuring.  For example, see above about the
> so-called "highly trained" experts not being able to
> find jobs.


Forget "so-called".  There are real experts I know personally who 
cannot find work in their field.  And no, their field is not outmoded 
or unneeded.

Why are you attempting to explain away as the fault of the victims a 
real problem?

- samantha