[extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...

[Samantha Atkins]

On Aug 4, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Emlyn wrote:
> I recognise this trait in myself sometimes. In software development
> it's a constant problem, because the world moves so quickly. Anyone
> who's been working in tech for a long time (hello just about everyone
> on this list!) will understand the impulse to fight the new and stick
> with what you understand.
>

The part of the "new" in software that I am most troubled by is the  
highly hyped partial rehash of things thought through more thoroughly  
a decade or two ago.   There is on the other hand much that is truly  
new that I am delighted by.   Then there are new ways of development  
and fast changing sets of tools that are interesting but hard to  
fully evaluate or even find time to lightly explore.

> In the computing world I really feel the speedup; things change much
> more quickly now than they did at the start of my career. Also,
> fundamental changes sneak up quietly while you are only noticing the
> surface technology changes, and blindside you. To work in the computer
> industry is either to have a shelf life, or to live with an ongoing
> and perhaps increasing level of future shock (like Manfred Macx in
> Accelerando).

In computer languages I am not shocked at all.  I am usually  
disappointed and bored by the languages per se although much good  
exploration of many features not terribly practical on low cost  
hardware until recently is making things somewhat interesting.

>
> Many people advise in programming that you have to be a constant
> learner, come at it with beginner's mind, and I think that's a
> no-brainer.

Actually it is more useful to come at it with a well organized  
conceptual map developed and modified over time.  Only with the map  
and the ability to refine it can the wheat be separated from the  
chaff in the "new".


> However, I think that to really have longevity, you need
> to be an expert forgetter, which is the really tough thing. It means
> letting go of hard won knowledge, and what comes with it (especially
> the status/prestige of the expert).
>

I don't  believe that real expertise at the level of fundamental  
knowledge, aesthetics  and, dare I say, wisdom is something any of us  
can afford to forget.

> What I've noticed in recent times is an irrational predjudice toward
> certain technologies, either in other areas from where I normally
> focus (for me, the Linux world is this because I work in MS
> technologies), or toward new stuff (where I tell myself "oh, it's just
> the same old stuff being peddled out again, better to stick with the
> tried and true").

There is truth and falsehood in that thought.  Not all change is for  
the good.  Some of it involves large scale forgetting of very  
important things and their painful relearning in a somewhat [often  
superficial] different context.

>
> Self diagnosis with stuff like this best comes from periodically
> explicitly examining your mental state. For this problem, you simple
> want to ask "Do I have unusually high levels of fear and loathing? Do
> I have perceived enemy *paradigms*? Are those paradigms pretty much
> unexamined (see the process I outline below)? Is this more the case
> than, say, a couple of years ago? 5 years ago? 10 years ago?". If the
> level has increased, you may have this problem.
>
> I'm a big fan of finding concrete ways to address what are essentially
> emotional issues.

That doesn't always work when the important thing being examined is a  
set of fundamental useful abstractions.   Much is called an  
"emotional issue" which real conceals some important abstraction[s]  
that the parties are having difficulties capturing, communicating and  
considering.
The emotion often then grows out of frustration.

> For self diagnosis and addressing the problem, you
> need unambiguous detection techniques and unambiguous solutions,
> especially if you are the kind of intelligent person who can otherwise
> rationalise the most irrational course of action (which most of us
> here probably can!).

Much that is important is full of subtle ambiguity.

>
> The technique I use for this problem is to work out what areas of tech
> / architectures / paradigms really crank up my fear & loathing. Then,
> simply, I try to embrace them.
>
> I do this by posing this question: "Imagine I loved this technology /
> idea / whatever... what would that be like". The answer pretty much
> always involves finding out more. For technologies, it usually means
> building something using one or more of them.
>

That can be worthwhile.  Often you learn what is good in the tech in  
question.  Often you also learn what is objectionable about it and  
have your discomfort further justified.

> Once I'm better informed, I try to give the tech/idea the same status
> in my mind as the stuff I really like, and artificially keep it there
> for a while (maybe a few weeks).

This (the artificial pretense) does not seem like a rational course  
to me.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050805/df5b238a/attachment.html>