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

[Emlyn]

On 09/08/05, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > 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). I find I need to change my POV like
> > this to really get a feeling for the deep meaning behind whatever the
> > thing is. And often I suddenly see things from that other point of
> > view, and learn something!
> >
> > Or, at this point I can reject the idea if it still seems like crap,
> > or if I can see why it is not good, but why its supporters would
> > think
> > it is good (because I've tried being one).
> 
> An alternate strategy I've tried (not saying it works better or worse
> than yours, just that it works for me): for any popular tech that I
> don't like, do a thorough and honest mental evaluation of why I don't
> like it.  There is, of course, the danger of rationalizing from false
> evidence or unjustified assumptions - so examine the evidence and
> assumptions, *especially* if they're based on data that's more than a
> few years old (given how fast tech changes these days, any data that
> old about a certain technology might have become incorrect in that
> time).

This reason I use the strategy I described was specifically as an
alternative to what you've described here, for the reason you've
noted; the danger of rationalization disguised as rational thinking.
The problem is that skilled debaters can and do fool themselves all
the time, thinking they are rationally evaluating something when in
fact they are coming from a pre-conceived, emotionally supported
position. And I propose that there is no safe way to use rational
thinking alone to guard against its highjacking by your internal PR
department; you need external, immovable indicators to tell you that
you are on or off track.

>From the above, you've pointed out an excellent external indicator,
the age of data.

> 
> If the reason why is uncertain or unclear, or possibly disproven, then
> look at the tech again (if there's a reason to, for instance if it's a
> potentially viable component of my next project, or if the employers
> seem to be wanting it), and play with it if possible.  (Of course, if
> it's only available to those willing to spend $10000+ on it, that alone
> is reason to be suspicious...and to know that that alone would limit
> its adoption, thus excusing personal inexperience with it where such
> might otherwise be expected.)  Pay particular attention to the reasons
> it's so popular, and to my own previous objections (to see if they are
> in fact still valid).

With tech, I find that it's often pretty difficult to evaluate a
technology without doing something semi-serious with it; the devil is
usually in the detail. I agree about the expensive software bit, you
can safely ignore it imo (and in the end, what choice do you have?)

> 
> Case in point: one of my professional skills is Web programming.
> There's word of a new method out there, called AJAX, which is based on
> advanced Javascript.  My personal experience with Javascript, from 2000
> and before, was that it's unreliable (especially across browsers),
> didn't always perform according to the documentation (even within a
> given browser: i.e., MSIE's flavor of Javascript and MS's documentation
> of same did not agree), and was limited in functionality (mainly to
> form actions and simple tricks).  Thus, it seemed unsuited to serious
> Web applications.  That data is over 5 years old now, though; perhaps
> Javascript has dealt with those issues...or perhaps they're still
> there, and AJAX is just a bunch of hype that will fall through.  It's
> easy enough for me to build some simple AJAX applications and see if
> they are robust enough to use.
> 

Have you given it a go?

> Another case in point: instant messaging.  For many years now, I've had
> an unreliable schedule - my employers needed me to accomplish tasks by
> certain times, but they only rarely needed my actual presence at
> meetings, and if they needed to contact me on an emergency basis they
> had my phone number.  I viewed IMs as a way to chain me down: to have
> absolute reporting of when I was online and when I was not, which would
> not help me but would help them micromanage me (to their detriment:
> they had better things to do with their time).  I grant that that's a
> more emotional than practical reason, and yet...it's just as true
> today, and the factual basis behind it is also somewhat true (even
> though I've tried to select employers who don't have tendencies to
> micromanage anyway).  My current employer really really wanted me to
> get AIM, since that was "the company standard" for communication.
> Eventually it worked out that it was actually
> emergency-contact-equivalent, so I upgraded my cell phone (at their
> expense, with their agreement) to get AIM...and they rarely use it.
> E-mail and telephone calls continue to be the actual standard for
> communication.  IM has become an emergency contact that is understood
> to not always be on - *especially* since it's on my cell phone only,
> and thus subject to cell phone usage limits (for instance, if I'm out
> in the boonies, or inside a building I sometimes visit that's
> apparently the equivalent of a Faraday cage, no service).

On IM, I have a totally different point of view. I got into using IM
some years ago through exactly the technique I described above. It
seemed like a stupid toy to me, but it seemed to have currency, so I
thought "imagine I thought IM was really cool, why would I think that,
what would it be like". I tried it out, tried the thought experiment,
and found that it was actually excellent.

Now I have a network of collegues and friends on my MSN Messenger
contact list who I speak (ie: IM chat) with regularly, which has
somehow maintained itself over years. This is in contrast to any other
method of communication, where I completely lose touch with people
after a short time because I'm just not a maintenance person; I don't
write, I don't visit, I don't pick up the phone. But IM has stuck
somehow (it and the extro chat list actually), and is my only conduit
to long term friends and invaluable professional contacts.

-

In contrast, I used exactly this method to give Visual Basic a proper
go. I had an unnatural loathing of it, some years back, picked up from
the general environment, and a predjudice toward vb programmers, and
realised one day that it was founded on ignorance. I had a chance to
do some paid work using it, so I put on my "what if I loved Visual
Basic hat" and gave it a proper work out.

After "loving it" for a month or so, and building something serious in
it, I sat back and evaluated the whole thing. It sucked, and for real
reasons that I could enumerate. But I feel far more secure in saying
that now, because I've given it a serious go, and tried to like it.
Unfortunately, I have quite a bit of it on my resume now (some dark
days there), but that's another story...

-- 
Emlyn
(trying with all my heart to love CVS right at the moment, difficult!...)


http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *