[extropy-chat] Popular Luddism

[Adrian Tymes]

--- 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".  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.

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!"  And then there's the one
about the person who, during her job interview, was
offended when I read the posted job duties as if she'd
actually be expected to do them (none of the other job
candidates objected).  I do not count such resistance
to picking up job skills as seriously wanting the job
("serious" or "true" desire, as a class of desire,
extends to doing that which is necessary to get the
desired thing as well as desire for the thing
itself)...but I do wonder how we can get people to
drop said resistance.

(Which is not to say the resistance is all bad.  It
does play a useful role, for instance in encouraging
people to find easier/less resource-consuming ways of
doing things.  But when the "optimized" path of action
is one that has a practically zero chance of success,
like trying to con one's way into technical jobs
instead of actually learning the requested skills...)

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 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.)

> 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.  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.

> 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.

> 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.