[extropy-chat] Popular Luddism

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> 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.

Again you misunderstand: that's "some" as in "some
high-tech trade".  Someone highly trained in field X
doesn't have much training in field Y, just like
someone who doesn't have much training at all, whether
or not field X happens to have many positions open;
there always exists some field Y that does, even if
there aren't many experts in it yet (which may be why
it has many openings).  ("Disadvantaged background"
not only refers to lack of training, but to a relative
lack of opportunities from training.  Consider the
stereotypical poor-neighborhood school.  My point
there is that even those people can, if they want,
find training with less difficulty than is popularly
believed; the difference is that so few people in said
backgrounds want to.  It is this lack of desire that
needs addressing.)

We're saying much the same thing, just using different
words.  "Violent agreement", as it were, for the most
part.

> > 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.

>From the way you stated your objection, it seems very
relevant.  And it's taken almost verbatim from the
reply one rejected applicant gave when I tried to
honestly answer why we weren't hiring that person, not
to mention being representative of a pattern I've seen
in other rejections.  (By no means explaining all of
them, just quite a few.)

> 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?

I'm increasingly seeing that the latter is true, and
this may point to part of the cause.  (Therefore,
accredited trainers should focus on the latter, which
is part of what accredited universities already do.)
Technology already is accelerating, so people who
trained highly in one specific, now obsolete, skill
without picking up the basic foundations will now have
trouble applying said missing foundations to other
projects.

To use myself as an example: I've practiced and
trained a lot in Web programming - I've written more
HTTP clients and servers than I care to count, I know
exactly how CGI works and what one can invoke through
it, I know about code running on the server versus
code running in the browser (and how to make the two
interact), et cetera.  Yet I can imagine, in theory,
there coming along some protocol that renders the Web
obsolete overnight.  (It'd probably require at least a
year or so to displace at least 50% of the Web, but
its effect on leading-edge development hiring would be
more immediate.)  I know I could adapt and learn some
strange new system, but I know a number of programmers
I've worked with whose only response would be to keep
looking for Web programming jobs, and who would never
think of trying to adapt.  This specific error in
thought (which I'm not blaming them for, just pointing
out that it exists) is a symptom of what needs
addressing.

> 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?

Separate problem.  It needs dealing with, true, but
the solutions for the latter are likely to be
different from the solutions to the former.  (For
example, it may be that better understanding of Google
and other publically available search engines - and
possibly improvements in the search engines - can make
up for a good portion of the required intelligence, at
least for a while.  But it won't help much if most
people think of learning - and everything we teach
them to do as part of learning - as a chore rather
than learning how to extract pleasure from it...which,
frankly, is something that should be part of the K-12
cirriculumn by now, though other solutions will be
needed for currently existant adults and immigrants.)

> Hopefully you will not personally experience
> directly why some of these 
> folks fear technological change and feel hopelessly
> left out and 
> unneeded/unwanted.

Actually, I wrote the initial post after some
meditation on exactly why I have not, and how I have
avoided the fate that befell so many others.

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

I think you misread my original post.  I'm explaining
the result of this real problem on the attitudes of
the victims (specifically that it makes said attitudes
more Luddite), why this result comes about, and that
this then causes them to lash out against technology
in general.  Therefore, I propose that rather than
attack these people - even if they do attack our
beliefs on a regular basis - it might yield much
better results to address this problem instead.