I'm currently reading Cryptonomicon by Neil Stephenson. I'm not very acquainted with literature at large, so forgive me if I'm being ignorant here, but it seems that this book is unique or among very few that are in wide release and yet somewhat esoteric. That is to say, anybody can appreciate it, but I think it speaks specifically to computer programmers and mathematicians, and may not be 100% understood by those who are unfamiliar with certain mathematical and engineering concepts, and who don't share that mentality. Then again, the purpose could be to provide some insight to outsiders who may want to understand the hyper-logical nerd mentality. Tom Wolfe seems to do a similar thing, for instance, with the investment bankers in Bonfire of the Vanities.
Though I think Neil Stephenson must have a closer personal connection with this mentality. It's a great book for a nerd because it's literature we can really relate to. It's told from the perspective of those of us who try to make logical sense of everything, see patterns all around us, and are confused by strange things like social niceties.
All in all I think it teaches an important lesson to nerds and non-nerds alike. I only just now crossed the 1/3 way mark (it's like 1100 pages), but I just came across some particular dialog which I think is particularly insightful. In this scene, Randy Waterhouse pulls Eberhard Föhr aside during a business meeting, and explains to him why, for their own legal protection, information has been withheld from them by one of their business partners, Avi. Ebehard, being of this nerd mindset, is frustrated that his business partners are not behaving logically. Randy, being of the same mindset but somewhat more enlightened, explains to Ebehard the realities of dealing with illogical people, but he does so in logical terms that Ebehard can relate to. This conversation is amusing like a lot of things in this book, because it demonstrates how us analytical types like to deconstruct everything.
Rather than risk inviting Neil Stephenson's lawyers (I have no idea how likely a scenario this is be but I don't care to do the research right now) I'll just invite you to read this page via Google Books.
I appreciate a couple things about this passage. Firstly, I appreciate that Randy's character is sort of an enlightened techie, who we should aspire to, who respects the qualities of other sorts of people, even if he doesn't understand their mentality. Business people clueless about technology, idealistic designers with a vision, techies who can't design a usable interface to save their life, we should all accept our own limitations of understanding, respect the others, and occasionally yield our own ideals for the sake of other ones. (ex: if "doing it right" means taking twice as long, and failing in the market, what use is your ideally laid out code if nobody's going to use it?)
The other thing I like about this passage is, as I mentioned above, the logical way that it approaches illogical people. Some nerds have a tendency to refuse to approach the world in anything other than a logical manner. Normal People may try to explain to them that the world, particularly other individuals, aren't rational at all, and we should stop seeing things so logically. I include myself in this group of nerds, so honestly, this line of argument is ridiculous to me. The universe is logical. But, I think that sometimes we as nerds are just Doing It Wrong, and we can take a cue from Randy here.
What we need to do is to appreciate that the fact that people act irrationally, out of emotion, is just a condition of the world. Just as we accept that animals are irrational, or that the sun is hot. It's a datum. Further, accept that you yourself, the nerd, are also emotional, particularly when people don't act logically. This frustration with others' illogical behavior is based on an expectation for people to act contrary to their nature. You're ignoring a data point. You're mad at the sun for being hot. You're a non-techie who's mad at your computer for doing something other than exactly what you told it to. Now look who is being irrational? I'm going to agitate a little and propose that we are in fact being hypocritical here.
The main problem I think we sometimes have is the distinction between Logic and Logical Faculties. The expectation of perfection in Logic is not the same as expecting a human to have perfect Logical Faculties. The universe works by rational laws. People are part of the universe, so their workings are rationally explainable. But this is entirely distinct from their Logical Faculties being able to perfectly model the world around them. Furthermore, people's Logical Faculties being able to model the world around them is distinct from their ability to defend it from any of their Emotional Faculties getting in the way. We humans are but animals who happen to possess a limited amount of logical faculties.
Expecting people to act in a rational straightforward manner is like expecting a computer to compute beyond its capacity. A problem may be Logically solvable. There is a perfect Logical progression toward the answer. If we treated computers the same way we sometimes treat other humans, we would demand that we should be able to stick the problem into a computer and get an instant output. But again, Logical Faculties are in limited supply. Somehow we don't seem to have a problem accepting this in computers. In fact, we have entire sub-fields of computer science, taking RAM, HD, and time limitations as data, and creating a whole new set of Logical problems. Why not accept the same limitations and challenges in humans?
Perhaps it's that there is one fundamental difference between computers and humans, which is that our departure from being perfect logic solvers is not just in our processing capabilities, but also, as Randy pointed out in the passage linked above, in our interfaces. Human interfaces are more like neural networks than serial connections. To gain access to the Logical Faculties, one must enter a pattern that is accepted by the neural network. The patterns include such things as social niceties and innuendo. Some of us have simpler interfaces than others. (And as Randy described, some may even require other humans to act as intermediate interfaces. When I worked at Oracle, there was a guy who was fluent in both Engineer and Customer, and intermediated all conversation. I understand this is a common thing to have in a company.)
And you, the nerd, are a neural network, at your core, not a Turing machine. You operate in that domain. That means you have the natural ability, however impaired by years sitting in front of the computer, to interface with other neural networks, if you would just accept your nature. This is in fact the only way you can communicate with other humans, so you might as well accept it for what it is. You may try to approximate a Turing machine, but your neural network nature will still show on occasion. For instance, as I pointed out above, when you are frustrated about others not behaving like Turing machines.
No comments:
Post a Comment