Before AI, there were also stories of people who had no background in software engineering who wrote entire applications using their fingers. This was called "learning to be a software engineer".
I don't mean to snipe at AI, because it really does seem to have set more people on the path of learning, but I was writing VB5 apps when I was 14 by copying poorly understood bits and pieces from books. Now people are doing basically the same but with less typing and everyone thinks it's a revolution.
Learning to code and write an application was very hard for most people, because of time and other friction. I know of non-coders who now have applications running for various things they find useful.
You might not consider this productive, but they do, so what you think literally doesn't matter to them.
Google maps works okay on slow connections if you download the tiles for the city you're in beforehand (not that non-technical unemployed people should be expected to do that).
The worst thing is load balancers with a 10 or 20 second timeout, because there's almost nothing you can do other than use Opera Mini or something.
Osmand is great, but it's difficult to use, it doesn't have good place search, and it doesn't plan public transport trips very well.
My experience trying to get it to find a route to work just now involved finding my street name but not being able to enter my address, not being able to enter my workplace's exact address either, getting told to take an express train to a stop that I know it never stops at during peak hour, and searching in vain for a way to change the trip time. I bet it also can't handle delays, cancellations, or bus replacements.
Maybe it works better in your city? I notice you wrote "we can conclude that mapping isn't much of a problem for these people", but you could use the same evidence to conclude Osmand isn't much of a solution for their problem.
(I will note that I use it for hiking and it's very good for that, as it is for cycling.)
Because Google Maps is all they know? I've been on the web for 30+ years (wrote my own html home page by hand in 1995 while doing my master's) and have just now heard of "Osmand" for maybe the 2nd time in my life. The other being a few months ago. If I haven't heard of it, how would anyone else who isn't technical hear about it?
> If I haven't heard of it, how would anyone else who isn't technical hear about it?
If you assume that mapping services on a low-to-no bandwidth connection are important to them, they'll hear about it through word of mouth. Anything that solves a real problem will spread that way.
Contrapositively, we can conclude that mapping isn't much of a problem for these people.
I have the same background, and I've not heard of Osmand, though I do try to use map downloader apps when I'm abroad, just in case.
The other problem with any map tile downloading is that it eats up their entire 3GB of transfer and their phone is dead before they even start. Catch-22.
Yeah, it's absolute nonsense. I'm paying $34/kg for direct-to-consumer beef in Australia, a country with some of the lowest agricultural subsidies in the world, including delivery and at a premium markup, during a time that beef prices have hit a historical high due to processor capacity, and I'm getting prime cuts and roasts too, not just mince.
> There might be a good reason why smart people want to avoid looking stupid ... The only plausible explanation is that our egos are fragile
I disagree with this, at least in how it regards ego as pointless.
Humans are tuned to win a delicate social competition by becoming popular and therefore having a bunch of kids with other popular (and therefore reproductively successful) people. The most plausible explanation is that our ancestors have been through millions of years of evolutionary selection to try to become the most popular in a social group by taking risks, but then cease all risk-taking and guard their position after they get there.
Ego is the mechanism by which this happens, but it's there for a reason. Social status is really, really important - if you don't buy the evolutionary reasons, it's still important for basic human connection. We haven't always lived in societies which are so open to failure, experimentation, or looking stupid.
Somehow, it always triggers my skepticism when supposedly sociobiological or evolutionary anthropological or evolutionary psychological arguments are brought up. My suspicion is that it is far too easy to simply pack in the story you want to have in there. I can think of dozens of objections to your description. For example, in small groups, the social game in terms of status may not be that complex, and the choice for pairings may be very limited.
I'll leave it at that because I don't want to write a novel. But when I look at your description, I don't see any plausibility at all. I only see projections. Like in The Flintstones or in old movies about Stone Age people, who have strangely short haircuts and go hunting the way people go to work today. What I mean is: the social dynamics you're assuming here may be primarily shaped by your experiences in the present and are far from as universal as you believe.
Fair enough, but if you remove the evo psych explanation you're still left with "people don't want to look stupid in front of their peers because it might have consequences". This seems plausible to me regardless.
I still find that strange. If there’s something I don’t understand, you’ll just have to explain it to me again. If we’re pair programming and I need another minute to look at your code to understand it, then you’ll just have to put up with that minute. I’ll spend that minute trying to understand the code, but not worrying that you might think I’m stupid. If that leads you to think I’m stupid, I’d diagnose the problem with you rather than with me. There’s just no normal situation where I’m sitting among people and thinking, “Shit, I hope they don’t think I’m stupid.” I trust that the people who interact with me in everyday life will, over time, form an impression of my cognitive and intellectual abilities and my education that is reasonably consistent with my self-image.
You can’t hide your limitations anyway. I know people who have a hard time thinking logically and critically. They often do and say things that strike me as rather thoughtless or impulsive. They often think and speak in clichés, relying more on emotion than facts, mostly opportunistically, and never in a complex way. I don’t think such people are capable of reflecting on their own limitations. And I suspect that my own limitations are just as transparent to a superior intellect. Assuming that the inductive step I'm using here is even valid.
That’s why I don’t get this perspective. It sounds as if using more foreign words or wearing a button-down shirt or something like that would somehow hide stupidity. But that’s not the case. To pick up on your quote again: For me, it’s more of a red flag when I notice that someone is making a special effort to come across as smarter than they actually are. To a certain extent, we’re all stupid. We should use the resources we have to get along together in life and in the world, instead of engaging in a dick-measuring contest.
This seems like a description of why you, in particular, aren't afraid to look stupid. I appreciate the perspective but believe that it's specific to you, your culture, your friends, your employer, and your life. The social consequences someone faces will differ based on their social group.
Bullying, in the workplace and outside it, is a real-life example of the consequences of looking stupid if you don't have supportive people around you. Workplace bullying is a real phenomenon and surprisingly prevalent[0], even though it's never happened to me.
Do you agree that someone experiencing workplace bullying would be worried about looking stupid? And do you think that someone who wasn't directly affected by it might still change their behaviour to avoid it?
I've never encountered a person who was attracted to a stupid person.
BTW, the Flintstones is just The Honeymooners without Jackie Gleason. One could also argue that Family Guy and The Simpsons are also reboots of The Honeymooners.
> who have strangely short haircuts and go hunting the way people go to work today
"They're the modern stone age family" are the words in the Flintstones' theme song.
Even in small groups, being respected and considered valuable is important? I'm not sure what you mean here.
I take your point, and I too get triggered when people invoke mate selection and dopamine. I could be with you in being skeptical about that specific angle... but absolutely if you look at lawless or less institutionalized cultures, there is a trend towards appearing strong/tough and hiding any weaknesses
Can we ascribe it all to ego, I wonder, or is it just one of several mechanics at play, albeit an important one. A Dutch saying is that there's a lid for every pot ("op elk potje past een dekseltje") i.e. that the most unlikely people still manage to find a partner and form a family. That very clumsy person who stutters, and is perceived by an ego-driven person as "a loser" still finds someone who thinks they are adorable and attractive.
At work I dare to look stupid and in my friend group too. It hasn’t always led to a good outcome since people simply believe you’re actually stupid and the problem with that is that they don’t take you seriously enough. Now, you can say: their loss. But man, I need to eat. With friends, sure. At work? After years of looking stupid, I had enough of it.
Also finding a partner is mostly about being silly with each other. So looking a bit stupid is a plus there and had no issues about it on that front
Not sure if this is the right place to respond, but I’ve only seen this play in situations where people visibly want to look better than others, because they feel insecure about their status.
Frankly, I have no idea how to explain it in words, but when you’re in a setting where everyone knows they’re good at their own thing, but also know the others are also exceptional at their thing, this game goes away. Like it actually becomes the opposite. Everyone calls themselves stupid, become more cordial, and things get fun. Trying to not to look stupid signals negative status, or whatever you call it.
It’s very funny to write this out, because I’ve never thought about it on purpose. Everything has just felt natural at the time of the event.
The actual most plausible explanation becomes clear when you rearrange the words into the right order: "There might be a good reason why people who want to avoid looking stupid are smart ..." Forcing oneself to become smart is the only escape from looking stupid.
"The people I think are smart are those that try to look smart", that is the most plausible. There are probably many smart people who aren't afraid of looking stupid that you think are stupid for that reason.
Personally I dislike people who never say stupid things, because they are focusing too much on appearances and too little on trying to figure things out.
> "The people I think are smart are those that try to look smart", that is the most plausible.
The story does not appear to define smart as "not looking stupid", rather something more towards "mastered the creative process".
There is only so much time in the day. An hour spent in interaction where you might look stupid is an hour not spent directly working on your craft. The most plausible explanation is that those who don't want to look stupid turn towards becoming smart as the escape. As in, a tendency to use time spent alone locked up in a room learning how to use a new tool instead of galavanting at an art show is what makes them become smart.
I agree with the popular thing, but only up to a point, for a certain type of people, or from a certain age on (for me this latter case holds true), competing against other people just isn't a valid concern anymore, the societal "recognition" stops being a thing.
In my case, and I suppose this holds true for others, too, the "fiercest" competition is with one's inner-self or, at the very most, with past/dead/way-out-of-line-of-sight "competitors" that have nothing to do with current society and its recognition. I know that this "competing against one-self" sounds trite, but, again, this is how things are for some of us.
>> Social status is really, really important - if you don't buy the evolutionary reasons, it's still important for basic human connection.
You dont want to do dumb things that might get you in jail and have rveryone shun you.
But should u be so afraid of brusing your ego that you shy away from: starting a business (if u have the financial means), asking someone out, publishing something in public, etc
Sometimes evolution overshoots, esp when our environment changes
GGP says don't care about X because it's a social phenomenon, but frequently this position is a form of social identification.
You say: X might deeper than social, implying that social phenomena are not important. Thus agreeing with GP.
[edit: my position is pragmatic: If there's a broad or important phenomenon, your position on it should be individualized to the value of the phenomenon itself, not based upon some theory-of-origin category assignment.]
This is a really interesting example because, to me, it reads as AI- or corpospeak-influenced human. I can't imagine anyone writing the text in the year 2000, but I believe you when you say you wrote it, and the actual information seems worth communicating.
I'm less concerned about "justified" and more about "useful". If you behave offensively to everyone around you, then you have become your own worst enemy in the war of ideas.
Ignaz Semmelweis was right. He also died in an asylum, having utterly failed to convince doctors to wash their hands between patients.
What do you think Semmelweis could have done differently, that actually could have worked?
The assumption in what you’re saying is that it’s possible to convince ignorant, recalcitrant, authority-rejecting people to change their behavior. That’s great! Could you sketch an approach to get people to seriously try to solve global warming, then? No? How about fascism? No? So, what is your point, exactly?
Well, he could have done what Pasteur or Koch did and become a pivotal figure in inventing germ theory.
He could also have just lived out his life in obscurity and made things a little better in his hospital, doing what he could and quietly regretting that he couldn't change everyone's mind, until the emergence of germ theory.
Instead, he got beaten to death by asylum guards after annoying and alienating everyone around him. That seems like a very obvious bad ending to me.
I can't sketch out an approach to make the entire global population to listen to you. I can, however, warn you that being a gigantic douchebag to all your colleagues will not make them take your proposals seriously.
Do you have to care about fixing something in order to feel deeply sad about it? Do you even have to agree it's a problem?
I am deeply sad that my profession is turning into Claude-whisperer, but there's nothing I can do to stop it, and I'm not sure it would even be moral to do so.
The problem we've got is that 10-20% of the population are speculating while another 50% of the population have almost their entire net worth stuffed into their family home. We're finding it difficult to rein in the top without ruining the middle too.
I don't mean to snipe at AI, because it really does seem to have set more people on the path of learning, but I was writing VB5 apps when I was 14 by copying poorly understood bits and pieces from books. Now people are doing basically the same but with less typing and everyone thinks it's a revolution.
reply