And All the Children are Above Average

Imagine a place where everybody’s a brilliant scientist. I mean, Feynman, Einstein, Bohr, Hawking kind of brilliant. But nobody knows that, because they don’t know about the outside world, where people aren’t all brilliant scientists. Because of this, they consider only the top 1% of their population to be at all intelligent; most of the brilliant scientist folk don’t even bother doing science because they’re not really smart like the uberbrilliant folk. Say, they have an IQ of only 195 instead of 220 or whatever, so they flip burgers for a living. It’s a gigantic waste, but they don’t know any better. They don’t know the absolute value of their world of geniuses, just the relative value. So most of their people never bother using their scientific abilities.

There’s another place where everybody’s a genius musician or composer. Everybody there is a Bach, Mozart, Haydn, or a Hendrix, Lennon, Stevie Ray Vaughn, or a Louis Armstrong, or Muddy Waters, or a Yo-Yo-Ma, or whatever. They’re all musical geniuses, every one of them. But because they don’t know about the outside world where people aren’t all musical geniuses, only the top 1% of them (by some measure or other) are considered actually “talented” — perhaps some forms of musical genius aren’t even respected at all in this world — and most of these people never pick up an instrument at all, or when they do, they’re ashamed of their work and think it’s pedestrian, amateur crap. Because they’re just average or sub-average people, in their world. The absolute value of their musical ability does not occur to them; they can only see the relative value. And despite the fact that the worst of them is still a world-class musician to us, their musical ability is the object of derision in that place.

Repeat this scenario in as many fields as your imagination can supply. A world of Mother Teresas. A world of Bill Gates’s. Whatever.

That’s the actual world we’re living in, I think. I think that our civilization is suffering terribly from an obsession on people’s relative value to the expense of their absolute value — grading on a curve. It’s scarcity-based economics applied to human beings.

I have come to realize working day to day in a moderately difficult field like programming that 95% of the skills you need as a programmer are skills you would need as a fry cook or a house cleaner or anything else. They’re the human skills of perception and problem solving and response to unexpected situations and judgment of importance and all that. The things we’ve all been doing forever. There is an additional 5% which consists of having learned a bunch of unusual technical knowledge, but it’s not the most important 5%.

Being human, having a normal, ordinary, day to day, functioning human mind, is a huge thing. It is genius, in an absolute sense. An ordinary everyday human who can think is capable of incredible things, and most of those humans are artificially prevented from doing most of what they are capable of because in any given field they can see someone more capable and therefore they judge their own absolute genius as relatively worthless.

The further hell of it is, those standards are not only unfair because they’re merely relative and ignore absolute value, they are also arbitrary and context-dependent. Despite the pretensions of IQ and other such curves to grade on, there is no real absolute measure of competence, ability, value, or the like. Any standard by which you measure how much something is “worthy” is going to have limitations and ignore other ways to be worthy or have value. So besides the relative/absolute problem, we have the sheer arbitrariness of the standards by which relative and absolute value are judged.

The fact is, our civilization hasn’t really learned that people are valuable just as people, without being on the end of this curve or that, and have a lot to contribute individually. We make a lot of noise about “everybody being special/valuable” but we don’t act that way; we act as if you only matter if you’re on the far end of some arbitrary bell curve. And we are so much the poorer for it. There are so many things that everyone could contribute to the world that they are afraid to becaue they’re not “good enough.”

Metaphors Lost

Steve Dekorte notices that the metaphoricity of modern desktop metaphors has been diluted badly. I know I’ve seen these observations before from someone mourning the passage of OS 9 in the face of OS X — Was it Tog? Zarf? mpt?

I remember someone pointing out that Classic Mac OS took great pains to give the impression that an icon wasn’t just a representation of a file, it was that file, as far as the user need be concerned. And a window wasn’t just a representation of a folder, it was that folder (at least in its open state). You couldn’t have two Finder windows open displaying the same directory because that window was that directory. I understand newer versions of GNOME use this technique, while Apple has long abandoned it in favor of the NeXTy finder windows they have now.

Good design isn’t always what you choose to do, sometimes it’s what you choose not to do.

I’m not sure any Unix-based OS is ever going to have a really good, intuitive GUI, because the GUI is always going to be a construct on top of and separable from the primary underlying text-based system. Although ROX seems like a step in that direction — it integrates the GUI and underlying filesystem better than any other Unix GUI I’ve seen — at the cost of changing the traditional Unix customs about the structure of the filesystem.

Stylin’

If you’re one of those people who live at internet speed and therefore devour this site exclusively through a blog reader this is irrelevant to you. Stop reading. Hit space bar. Move along.

But if you’re an old-fashioned sort of person who actually loads web pages to read them, you may be noticing a nice new style, and loving or hating it. If you’re hating it, check out the spiffy style switcher in the side menu. Got it here and added that spiffy “darkfire” style from here.. Probably add some more styles from that site too. If you hate all those styles, then figure out how to override site style sheets with a user style sheet in your browser, or else go read a book, or something.

RMS

“Free” software politics. – KenBlog quoting Kerneltrap via Steve Dekorte:

JA: What about the programmers…

Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.

JA: Such as?

Richard Stallman: There are thousands of different jobs people can have in society without developing non-free software. You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are developing custom software–only a small fraction are developing non-free software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid.”

RMS can fuck off now. ‘k, thx. Fucking hippie.

Actually RMS makes a lot of good points in that interview, including ones about problems of globalism. But his comment made me think about my own (very small and limited) participation in the IT industry, and what he said rang true: I’ve been a programmer for one year, and worked directly with programmers in one capacity or another for about six or seven years, and only in the first couple years of that time was I working with anyone who sold software to customers with a proprietary license. The rest of the time it was all companies writing software for their own use. Sometimes it was companies who released software open source, sometimes they just kept it under wraps and used it themselves, but they weren’t selling proprietary software with a shrink-wrap license or whatever.

And to be honest, those companies had their shiznit together much more than the ones I worked for the first couple years who sold their software as their product. They were pretty sleazebaggish. All inflicting copy protection nightmares on people, all filling their customers’ ears full of lies about when the the next version would be released and how many bugs it would fix, all trying to leverage their control over a set of tools to force another company into bankruptcy so they could buy it and dominate the market (I kid you not, that’s apparently what one of my employers did shortly after I left — the plan failed, btw). On the whole, companies who sell proprietary software seem to have a much greater than average tendency to fall into completely sleazebag practices. (Read that sentence carefully before you think I’m trying to generalize about *all* proprietary software companies.)

I think it’s just the nature of the game, relying entirely on artificial, legally-mandated scarcity for your business model (and that’s what proprietary licenses do: legally mandate artificial scarcity). It’s a tough game to play, the deck is stacked against you, and you’re always tempted to get an advantage in some dubious way.