On Jun 23, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Steve Richfield wrote:
Andy,
The use of diminutives is considered rude in many parts of anglo- culture if the individual does not use it to identify themselves, though I realize it is common practice in some regions of the US. When in doubt, use the given form.
This is a PERFECT post, because it so perfectly illustrates a particular point of detachment from reality that is common among AGIers. In the real world we do certain things to achieve a good result, but when we design politically correct AGIs, we banish the very logic that allows us to function. For example, if you see a black man walking behind you at night, you rightly worry, but if you include that in your AGI design, you would be dismissed as a racist.
You have clearly confused me with someone else.
Effectively solving VERY VERY difficult problems, like why a particular corporation is failing after other experts have failed, is a multiple-step process that starts with narrowing down the vast field of possibilities. As others have already pointed out here, this is often done in a rather summary and non-probabilistic way. Perhaps all of the really successful programmers that you have known have had long hair, so if the programming is failing and the programmer has short hair, then maybe there is an attitude issue to look into. Of course this does NOT necessarily mean that there is any linkage at all - just another of many points to focus some attention to.
Or it could simply mean that the vast majority of programmers and software monkeys are mediocre at best such that the handful of people you will meet with deep talent won't constitute a useful sample size. Hell, even Brooks suggested as much and he was charitable. In all my years in software, I've only met a small number of people who were unambiguously wicked smart when it came to software, and while none of them could be confused with a completely mundane person they also did not have many other traits in common (though I will acknowledge they tend to rational and self-analytical to a degree that is rare in most people though this is not a trait exclusive to these people). Of course, *my* sample size is also small and so it does not count for much.
Similarly, over the course of >100 projects...
Eh? Over 100 projects? These were either very small projects or you are older than Methuselah. I've worked on a lot of projects, but nowhere near 100 and I was a consultant for many years.
J. Andrew Rogers ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
