I think that when you get adept with computers(That was the original thread subject. This is wider.)
it's easy to forget how much work that took. It
took me months to get the hang of image editing.
Now it seems simple, but for someone new it's
dozens of menu items that are not self-explanatory.
For people who aren't linear thinkers and don't
have a touch of OCD, doing anything on a computer
is pure tedium. They don't want to know any more
than they have to.
Mayayana wrote (in a thread in the '7 'group that started out about Adobe): >>
I think that when you get adept with computers
it's easy to forget how much work that took. It
took me months to get the hang of image editing.
(That was the original thread subject. This is wider.)
Now it seems simple, but for someone new it's
dozens of menu items that are not self-explanatory.
For people who aren't linear thinkers and don't
have a touch of OCD, doing anything on a computer
is pure tedium. They don't want to know any more
than they have to.
I think we all need to be reminded of that from time to time: that there
are people who're not interested in computing any more than necessary -
or, within computing, aren't interested in some aspect more than they
need to be: image editing, word processing, programming (including web, script, and other things, not just C and the like).
What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just[...]
not _interested_
Mayayana wrote (in a thread in the '7 'group that started out about
Adobe):
I think that when you get adept with computers(That was the original thread subject. This is wider.)
it's easy to forget how much work that took. It
took me months to get the hang of image editing.
Now it seems simple, but for someone new it's
dozens of menu items that are not self-explanatory.
For people who aren't linear thinkers and don't
have a touch of OCD, doing anything on a computer
is pure tedium. They don't want to know any more
than they have to.
I think we all need to be reminded of that from time to time: that there
are people who're not interested in computing any more than necessary -
or, within computing, aren't interested in some aspect more than they
need to be: image editing, word processing, programming (including web, >script, and other things, not just C and the like).
What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just
not _interested_, either in computing as a whole, or the specific aspect
we are. I see the same attitude in myself towards food preparation: I
_know_ I could save money, be healthier, and have extra wonderful
experiences if I were to just ... - I'm just _not interested_, and will
never be. Mayayana's last sentence, though only 11 words, is a big one.
The same probably applies to many if not all aspects of life: car >maintenance; gardening; DIY generally; language(s); grammar. We could >probably all save money, avoid being ripped off, and so on by learning
more about many things. But we _choose_ not to. And trying, beyond a
point, to interest us, is just likely to make us grumpy - because we
know we are in the wrong (though that's arguable), and someone who
"knows" they are in the wrong is one of the grumpiest.
I say trying _beyond a point_ is unproductive: of course, it is
intensely rewarding when someone "sees the light", as in "now I see what >you're getting at" - which is why we all try (-:. But it's best to be
able to see when to give up! (And I'm probably as bad as any, at not
seeing.)
Mayayana wrote (in a thread in the '7 'group that started out about Adobe):
I think that when you get adept with computers(That was the original thread subject. This is wider.)
it's easy to forget how much work that took. It
took me months to get the hang of image editing.
Now it seems simple, but for someone new it's
dozens of menu items that are not self-explanatory.
For people who aren't linear thinkers and don't
have a touch of OCD, doing anything on a computer
is pure tedium. They don't want to know any more
than they have to.
I think we all need to be reminded of that from time to time: that there
are people who're not interested in computing any more than necessary -
or, within computing, aren't interested in some aspect more than they
need to be: image editing, word processing, programming (including web, script, and other things, not just C and the like).
What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just
not _interested_, either in computing as a whole, or the specific aspect
we are. I see the same attitude in myself towards food preparation: I
_know_ I could save money, be healthier, and have extra wonderful
experiences if I were to just ... - I'm just _not interested_, and will
never be. Mayayana's last sentence, though only 11 words, is a big one.
The same probably applies to many if not all aspects of life: car maintenance; gardening; DIY generally; language(s); grammar. We could probably all save money, avoid being ripped off, and so on by learning
more about many things. But we _choose_ not to. And trying, beyond a
point, to interest us, is just likely to make us grumpy - because we
know we are in the wrong (though that's arguable), and someone who
"knows" they are in the wrong is one of the grumpiest.
I say trying _beyond a point_ is unproductive: of course, it is
intensely rewarding when someone "sees the light", as in "now I see what you're getting at" - which is why we all try (-:. But it's best to be
able to see when to give up! (And I'm probably as bad as any, at not
seeing.)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote
| What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just
| not _interested_
I think it's not an accident that this comes up
in computer groups. There are a lot of poorly
socialized people who don't adapt well in general
but who do well with computers. That's basically
the profile of the nerd. Nerds aren't mocked because
they like science but because they don't connect
well socially and are confident that anything but
science is both inferior and irrelevant.
Jocks
are idiots. Humanities people are dreamers. Religious
people are misled cowards. Artists are just plain nuts.
Bankers are a necessary evil.
It's a form of mono-
paradigmatic ignorance, like a fundamentalist
preacher. Except the fundamentalist preacher is
relatively openminded. He can at least make sense
of the outlook of the nerd. The nerd will reject the
preacher as simply an idiot.
There was a great scene in A Beautiful Mind where
the physicist is on a date and, lacking any kind of
social skills, he decides to tell his date that while
she will probably slap him and has every right to
do so, what he really wants is to fuck her. She's
relieved, despite his awkward presentation, and
they end up getting married. I found the scene very
touching. It was an unsocialized nerd being open
to life with courage, even though he was completely
out of his element.
On 2018-09-13 04:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're[...]
just not _interested_
... and people who have different interests than you aren't thick, either.
"pyotr filipivich" <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote
| the impact
| of the transition from Gagothic to Cyrillic alphabets and the spread
| of Slavonic literacy into 12 century Novgorod
You took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone
would have to be nuts not to find that interesting.
We should start a discussion group at your house.
John can bring some of his snack ramen and cocoa
puffs.
I say trying _beyond a point_ is unproductive: of course, it is
intensely rewarding when someone "sees the light", as in "now I see what
you're getting at" - which is why we all try (-:. But it's best to be
able to see when to give up! (And I'm probably as bad as any, at not
seeing.)
Lack of repeated use can also change things. I used to know fluidly a
4GL programming language. Spent 10-15 years doing it and was dang good.
After years retired, I have little hope I could redo it. I could
possibly read it, but engineer it or improve on it, NO.
In message <_dtmD.73541$Ac3.51427@fx45.iad>, Wolf K
<wolfmac@sympatico.ca> writes:
On 2018-09-13 04:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:Well rejoined, but I never said that. [...]
[...]
What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're[...]
just not _interested_
... and people who have different interests than you aren't thick,
either.
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote
| > Jocks
| >are idiots. Humanities people are dreamers. Religious
| >people are misled cowards. Artists are just plain nuts.
| >Bankers are a necessary evil.
|
| Anyone left you haven't insulted (-:?
|
Maybe it wasn't clear. That was a synopsis
of the nerd point of view.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 113 |
Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
Uptime: | 12:40:48 |
Calls: | 2,497 |
Calls today: | 14 |
Files: | 8,646 |
Messages: | 1,902,874 |