Friam

career choices as combinatoric search

Classic

List

Threaded

9 messages Options

Roger Critchlow-2

career choices as combinatoric search

So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: career choices as combinatoric search

I have been trying to tell my students for decades that multi-disciplinary teams are essential and that the lack of them is what significantly harms software development. Multi-specialization teams, e.g. analysts, programmers, testers, etc. are not multi-disciplinary.

In the world of software, you can find this notion in the writings of Constantine and Lockwood, 70s and 80s, Naur, 80s, Kay 90s, Beck 2000, and more.

Moreover, to be an effective part of such teams each individual on the team needs to be a "polymath." The business press and the design community have been writing about this for decades. The design community actually does it, but business is more lip service than actuality.

Buzzwords used: "T-shaped" individuals (breadth and depth), followed by "pi-shaped" (two depth, one breadth), followed by "broken comb" (multiple depths to various degrees with thick integrated breadth), followed by "modern polymath." The whole "learning organization" fad of the 1990s is also grounded in similar ideas.

Acquiring this breadth and depth of knowledge via the current educational system - semesters/quarters, N-credit courses, etc. is effectively impossible. Not to mention the disdain that every discipline has for every other discipline, such that if you really do get a degree that is inter- or multi-disciplinary, you are pretty much guaranteed you will never get a professor's job in any of the component disciplines, despite most universities erecting a liberal arts facade.

davew

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

thompnickson2

Re: career choices as combinatoric search

Hi, Dave,

AT LAST! SOMETHING WE AGREE ABOUT!

I think you will read with pleasure the attached Letter to the American Psychologist written in 1969 but not published until a few years later. The back story was that the temporary job I had at Swarthmore had run out, and the job market had tightened and I was in danger of being SOOL, with a wife and two young kids. So I wrote a letter describing my proposed teaching program and sent it to 52 colleges and universities around the country. I got two nibbles and one bite. Whew. After I got the job at Clark, I sent the proposal to the AP as a “letter to the editor”.

I think it also explains why we both believe so fervently in FRIAM. I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

In the world of software, you can find this notion in the writings of Constantine and Lockwood, 70s and 80s, Naur, 80s, Kay 90s, Beck 2000, and more.

davew

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Pyschobiology as a form of general education.pdf (498K) Download Attachment

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: career choices as combinatoric search

Nick writes:

"I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program."

Understanding large human-engineered codes is becoming intractable. As codes gets larger over time, and staff come and go, they suffer more competing, often overlapping, design ideas. Without a experienced hands-on experts that have global and deep hands-on knowledge, managers of these codes can become unaware as entropy grows, and in some situations they may not even care. It can also happen that the managers and the individuals with global and deep hands-on knowledge are different people. This is rationalized on the basis of the certain managers being favored by other senior managers and/or because they have "soft skills" that are deemed superior.

I find the "soft skills" argument dubious. It seems to be built on the premise that teams need to grow. What if the whole problem is that they favor growth over the selection of the right people? Why have 20 people if you can have 2 and do a better job? I think the reason is that the small team philosophy is not economically appealing to most: How do you become a manager and increase your salary if you have no one to manage? A manager needs to have a certain degree of incompetence amongst her managed staff in order to justify her supervisory role. A student has believe that they can be trained in short amount of time and be ready to work and get paid, in order to justify the cost of their training. The teacher has to have someone to teach in order to justify their role. In a world full of humble polymaths, none of this overhead has to exist.

I think the future of software development will become more like the natural sciences. Machine learning systems will discover algorithms, and it will be the job of humans to rationalize how it works and why. We already have human engineered systems that need this kind of treatment (e.g. massive refactoring), so assuming that artifacts have no unifying design is not that big of a change as a practical matter. Of course there will need to be more tools to reconcile form and function. I see it roughly analogous to understanding biological systems.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:21 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

Hi, Dave,

AT LAST! SOMETHING WE AGREE ABOUT!

I think it also explains why we both believe so fervently in FRIAM. I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

In the world of software, you can find this notion in the writings of Constantine and Lockwood, 70s and 80s, Naur, 80s, Kay 90s, Beck 2000, and more.

davew

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: career choices as combinatoric search

When I worked on No 5 ESS at Bell Labs in 1979 we often asked haven't the division directors read "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks. It was often said that if you got the right 20 people together you could finish the project sooner than by hiring hundreds of new people. It's not clear that was true. As I've said before the system deployed in 1983(?) contained 200 million lines of C code.

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program."

Understanding large human-engineered codes is becoming intractable. As codes gets larger over time, and staff come and go, they suffer more competing, often overlapping, design ideas.   Without a experienced hands-on experts that have global and deep hands-on knowledge, managers of these codes can become unaware as entropy grows, and in some situations they may not even care.    It can also happen that the managers and the individuals with global and deep hands-on knowledge are different people.    This is rationalized on the basis of the certain managers being favored by other senior managers and/or because they have "soft skills" that are deemed superior.

I find the "soft skills" argument dubious. It seems to be built on the premise that teams need to grow.   What if the whole problem is that they favor growth over the selection of the right people? Why have 20 people if you can have 2 and do a better job?   I think the reason is that the small team philosophy is not economically appealing to most: How do you become a manager and increase your salary if you have no one to manage?   A manager needs to have a certain degree of incompetence amongst her managed staff in order to justify her supervisory role. A student has believe that they can be trained in short amount of time and be ready to work and get paid, in order to justify the cost of their training.   The teacher has to have someone to teach in order to justify their role.   In a world full of humble polymaths, none of this overhead has to exist.

I think the future of software development will become more like the natural sciences.   Machine learning systems will discover algorithms, and it will be the job of humans to rationalize how it works and why.   We already have human engineered systems that need this kind of treatment (e.g. massive refactoring), so assuming that artifacts have no unifying design is not that big of a change as a practical matter.   Of course there will need to be more tools to reconcile form and function.   I see it roughly analogous to understanding biological systems.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:21 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

Hi, Dave,

AT LAST! SOMETHING WE AGREE ABOUT!

I think you will read with pleasure the attached Letter to the American Psychologist written in 1969 but not published until a few years later. The back story was that the temporary job I had at Swarthmore had run out, and the job market had tightened and I was in danger of being SOOL, with a wife and two young kids. So I wrote a letter describing my proposed teaching program and sent it to 52 colleges and universities around the country. I got two nibbles and one bite. Whew. After I got the job at Clark, I sent the proposal to the AP as a “letter to the editor”.

I think it also explains why we both believe so fervently in FRIAM. I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

I have been trying to tell my students for decades that multi-disciplinary teams are essential and that the lack of them is what significantly harms software development. Multi-specialization teams, e.g. analysts, programmers, testers, etc. are not multi-disciplinary.

In the world of software, you can find this notion in the writings of Constantine and Lockwood, 70s and 80s, Naur, 80s, Kay 90s, Beck 2000, and more.

Moreover, to be an effective part of such teams each individual on the team needs to be a "polymath." The business press and the design community have been writing about this for decades. The design community actually does it, but business is more lip service than actuality.

Buzzwords used: "T-shaped" individuals (breadth and depth), followed by "pi-shaped" (two depth, one breadth), followed by "broken comb" (multiple depths to various degrees with thick integrated breadth), followed by "modern polymath." The whole "learning organization" fad of the 1990s is also grounded in similar ideas.

Acquiring this breadth and depth of knowledge via the current educational system - semesters/quarters, N-credit courses, etc. is effectively impossible. Not to mention the disdain that every discipline has for every other discipline, such that if you really do get a degree that is inter- or multi-disciplinary, you are pretty much guaranteed you will never get a professor's job in any of the component disciplines, despite most universities erecting a liberal arts facade.

davew

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: career choices as combinatoric search

Think about that number and the conceptual problem being addressed. Does it really make sense to you?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program."

Understanding large human-engineered codes is becoming intractable. As codes gets larger over time, and staff come and go, they suffer more competing, often overlapping, design ideas.   Without a experienced hands-on experts that have global and deep hands-on knowledge, managers of these codes can become unaware as entropy grows, and in some situations they may not even care.    It can also happen that the managers and the individuals with global and deep hands-on knowledge are different people.    This is rationalized on the basis of the certain managers being favored by other senior managers and/or because they have "soft skills" that are deemed superior.

I find the "soft skills" argument dubious. It seems to be built on the premise that teams need to grow.   What if the whole problem is that they favor growth over the selection of the right people? Why have 20 people if you can have 2 and do a better job?   I think the reason is that the small team philosophy is not economically appealing to most: How do you become a manager and increase your salary if you have no one to manage?   A manager needs to have a certain degree of incompetence amongst her managed staff in order to justify her supervisory role. A student has believe that they can be trained in short amount of time and be ready to work and get paid, in order to justify the cost of their training.   The teacher has to have someone to teach in order to justify their role.   In a world full of humble polymaths, none of this overhead has to exist.

I think the future of software development will become more like the natural sciences.   Machine learning systems will discover algorithms, and it will be the job of humans to rationalize how it works and why.   We already have human engineered systems that need this kind of treatment (e.g. massive refactoring), so assuming that artifacts have no unifying design is not that big of a change as a practical matter.   Of course there will need to be more tools to reconcile form and function.   I see it roughly analogous to understanding biological systems.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:21 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

Hi, Dave,

AT LAST! SOMETHING WE AGREE ABOUT!

I think you will read with pleasure the attached Letter to the American Psychologist written in 1969 but not published until a few years later. The back story was that the temporary job I had at Swarthmore had run out, and the job market had tightened and I was in danger of being SOOL, with a wife and two young kids. So I wrote a letter describing my proposed teaching program and sent it to 52 colleges and universities around the country. I got two nibbles and one bite. Whew. After I got the job at Clark, I sent the proposal to the AP as a “letter to the editor”.

I think it also explains why we both believe so fervently in FRIAM. I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

I have been trying to tell my students for decades that multi-disciplinary teams are essential and that the lack of them is what significantly harms software development. Multi-specialization teams, e.g. analysts, programmers, testers, etc. are not multi-disciplinary.

In the world of software, you can find this notion in the writings of Constantine and Lockwood, 70s and 80s, Naur, 80s, Kay 90s, Beck 2000, and more.

Moreover, to be an effective part of such teams each individual on the team needs to be a "polymath." The business press and the design community have been writing about this for decades. The design community actually does it, but business is more lip service than actuality.

Buzzwords used: "T-shaped" individuals (breadth and depth), followed by "pi-shaped" (two depth, one breadth), followed by "broken comb" (multiple depths to various degrees with thick integrated breadth), followed by "modern polymath." The whole "learning organization" fad of the 1990s is also grounded in similar ideas.

Acquiring this breadth and depth of knowledge via the current educational system - semesters/quarters, N-credit courses, etc. is effectively impossible. Not to mention the disdain that every discipline has for every other discipline, such that if you really do get a degree that is inter- or multi-disciplinary, you are pretty much guaranteed you will never get a professor's job in any of the component disciplines, despite most universities erecting a liberal arts facade.

davew

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: career choices as combinatoric search

The conceptual problem was connecting billions of telephone calls, keeping records of them for billing, managing call forwarding, call waiting, caller ID, determining the actions required by the switching hardware to connect one particular number somewhere in the world to another one, solving routing problems in real time on s dynamic network with bottlenecks, outages, etc. The list could continue for a long time. What I often wonder is why couldn't they have prevented caller ID spoofing?

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 12:34 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Think about that number and the conceptual problem being addressed. Does it really make sense to you?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

When I worked on No 5 ESS at Bell Labs in 1979 we often asked haven't the division directors read "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks. It was often said that if you got the right 20 people together you could finish the project sooner than by hiring hundreds of new people. It's not clear that was true. As I've said before the system deployed in 1983(?) contained 200 million lines of C code.

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program."

Understanding large human-engineered codes is becoming intractable. As codes gets larger over time, and staff come and go, they suffer more competing, often overlapping, design ideas.   Without a experienced hands-on experts that have global and deep hands-on knowledge, managers of these codes can become unaware as entropy grows, and in some situations they may not even care.    It can also happen that the managers and the individuals with global and deep hands-on knowledge are different people.    This is rationalized on the basis of the certain managers being favored by other senior managers and/or because they have "soft skills" that are deemed superior.

I find the "soft skills" argument dubious. It seems to be built on the premise that teams need to grow.   What if the whole problem is that they favor growth over the selection of the right people? Why have 20 people if you can have 2 and do a better job?   I think the reason is that the small team philosophy is not economically appealing to most: How do you become a manager and increase your salary if you have no one to manage?   A manager needs to have a certain degree of incompetence amongst her managed staff in order to justify her supervisory role. A student has believe that they can be trained in short amount of time and be ready to work and get paid, in order to justify the cost of their training.   The teacher has to have someone to teach in order to justify their role.   In a world full of humble polymaths, none of this overhead has to exist.

I think the future of software development will become more like the natural sciences.   Machine learning systems will discover algorithms, and it will be the job of humans to rationalize how it works and why.   We already have human engineered systems that need this kind of treatment (e.g. massive refactoring), so assuming that artifacts have no unifying design is not that big of a change as a practical matter.   Of course there will need to be more tools to reconcile form and function.   I see it roughly analogous to understanding biological systems.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:21 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

Hi, Dave,

AT LAST! SOMETHING WE AGREE ABOUT!

I think you will read with pleasure the attached Letter to the American Psychologist written in 1969 but not published until a few years later. The back story was that the temporary job I had at Swarthmore had run out, and the job market had tightened and I was in danger of being SOOL, with a wife and two young kids. So I wrote a letter describing my proposed teaching program and sent it to 52 colleges and universities around the country. I got two nibbles and one bite. Whew. After I got the job at Clark, I sent the proposal to the AP as a “letter to the editor”.

I think it also explains why we both believe so fervently in FRIAM. I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

I have been trying to tell my students for decades that multi-disciplinary teams are essential and that the lack of them is what significantly harms software development. Multi-specialization teams, e.g. analysts, programmers, testers, etc. are not multi-disciplinary.

In the world of software, you can find this notion in the writings of Constantine and Lockwood, 70s and 80s, Naur, 80s, Kay 90s, Beck 2000, and more.

Moreover, to be an effective part of such teams each individual on the team needs to be a "polymath." The business press and the design community have been writing about this for decades. The design community actually does it, but business is more lip service than actuality.

Buzzwords used: "T-shaped" individuals (breadth and depth), followed by "pi-shaped" (two depth, one breadth), followed by "broken comb" (multiple depths to various degrees with thick integrated breadth), followed by "modern polymath." The whole "learning organization" fad of the 1990s is also grounded in similar ideas.

Acquiring this breadth and depth of knowledge via the current educational system - semesters/quarters, N-credit courses, etc. is effectively impossible. Not to mention the disdain that every discipline has for every other discipline, such that if you really do get a degree that is inter- or multi-disciplinary, you are pretty much guaranteed you will never get a professor's job in any of the component disciplines, despite most universities erecting a liberal arts facade.

davew

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: career choices as combinatoric search

Speaking of caller id spoofing, someone has taken my real estate brokers' online description of my house for sale and massaged it into a fraudulent house for rent listing on craigslist. A prospective tenant turned up at my neighbor's house across the street on Saturday begging for contact information. My brokers say it happens all the time with vacant houses in Santa Fe.

-- rec --

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 2:46 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

The conceptual problem was connecting billions of telephone calls, keeping records of them for billing, managing call forwarding, call waiting, caller ID, determining the actions required by the switching hardware to connect one particular number somewhere in the world to another one, solving routing problems in real time on s dynamic network with bottlenecks, outages, etc. The list could continue for a long time. What I often wonder is why couldn't they have prevented caller ID spoofing?

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 12:34 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Think about that number and the conceptual problem being addressed. Does it really make sense to you?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

When I worked on No 5 ESS at Bell Labs in 1979 we often asked haven't the division directors read "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks. It was often said that if you got the right 20 people together you could finish the project sooner than by hiring hundreds of new people. It's not clear that was true. As I've said before the system deployed in 1983(?) contained 200 million lines of C code.

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program."

Understanding large human-engineered codes is becoming intractable. As codes gets larger over time, and staff come and go, they suffer more competing, often overlapping, design ideas.   Without a experienced hands-on experts that have global and deep hands-on knowledge, managers of these codes can become unaware as entropy grows, and in some situations they may not even care.    It can also happen that the managers and the individuals with global and deep hands-on knowledge are different people.    This is rationalized on the basis of the certain managers being favored by other senior managers and/or because they have "soft skills" that are deemed superior.

I find the "soft skills" argument dubious. It seems to be built on the premise that teams need to grow.   What if the whole problem is that they favor growth over the selection of the right people? Why have 20 people if you can have 2 and do a better job?   I think the reason is that the small team philosophy is not economically appealing to most: How do you become a manager and increase your salary if you have no one to manage?   A manager needs to have a certain degree of incompetence amongst her managed staff in order to justify her supervisory role. A student has believe that they can be trained in short amount of time and be ready to work and get paid, in order to justify the cost of their training.   The teacher has to have someone to teach in order to justify their role.   In a world full of humble polymaths, none of this overhead has to exist.

I think the future of software development will become more like the natural sciences.   Machine learning systems will discover algorithms, and it will be the job of humans to rationalize how it works and why.   We already have human engineered systems that need this kind of treatment (e.g. massive refactoring), so assuming that artifacts have no unifying design is not that big of a change as a practical matter.   Of course there will need to be more tools to reconcile form and function.   I see it roughly analogous to understanding biological systems.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:21 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

Hi, Dave,

AT LAST! SOMETHING WE AGREE ABOUT!

I think you will read with pleasure the attached Letter to the American Psychologist written in 1969 but not published until a few years later. The back story was that the temporary job I had at Swarthmore had run out, and the job market had tightened and I was in danger of being SOOL, with a wife and two young kids. So I wrote a letter describing my proposed teaching program and sent it to 52 colleges and universities around the country. I got two nibbles and one bite. Whew. After I got the job at Clark, I sent the proposal to the AP as a “letter to the editor”.

I think it also explains why we both believe so fervently in FRIAM. I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

I have been trying to tell my students for decades that multi-disciplinary teams are essential and that the lack of them is what significantly harms software development. Multi-specialization teams, e.g. analysts, programmers, testers, etc. are not multi-disciplinary.

In the world of software, you can find this notion in the writings of Constantine and Lockwood, 70s and 80s, Naur, 80s, Kay 90s, Beck 2000, and more.

Moreover, to be an effective part of such teams each individual on the team needs to be a "polymath." The business press and the design community have been writing about this for decades. The design community actually does it, but business is more lip service than actuality.

Buzzwords used: "T-shaped" individuals (breadth and depth), followed by "pi-shaped" (two depth, one breadth), followed by "broken comb" (multiple depths to various degrees with thick integrated breadth), followed by "modern polymath." The whole "learning organization" fad of the 1990s is also grounded in similar ideas.

Acquiring this breadth and depth of knowledge via the current educational system - semesters/quarters, N-credit courses, etc. is effectively impossible. Not to mention the disdain that every discipline has for every other discipline, such that if you really do get a degree that is inter- or multi-disciplinary, you are pretty much guaranteed you will never get a professor's job in any of the component disciplines, despite most universities erecting a liberal arts facade.

davew

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: career choices as combinatoric search

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick

Attached is a paper about a "very special computer science program." There is a story behind the multiplicity of authors: I wrote the paper and during a two-day workshop we collectively edited it to a final form and I thought their contributions merited co-authorship.

This is what I was doing at Highlands until dear Manny Aragon interfered.

davew

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, at 6:21 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Hi, Dave,

AT LAST! SOMETHING WE AGREE ABOUT!

I think you will read with pleasure the attached Letter to the American Psychologist written in 1969 but not published until a few years later. The back story was that the temporary job I had at Swarthmore had run out, and the job market had tightened and I was in danger of being SOOL, with a wife and two young kids. So I wrote a letter describing my proposed teaching program and sent it to 52 colleges and universities around the country. I got two nibbles and one bite. Whew. After I got the job at Clark, I sent the proposal to the AP as a “letter to the editor”.

I think it also explains why we both believe so fervently in FRIAM. I wonder if the same kind of argument could be made for a very special sort of computer science program.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] career choices as combinatoric search

I have been trying to tell my students for decades that multi-disciplinary teams are essential and that the lack of them is what significantly harms software development. Multi-specialization teams, e.g. analysts, programmers, testers, etc. are not multi-disciplinary.

In the world of software, you can find this notion in the writings of Constantine and Lockwood, 70s and 80s, Naur, 80s, Kay 90s, Beck 2000, and more.

Moreover, to be an effective part of such teams each individual on the team needs to be a "polymath." The business press and the design community have been writing about this for decades. The design community actually does it, but business is more lip service than actuality.

Buzzwords used: "T-shaped" individuals (breadth and depth), followed by "pi-shaped" (two depth, one breadth), followed by "broken comb" (multiple depths to various degrees with thick integrated breadth), followed by "modern polymath." The whole "learning organization" fad of the 1990s is also grounded in similar ideas.

Acquiring this breadth and depth of knowledge via the current educational system - semesters/quarters, N-credit courses, etc. is effectively impossible. Not to mention the disdain that every discipline has for every other discipline, such that if you really do get a degree that is inter- or multi-disciplinary, you are pretty much guaranteed you will never get a professor's job in any of the component disciplines, despite most universities erecting a liberal arts facade.

davew

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
So, as if it weren't already hard enough to figure out what to learn to do, where to do the learning, and where to go to practice it, here comes the need to maximize your value according to the abilities of your potential co-workers.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax3370

via hackernews

-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Attachments:
Pyschobiology as a form of general education.pdf

RoadLess.pdf (685K) Download Attachment