Slashdot Mirror
Beyond The Programmers' Stone
Alan G. Carter writes "Some transcripts of lectures to software engineers called The Programmers' Stone recently created some interest here on Slashdot, and I had a great many, very positive responses.
Since doing the Stone, I've been looking for a deeper theory that explains what is going in the "Mappers vs. Packers" divide. Because of the wonderful response to the Stone, I've created a new website,
Reciprocality, that describes the deeper work.
Some of the ideas are radical, but it answers an awful lot of questions. It's all concrete and testable, and the fact that it's also an extropian technomystical feeding frenzy just proves we were right all along :-)
"
2.Providing a better discussion/presentation of an old idea than previously existed.
To many programmers out there who have neither the time nor inclination to search out philosophical musings on different thought processes and realate them to their life, the ideas contained in The Programmer's Stone are very new to them.
The whole mapper/packer perspective may be a rehash of some philosophy that is common knowledge in philosophical or literary circles, but that is not the intended target of the writer, and why should you assume that? ("these writings are neither novel...") The Programmer's Stone is directed to a programmer: someone who would come along, see the title, and peek into it to see what it's about. It explains (yes, with flowerly language) things to that programmer in a method similar to how he/she may operate: Mapper Style. A Mapper reading the document will begin to take in the paper and relate it to his/her own network of information, as described in the Stone, and completeley understand the key elements of the paper.
The presentation may seem "not particularly well presented" because of the language, but this is a style reminiscent of William Gibson, who uses long and concise words and sentences to describe not only the thing he is talking about, but to give the reader a feel for the subject as well. This allows a Mapper to not only glean information out of the paper, but have "feelings" for extending the ideas presented out into other reigons of his/her map.
(There is a historical term for this style: either Romantic or Neoclassical, but I don't remember which one it is)
In My Humble Opinion, The Programmer's Stone (specifically) has presented it's ideas well to it's intended audience. I extremely enjoy it and pass it along to my other fellow programmers.
As for the other works, It is to be noted that they aren't really targeted to anyone and are actually spawned off because of the ideas presented in The Programmers Stone. It's the ideas about Mapping that spawned the other articles. Therefore, unless you are a Mapper in the field that is being described, the essays will probably seem like gibberish to you. There's no reference point on your map to link it in.
What the author has done is found out that one of his writings (The Programmer's Stone) was wildly popular and has commenced to publish the rest of his work to see if it garners the same attention. He is probably more a philosopher than a programmer, and wishes to share the rest of his thoughts to the world in hopes that they will enlighten and stimulate those who think in a manner similar to him.
I have a friend who is doing the same thing. I think it's a great idea. It's similar to posting source code to a algorithm. People can stop by and look at it, give their opinion, be inspired, write a new algorithm to do the job better or differently, comment on how crappy the routine is but not do anything about it, etc.
But the first step is reading it...by discounting wildly this man's writings as complete garbage, you are performing the role of a bad critic: Trying to drive away the audience because the writings do not meet all of your criterion for being "good" versus weighing the good with the bad.
Mr. Carter has constructed a theory of anthroplogy based about the premise that some large percentage of people are diseased. He has done this based on his observation of white-collar workers, primarily in technical fields.
Earlier in this century Katherine C. Briggs cast her net wider. She observed some of the same phenomena, but in a much bigger context. She came up with a different interpretation.
The sub-branch of psychology she founded has the following paradigm:
A certain sub-population can be characterized as particularly change- and risk- adverse, very traditionalist and conservative, very methodical and habitual - among other traits. Testing indicates these people comprise about one third of the US population. Testing in workplaces, the military, and college programs which specialize in business training indicates that this change-adverse population is disproportionately represented among executives and business people. Let's call these people group A.
A different sub-population (group B) can be characterized as particularly risk- and change- embracing; more dare-devil and capricious. They, too, account for about one third of the US population. This population has disproportionately high school drop-out rates, and a much lower tolerance of the routine of the office; they are less common in the white-collar world, and tend to work in "interupt-driven" jobs such as "business development".
Group C, the remaining third-to-a-quarter (depending on which study you use) is the lump which has several familiar factions in it. It is not characterized (as a whole) as being particularly change-adverse or change-embracing (though individual members maybe on either end of that scale.) Instead, they are characterized by a facility with (and reliance on) abstract thought, which the other two populations don't share. In is in this population that you find the Poets, the Activists, the Mystics - and the Scientists, Architects, and yes, Hackers.
One of the foundations of this paradigm is that all these trait-clusters (which define these populations) are equally "normal", healthful, viable and valid. They have pathologies, but they aren't themselves pathologies.
What it looks like, from the perspective of this paradigm, is that Mr. Carter generalized from the interactions of his Group C friends, students and collegues with a largely Group A -rich population, to wit, The Suits. And perceiving the very palpable difference between these kinds of people, he then made an presumption as old as humankind: If They are different from Us, either They or Us must be broken/wrong/bad/defective/sick/disordered.
It is these Suits, these (usually) Group A people, who are Packers. They are not Packers because they are defective or diseased. They are Packers because Packing is an amazingly useful and viable memetic strategy - ask Mr. Ford about his factories. I agree: Packing is an abysmal strategy for making software. But it is kick ass for making cars, running a farm, or, yes, packing boxes.
In fact, it's they very success of Packing that's at the root of this problem. All those Packers have had such success with it so far, they have trouble imagining it could fail them. They have a hammer, and have seen many nails; if they are skeptical about the concept of certain nail-like objects being "screws", that is only to be expected.
And give them some credit: If someone working for you insisted that the methodology which has worked for you your entire life was wrong, you'd probably be rather skeptical.
Packers live in a world in which Packing, by and large, works. Mappers, unfortunately, have to live in a society filled with Packers (the Group B, the swing vote, usually effectively supports Group A for reasons to complicated to go into here). So natural Mappers to learn to Pack. Since Packers can get through life without learning much to Map, they often slack off and don't bother.
Briggs wrote about the phenomenon of "Protective Coloration", whereby people of a minority type learn to behave in the way of a majority (or socially sanctioned) type. This is a major life stressor, and trying to keep up the charade generally makes one awfully miserable. This applies precisely to the problem of our native Mappers, people from Group C, who learned to put aside the strategy of Mapping for the more approved strategy of Packing.
It is this which causes the Ghost Not, and from there, the rest of Mr. Carter's theory can proceed.
But I must take issue with the presumption that someone has to be pathological. The problem is not that Packers are defective or diseased Mappers languishing for a cure. The problem is that Packers can impose Packing on software projects.
The solution in some combination of
People interested in learning more about this paradigm of psychology/anthropology should turn to:
and should ignore just about everything on the www about the MBTI.
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
It is accessible as of this time. It is very slow, however. The almost totally text page took about 3 minutes to download through my fast connection.
;)
Be patient, be early, and you too might see the page.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Is Reciprocality a word??
Nope. The word is 'reciprocity'. But it's still a cool page, and one that's found a permanent place in my bookmarks.
However, if I were to derive a definition, I'd take a look at the two parts of the word. "Recipro" would be to return that which was given. "Cality", would imply location, as in "locality".
Giving or returning a location? Sounds like a self-referencing pointer.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
So this is where the practical advantages of the French language shine through, with the College Francaise or whatever the French Language Police are called outside Quebec. That way, thee is One True Authority (tm) on the language. In English? We have that funny yankee spelling (color anyone?) and True English Spelling(tm)...but now i'm suffering tangentitis again (also a new word :))
Ignore this. I'm beyond help.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Or does it seem to others like Alan G. Carter is wandering through some new-age philosophical problem." Huh? People addicted to boredom? Ritual junkies picking on the 'immune'?
wasteland? For example 'M0' as a "...previously unsuspected public healthI would think an easier explanation (and better if you apply Occam's Razor) is that most people are either intellectually incapable or intellectually lazy. In other words, some people can learn to actually use their brains and enjoy novelty, but it requires work. Others are born with it and yet others are missing a crucial component. But the author is so in love with this concept of Ritual Junkies that he nearly bursts into song. For example the following passage makes more sense as free verse than it does in context:
"There is an Inner Not at the base of all thinking that ends up as an invisible and unremovable Ghost Not that makes the conclusions invalid. It is because of this generality that the effect is so mathematically elegant."
Then add in some of the other stuff the web site meanders through, like 'Hypertime' and 'Reciprocal Cosmology', and you realize this stuff is straight out of a ketamine dream. I prefer my physics straight, thank you...
I didn't really buy into Carter's 'Programmer's Stone' thing all that much anyway. After all it seemed kinda self-evident. No need to use funny phrases like 'Mappers' and 'Packers' when we already know that some people are capable of seeing the big picture and others cannot (unless they get some major training). Personally I think the Myers Briggs Type Indicator personality test is a better predictor of this ability than anything else. Basically, the people that Carter describes as 'Mappers' are 'NT' types (iNtuitive Thinking).
Jack (who is an INTP, aka 'The Architect')
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
This is a repost to see if I can get the correct HTML in. Note that I picked the stuff below up by using the browser back button...
Or does it seem to others like Alan G. Carter is wandering through some new-age philosophical wasteland? For example 'M0' as a "...previously unsuspected public health problem." Huh? People addicted to boredom? Ritual junkies picking on the 'immune'?
I would think an easier explanation (and better if you apply Occam's Razor) is that most people are either intellectually incapable or intellectually lazy. In other words, some people can learn to actually use their brains and enjoy novelty, but it requires work. Others are born with it and yet others are missing a crucial component. But the author is so in love with this concept of Ritual Junkies that he nearly bursts into song. For example the following passage makes more sense as free verse than it does in context:
"There is an Inner Not at the base of all thinking that ends up as an invisible and unremovable Ghost Not that makes the conclusions invalid. It is because of this generality that the effect is so mathematically elegant."
Then add in some of the other stuff the web site meanders through, like 'Hypertime' and 'Reciprocal Cosmology', and you realize this stuff is straight out of a ketamine dream. I prefer my physics straight, thank you...
I didn't really buy into Carter's 'Programmer's Stone' thing all that much anyway. After all it seemed kinda self-evident. No need to use funny phrases like 'Mappers' and 'Packers' when we already know that some people are capable of seeing the big picture and others cannot (unless they get some major training). Personally I think the Myers Briggs Type Indicator personality test is a better predictor of someones ability than anything else. Basically, the people that Carter describes as 'Mappers' are 'NT' types (iNtuitive Thinking).
Jack (who is an INTP)
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
His claim that all the great mystics valued rational thought is laughable. I can only wonder who is on his list of great mystics -- most of the classic mystics (Buddha, Lao Tse, and so on) denounced rationality when they bothered to mention it at all.
Some of his examples from art are rather amusing as well. He seems to have totally missed the point of Magritte's "This is not a pipe" -- the point is not that "it might be made of chocolate", but that it is, in the most literal sense, not a pipe, but merely a painting of one.
Despite all this, I may read more of Carter's work. Sometimes even the most glaringly wrong ideas can help you to think a bit more carefully about your own views.
I'm fond of the lunatic fringe. Any social theory that obviously springs from the mind of someone "not addicted to ritual thinking" (like, say, providing citations, or reading any of the foundational theorists) is bound to have some genuine gutbusters.
. html) makes me wonder about whether or not I'm still under warrantee.
First off, any theory which claims to "provid[e] an explicit, physical interpretation" of any of the Gnostic Gospels is a winner. Anything that make the Gospel of Thomas more comprehensible without the use of hallucinogenic drugs is a valuable resource in my intellectual toolkit. I will put that document in the toolkit, right next to the hallucinogenic drugs.
Secondly, any theory that discusses a social structure using terms generally applied to operating systems (http://www.melloworld.com/Reciprocality/r1/index
"Hi, thanks for calling the Western Culture Manufacturing Corporation Technical Support Line, my name is Marcel, how may I help you today?"
"Uhh, I downloaded the Irony Service Pack, and I was trying to install, but I got this error... it was, like, explorer.exe caused an invalid meme fault in humor.dll..."
"Okay, run Scandisk and delete all your temorary friends, then restart your life. That should work fine."
[hold music]
I'm usually pretty skeptical about theories that declare the theorists as "immune" or "above" a pathology or unsavory trait present in all those not approved of by the theorist. But nothing beats being told that, since I'm a singularly unimaginative coder, I'm addicted to boredom, and I don't even know it! And here I was, thinking that The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Captialism explained the spread of european industrial culture across the face of the earth, when in fact, all those poor "natives" were simply addicted to their own unhealthy thought processes!
Maybe we should be posting URLs to alt.humor.best-of-slashdot. This is just great!
Oh, by the way, you don't come with any warranty, not even an implied one of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE...
--
Xenu loves you!
- Communicating an idea which is new to your audience
- Providing a better discussion/presentation of an old idea than previously existed.
IMHO, these writings are neither novel nor particularly well presented. The author seems to be caught up in the concept of his own genius that he comes across as a virtual Polonius: arrogant to the point of idiocy, speaking in flowery language, accomplishing nothing.Sorry -- I can't let this pass.
;-)
Godel's proof is about undecidability. If a formal system has enough expressive power, there will be statments whose truth in that formal system cannot be assertained in that system. It most assuredly does not require complete formal systems to contain contradictions.
Godels proof, Turing's incompleteness theorem (aka the halting problem), and the Church-Rossier (sp?) theorem are all equivalent statements of that idea. It places limits on computation, and prevents us from ever having a perfectly constructed and provabily correct mathematical logic (some uncertainty will always remain), but we can be free of contradiction -- thank God. With a single contradiction, you can prove anything.
Having said this -- I agree that Carter has wandered a long way from a solid theory. At least the Mapper/Packer distinction could be tested (and I am astisfied that it is a real phenomon).
Perhaps our feedback will assist in the refinement of the ideas into real theories that work to Godel's limits. Perhaps not
It's difficult to fathom that we have this great communications medium that allows us to publish our ideas in written language and distribute them instantly to a world-wide audience, yet people seem to have forgotten what the word research means. Here's a clue, it's not just sitting around, thinking up "a radically altered view of the nature of time, space, consciousness, causality, life, the universe and everything", at least, not without a lot of supporting material to back up this "radically altered view".
Every advance that improves communication seems to lead to a decrease in the average content of our messages.
Someday soon, I expect we'll all have our minds linked in one great matrix and we'll be sending out grunts and squawks.