The Great Man theory of social progress or art or anything is inherently colonialist and supports kyrarchy. It's a persistent idea in western culture and apparently nothing in a typical CS education ever challenges this. Computers are either invented by a series of great men or they exist in some sort of end-of-history eternal present. RMS is a great man. Therefore any toxicity in his actions is overlookable and toxicity in his defenders is at worst just over exuberance or at best necessary and therefore good.
I'm picking on CS here, but its hardly unique. I've been teaching a course this year that specifically invokes this model of history in the official design documents.
I sometimes feel that education specialises too soon. Being Scottish we could have up to 7 different subjects per year that got us our highers, 1 year courses. If we wanted to progress further (in theory to catch up to A levels) we had a 6th year studies cert. It meant we could study a breadth of subjects. You could study history, a science, language, and mix and match others. Whereas I gather in England and Wales at the time due to the 2 year lengths you could only study a couple.
I've rambled a bit, apologies, I do wonder if more of us got to study in a system that covered more than maths, computing à d covered history, and the "softer" subjects if we would have more critical thinking in how to judge these situations. Look at the big pictures of not just achievements but how actions ripple out and stifle community. I don't think alot of folks have to think about these dynamics often and it shows. It's actually easier for them to feel its a Corp conspiracy.
Than people who left the FSF and ended up in adjacent roles. They have no sympathy for those of us who sadly have had similar abusive situations (in workplace behaviour) and know a toxic environment when they see one. It's not a bandwagon, it's one of those situations where you know the moment you signed you knew it was going to hurt some people you know but doing nothing will hurt alot more people and stifle growth.
But those who support RMS, I think there's a huge mental investment In the movement and their own identity. So at the moment I don't think it's possible for them to see it as people asking for the FSF not to enable RMS to use the power he has over other people being on the board of the FSF. They see it as us wanting to get rid of the old man in a form of damato memoraie. Which it's not,
I'm just saying that after years of people trying to get him to adjust his behaviour to his staff, the people he has stayed with, and his less than respectful approach to women, he has shown he is unwilling to change. Unlike Linus who took a break and worked to change. We want leaders who can change with the times and think about the needs of the world.
To have solidarity with things like the right to repair. Not worry about BIOS. Yes it's a concern, but microfocus on specifics while the world changes for the worse. Imagine a world where people hadn't had to work around RMS. We can't really, but we can acknowledge his work, but also we can choose not to work with RMS. The movement is split at the moment and RMS and FSF widened the split further. We are weakened.
Perhaps we will come together again, but it will be a while, folks are feeling betrayed on both sides. Which is another reason why I really was annoyed by the announcement. They knew if was divisive, they just wanted RMS back up front again. This isn't an organisation that should be running an advocacy organisation. You can be steadfast in your beliefs. But sometimes you catch flies with honey, you don't build communities with agression.
Or if you do, they are toxic to outsiders and will eventually be left behind. I'm all for stating truth. But RMS isn't doing that, it's his way or the highway. Those of us who grew up learning to compromise are tired of compromising on this. So here we are.
@onepict Given how everything becomes more technical and complex, phenomenon of early specialisation is quite natural. One must understand the existing to dig deeper into the unknown.
Indeed, but at the same time it means that there's no bridge of understanding to other subjects, which is why you get situations like experts feeling because they are experts in a field it won't take long for them to instantly grok other fields. We need some middle level folks to bridge between fields.
@onepict fediverse seems to be filled with such pops 🫂
Yeah, I assure you they are elsewhere here on Mastodon is a reflection of the real world same as any other community. It's human nature particularly with specialists. I tend towards generalism myself.
I dunno if I agree with this, all problems are not solvable by increasing specialization. I meam, many are, its obviously effective but if everyone is trained to see the world through the lens of breaking the unknown down into tinier and tinier pieces it is going to create major blindspots.
This kind of approach rarely understands "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" phenomena since people only think about the parts.
@Alonealastalovedalongthe There is no one solution to anything. It just happens right now the society need specialists and so the "education" do its best to produce them. It surely comes with a cost of increased ignorance and missing out the big picture for many people; but it's not obvious to me how it could be otherwise. @onepict
"it's not obvious to me how it could be otherwise."
Of course it isn't obvious, we were raised with those same blindspots!
Neoliberal, late-stage capitalist societies for the most part only reward extreme specialization of experts as more wholistic understandings would threaten the dominance of these unequal hierarchies.
Exhibit A: social issues like racism, inequality, environmentalism, indigenous & lgtbq people's rights when understood as unconnected become unsolvable
Exhibit B: the massive amount of wasted brainpower poured into programming unethical and pointless software and the seeming lack of awareness of some incredibly intelligent programmers as to basic aspects of the ethics of their work. I.E. all the programmers who could run circles around me in many mental aspects but somehow believe an algorithm can be magically unbiased because a computer is running it.
That one in particular, there's also the danger of only seeing an issue to be fixed. When it's your job to encode and solve the problem there's a danger of not thinking about is this actually a problem that should be being solved? Or even is programming or designing a tech solution the best way for solving that issue.
It is basically commonly accepted knowledge that US culture values individualism to a destructive point, but we mostly think about it from an ego perspective, from the perspective of relations between people.
However, the insidiousness of this unhealthy individualism is far more fundamental to how US culture experiences reality.
Those with power in US society atomize systematic processes into unrelated individual instances ALL of the time to create paralysis and confusion.
Just as darwin's theories of evolution were warped and weaponized into weapons of race and class warfare, so is the scientific pursuit of breaking down the universe into smaller and smaller particles in order to understand it weaponized to create intellectual confusion.
When a white man commits a mass shooting the status quo atomizes it. Its about one man and his mental health period.
The denial of climate change itself is atomic, the connection between seemingly different phenomena is entirely denied.
The process of monoculture is an atomization of ecosystems and agriculture, the concepts of interrelated systems of plants and animals is entirely invisible to big agriculture companies. Agriculture = pick the best plant, grow it.
US education does not prepare people to think critically about this, indeed to many these processes are basically invisible even when they are blatantly done.
(Sorry to be US centric, I think these issues apply elsewhere its just I am from the US so I only want to talk about what I know)
TBH I only know the Scottish system from my past and it's changed its was a bit better from a generalist point of view. I can't comment on England and Wales. I can say that in terms of history taught it was woeful and from a colonialist point of view emphasis on things like Churchill etc. So we have to acknowledge Education is a tool to forward a political point of view on the masses.
The English system is too specialised, IMO and we try to make up for it by covering critical theory, philosophy, etc in music classes, for example.
The US has a type of degree-granting institution called a liberal arts college. These are generally small and private, so the fees charged vary by college. Private and public student financial aid is available to people at them. These colleges have majors but a lot of classes are outside the major. So I actually took a philosophy class, in ethics, taught by a philosophy professor.
I can and do talk about ethics in the music classes i teach, but I cannot offer a systemic exploration of historical and contemporary approaches to ethics.
All but the poshest liberal arts colleges are in trouble. Silicon valley billionaires understand that over specialism is the key to their power.
The large university near me also offered a place on a electrical engineering/computer science course. I would have taken probably the same number of programming classes, but zero English classes. I feel like that should be the exception rather than the norm.
since mid 2000s there have been attempts to make University less specialised here in England (the University of Suffolk has tried this) but we are still stuck with the wider social problem that employers consider liberal arts subjects to be "soft options" and that has been an issue even 35 years ago when I was a teenager and hasn't changed much (the "boom" in the UK "creative industries" is illusory as stats count the IT industry in this) >
by those figures I have worked in the "creative industries" for 20 years (reality is I got laid off from a paid broadcast engineering job in 2001, since then I've worked in the Civil Service and subsequently in finance management and tech for healthcare - I did do /some/ design/creative work (mostly design of documents/forms) but it was never a core part of my job and even broadcast engineering is just like normal tech support work...
@Alonealastalovedalongthe @joyager @onepict I find this discussion important and interesting (good combo) but I'm having a hard time squaring it with my experience. My wife's South African degree was not accredited by US authorities because it did not meet the "humanities" requirement -- in other words, her civil engineering degree had too much engineering in it. In her classes, social consequences were integrated into technical courses, but that apparently wasn't enough for ABET standards.
@Alonealastalovedalongthe @joyager @onepict In short I'm wondering if maybe this is something that greatly varies within the US between accrediting bodies; I know my US scientific degree only required one semester of "scientific ethics" in contrast to the specific course requirements of the engineering programs.
there is so much I nominally 'learned' in my formal education that really only sunk in after I had more experience of, and out in, the world beyond the classroom
and that's acknowledging the experiences I did have that others may not have
access to formal education as a universal, lifelong opportunity, rather than as a Veblen good marketed chiefly to the young and perforce usually naive: we could do *much* better with that
@deejoe @joyager @Alonealastalovedalongthe @onepict I'm a mature student. I find the networking opportunities valuable, but the course itself? I have learned very little so far. I hope I can learn something at some point, but a lot of it is stuff I didn't know at 18 but do know at 35, and I feel like I'm wasting my time.
Even some lecturers have said "you would probably be wasting your time turning up to this session on How To Work In A Group" or whatever to me
I think with uni, it's more a case of proving you can work towards a goal and in theory you have learned skills to enable you to work somewhere. Work with people, code, write reports etc. But it's the start, learning doesn't stop with uni. The trick is to broaden your education so that you can intelligently bring your specialisation to bear. Which means identifying the pros and cons beyond your spec. We aren't taught that aspect in education in CS
@deejoe @joyager @Alonealastalovedalongthe
a great example of an opportunity to do better
for instance, you'd be a great contributor to discussion on that topic, I expect.
Ideally, then, you wouldn't be shunted aside from a "material delivery" episode, but invited to review and re-evaluate the material in light of those experiences.
or, at least, be given credit for your experiences and allowed to skip lower-level intro courses?
@deejoe @joyager @Alonealastalovedalongthe @onepict I'm largely invisible - there are an awful lot of generalisations used by lecturers that don't apply to me ("none of you will remember this thing that happened in 2002 but...")
As a mature, working-class, transgender student, statistically I don't exist and I feel like I spend more time saying "hey! I'm here!" than I do learning about urban planning, and I find myself getting more out of non-uni planning events than the course
how large are the lectures?
as much as I love to blather on, lecture-style, at my own students, I have to concede that the centuries-old general lecture format meant to be passively consumed in real time has a rapidly shrinking niche of applicability.
like any live performance, done well, they can be satisfying. But a reliable staple, with our needs and aspirations and opportunities? Not so much.
@deejoe @joyager @Alonealastalovedalongthe @onepict I got a bollocking the other day for watching someone's pre-recorded lectures on a Sunday afternoon when there's not much going on, rather than in the "timetabled slot" on a Friday
When I queried this, I got the "you're a full time student and should be available full time" schtick that tutors have been using since the days of the student grant
It's classist BS that takes no consideration of personal circumstances
Wow, I just realised i don't even know if I have any mature students this term. Everyone who shows up synchronously leaves their camera off. Normally, I would just look out over the class.
My uni's policy is to mark people absent if they only watch later. My policy is that they can sign in. This legally doesn't impact British or Irish students, but everyone else has their student visa imperiled.
@celesteh These are entirely pre-recorded lectures, they are published one week and then there's a live Q&A/discussion the following week - I just watch them on Sundays instead of Friday afternoons when I'm "supposed to"
I haven't missed any content, and I haven't missed any live sessions, I think the lecturer just wanted to take their bad day out on someone
This attitude also fits in directly with mindsets of Desi/East Asian parents in Britain (who already have a reputation for being "pushy" though to an extent its a genuine attempt to help offspring fight institutionalised racism), the psychological effect of this is exactly how we end up with politicians like Rishi Sunak and Priti Patel (TBH had it not been for the 90s party scene I could have gone down same Tory supporting route myself)
I'm sorry, I got a bit wordspill there. I obviously need more coffee. TLDR I agree totally with you and more of us need to look at history and the patterns of behaviour you can point at being similar. Also FSF is failing us all at the moment.
We are a Mastodon instance for LGBT+ and allies! ☺