You will tend to over-apply these 3 concepts in seeing things through a statistics lens. You cannot "see" artistically through statistics, because you didn't internalize enough of the science. Instead of art-and-science-of-X, you're stuck at partial-science-of-X.
-
Show this thread
-
The error of assuming any STEMmie will magically know everything about any technical topic (trope of the Hollywood uber-geek) is the other side of it: projecting your own incompleteness of science-of-X into unreasonable mastery perceptions. That's not what STEM training does
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
STEM training is anxiety inoculation. An engineer too may only know 3 of the required dozen core concepts to grok a problem. The diff is, they typically won't obsessively grip what they know in order to think. They stay with fuzzy views rather than trusting distorted ones.
1 reply 1 retweet 26 likesShow this thread -
Most engineers I know are not intimidated by *any* technical area except for the ones that require truly esoteric math. But this does not mean they must suffer from either false confidence or fearful anchoring on what they know.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
Instead, they have a sense of where they are incompetent, but don't identify with their incompetence. It's just an area where they haven't put in the time to get competent. This means, incompetence does not blind the artistic eye or get them into "partial science-of-X" stuckness.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Instead, good techies tend to have a meta-awareness of where they have, and have not, earned an "artistic eye" level of mastery, and pick their battles within those artistry zones (unless it's a learning project, in which case it's required to wander into partial-science zones)
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Personal note: I'm a mediocre techie at best, but I think I have a pretty strong sense of where I do and do not have a degree of "artistic" eye. Much of this is due to randomly reading through intro texts of a variety of other engineering disciplines while I was an undergrad.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
For example, though I was a mechanical engineering major, I read through Tannenbaum's OS text in 1993 to demystify operating systems. I read some other beginner text on semiconductor manufacturing. And a lot of steel metallurgy by virtue of being a steel-town kid. To what end?
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
I certainly didn't attain even partial science mastery, let alone artistic mastery in those subjects. But I did demystify the subjects for myself. 90% of my technical demystification education has been self-imposed. Anti-anxiety meds basically. Only a few tech areas scare me now.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Going deeper to artistry in a few narrow areas completed the meta-education. I can now look at 90% of tech subject areas/challenge, not have a panic attack, read a few primers/101 level things, enough to hold up an art+science conversation with people at mastery level
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread
Technology is a vast, fragmented and endlessly specialized landscape of human striving. There's basically no way for anyone to have mastery at anything beyond a narrow patch, and at most 1-2 abstraction levels up or down.
-
-
Our ENTIRE ability as a species to solve problems more complex than the artistic-mastery bandwidth of any one person rests on our ability to communicate past our little silo areas without constantly having anxiety attacks. The anxiety response management IS the uber-tech skill.
1 reply 2 retweets 24 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.