False diagnose.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| claus Dec 31, 2007 3:54 AM EDT |
There's an old joke. How many psychologists does it need to change a light-bulb? Just one! If the light-bulb is willing to be changed. So, I think your analysis is not quite right. Indeed, nobody is ever too old to old learn something new. But one needs to be motivated to do so. They didn't erect a barrier to learn something new, they just erected a barrier to ignore what's not interesting to them. Can we blame them? Life's too short to process every piece of information we could process. All your examples show that you just tried to teach stuff that's not interesting to them. It has no benefit for them, just for others: * Why bother about plain text emails if HTML emails work for them? * Why bother with copy'n'paste if retyping works for them? * Why delete stuff from email, that doesn't bother them but just other readers? * Why bother about a BCC line when dumping their address books work? Even the example of the bank president shows how smart people can get when there's something that really motivates them. After all, it takes some thinking to get around the security measures of the office manager I assume. Billions of years of male evolution made males motivated to care about sex. They are descendants of males who were just a little bit more interested in sex (and more successful in getting it). Obviously, that results in quite strong motivation to be interested in sex. False diagnoses like yours are very common among the Linux (and geek) crowds. While their conclusions -- the others are to be blamed, not the approach -- are similar, they're also false. A simple counter example: When trying to teach people what Google is all about, many pick high-brow topics like "pollution" or "politics". Better show them first to search for their own name -- people are almost always interested in themselves. You'd be amazed about the ''oohs' and 'aahs' you'll get. The problem is not the people. The problem is your geek approach to teaching and advocating. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 31, 2007 4:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:* Why bother about plain text emails if HTML emails work for them? * Why bother with copy'n'paste if retyping works for them? * Why delete stuff from email, that doesn't bother them but just other readers? * Why bother about a BCC line when dumping their address books work? Because it bothers other people. If you bump into someone in a bar, you apologize. If you want to change lanes on the freeway, you signal. If the trafficlight turns red, you stop. In a restaurant, you don't smoke when other people are still eating. When dealing with computers, it's called "netiquette". Not adhering to it is like saying "my time is more valuable than all your time combined". It's not. Ever. When you start riding a bicycle you have to learn the traffic rules. When you start driving a car you need to get a driver's license. You are not allowed to operate heavy machinery without proper training. You're not allowed to practice medicine without a license. I see no problem about requiring users to learn basic computing tasks and netiquette before they can operate a computer. I have no problem that someone does whatever they feel like if they're offline, but as soon as you go online you get to deal with other people so you should know a few basic skills to avoid bothering other people too much. |
| nikkels Dec 31, 2007 4:41 AM EDT |
Carla...you are right Claus....your mentality sucks . |
| claus Dec 31, 2007 6:22 AM EDT |
@nikkels: This has nothing to do with mentality; it's about recognizing the restrictions of the human nature. Maybe the answer to Sander_Marechal will make this more clear. @Sander_Marechal: I agree to many of your points. All your examples are correct. However, you should keep in mind that things bothering you doesn't necessarily bothers everyone else. That just another common fallacy: Assuming your subjective and personal preferences hold for everyone else. In your examples, there's sufficient reason to believe in the universal validity of certain agreements. Clearly, you want everybody else to signal before they change lanes. This enables you to react properly and probably prevents accidents that may cost yours and other peoples lives. So, you do it, too. Similar things can be said about all your other examples. But what makes you think that you personal preferences about certain habits in computer usage are common to all people? Let's go through the aforementioned examples: * People who sent HTML e-mails usually don't bother when getting HTML e-mails. * People who don't delete stuff from e-mails usually don't mind getting e-mails without deleted stuff. * People who dump their address books usually don't mind getting e-mails with address books dumped in the address field. * People who prefer to retype things usually don't bother anybody else, except themselves, maybe. You are complaining because people ignore your personal preference to deal with computer things in a certain way. That's understandable. But unless you are able to provide any evidence that your way of dealing with this stuff is indeed the only useful way, it's invalid. For example, many users of Outlook seem to prefer to have text not deleted because of the lack of proper threading in Outlook. So, if you delete parts of the e-mail, you may bother them. You're just expecting other people to waste some time of their lives to do it your way. Additionally, you're pretending that this is the ethical thing to do. This is a cheap argument. Also, it can be turned around as the example shows. Why are you bothering other people by not adhering to their personal preferences and "standards"? But overall, your argument (and nikkels' remark) is just a red herring: It intends to lead away from the main point. My point is that if you want people to change their habits, you should provide good reasons and motivations for them to do so. Pointing to your personal preferences -- and saying "Me and all the other geeks want it so!" -- is not a proper reason! Additionally, making the conclusion that these people are all ignorant fools is just false, and says much about who is really ignorant about certain things. |
| randyennis Dec 31, 2007 7:17 AM EDT |
claus: Seems to me that her point is not wasting time protecting people from themselves. I'd have to agree -- if people ask you for help and then don't listen, stop helping. Cut them loose. If they come back crying for help again, do the hardest thing most of us find to do: say "No". Be polite -- you can even explain why you're refusing (although this will often cause replies of "But this time will be different.."). Being about ready to turn 52 myself, I can empathize with Carla's feelings. I have far too many pursuits I'm willing to pour myself into to waste time on people who just can't (or more likely, won't) be bothered. I also have some people who are really interested in learning new things -- and helping them just helps myself. That's just a much better use of what time I have left. |
| r_a_trip Dec 31, 2007 7:33 AM EDT |
Me and all the other geeks want it so!" -- is not a proper reason! No, it becomes a proper reason if being a moron on the computer is followed by the refusal of the geek to waste time on you. Truth is that the people Carla described so very accurately, vex the hell out of geeks and we geeks all know they are utterly lost, if we don't help them. Out of courtesy, at least they can learn to do some simple stuff. When you are payed to do stuff like that, the paycheck is often consolation enough. If one wastes effort on their own unpaid time on this, it becomes very tiresome, very quickly. If you can't be bothered to operate a computer properly, don't expect others to become your personal IT slave to compensate for your own lack of skills. Then their is this: * Why bother about plain text emails if HTML emails work for them? Because sending garbled messages to people who can't read them easily wastes serious money in business. * Why bother with copy'n'paste if retyping works for them? Because retyping wastes unnecessary time and money. Bosses don't pay for incompetence. * Why delete stuff from email, that doesn't bother them but just other readers? Again, endless pages of duplicate text wastes time and money. * Why bother about a BCC line when dumping their address books work? Thank you for dumping my e-mail address around and increasing my chances of getting unwanted spam and malware. I'll think kindly of your stupidity when I have to clean up after the mess you caused. |
| gus3 Dec 31, 2007 8:24 AM EDT |
I am with Carla 100%. From personal experience: I once agreed to try to fix the USB scanner belonging to someone my best friend knew. I'll never make that mistake again. Once she had me there without him, she started harnaguing about him, to me, making several criminal accusations. At the end of the day, I took half-payment and terminated the agreement. I told her why, told her that she was setting herself up for criminal prosecution, and told her that if she ever called me (I had foolishly given her my phone number) I would file a harassment complaint with the police department, detailing what she had subjected me to. She had the nerve to be offended, of course. Her own brainlessness became obvious when, about an hour later, my best friend called wanting to know what was going on. That's right. She had called HIM to complain about ME! After I told him how she had behaved, he said, "No wonder she was so mad. You actually used logic with her." Never again will I freelance like that. |
| claus Dec 31, 2007 9:15 AM EDT |
@randyennis: I didn't question her decision to stop wasting her time on trying to teach everybody. That's absolutely OK. I have a candidate to such a decision myself, but keep on being helpful because (1) it's a family sort of thing, and (2) the guy is about 20 years older than you! You may like to think about his perspective and his willingness to learn stuff that's not important to him. While her decision is understandable, I do question her conclusion that people (in general) don't want to learn something new. Especially among Linux geeks this seems to have become a sort of prejudice, I believe. But maybe, she just failed to educate herself about better ways of teaching and advocating? Generating fancy presentations might be not sufficient. Just like understanding computers helps you to be more effective using them, understanding human nature makes you more effective teaching and advocating to humans. It's quite ironic that people here argue for the former while at the same time argue against the later. @r_t_trip: Who said that people expect geeks to become their personal IT slaves? I certainly didn't. If you don't want to provide free support, don't do it. Or get paid for doing it. However, calling everybody idiots just because there are some very clueless ones still isn't right. Especially, if you fail to motivate about the subject at hand by not providing proper reasons. |
| mwtomlinson Dec 31, 2007 9:24 AM EDT |
Carla, You are so right. Also, while I've been a fan of your stuff for some time (I quit reading Linux Journal), you have just cemented it by: (a) admitting to being 50 years old (I turn 54 in 10 days) (b) quoting Robert A. Heinlein Keep up the great work - and Happy New Year, everybody! Mark |
| tuxchick Dec 31, 2007 9:24 AM EDT |
Claus, you misunderstood the entire article if you think I'm calling all people idiots who don't want to learn, or have this burning desire to teach everyone whether they want it or not. You also totally missed the point about collateral damage, or worse, don't think it matters. |
| azerthoth Dec 31, 2007 9:40 AM EDT |
Good points all around, and I truly sympathize with Carla on this. Being one of those who will kill free time that isn't being chewed up by kids, honey-do's, or WoW by doing IRC support. I have run the gamut with users who truly wish to learn but lack even the framework to know how or what questions to ask (the best kind btw) to the "I know everything there is to know about everything else so just help me with my question". There comes a time when the helper has to step back and realize "This person would have problems using a toothpick" and move on to someone else. There really isn't a way to tell someone that you have met more intelligent soggy sawdust politely, the only thing is to remind them you are a volunteer and that their problem may well be beyond your skills. Let them think its technical rather than psychological. "Just say no" |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 31, 2007 1:15 PM EDT |
As much tech support I've done since starting corporate desktop and network help, "help desk", assembling PCs to order, then delivering and setting up for people, ugh! One thing I've learned, some people should not have computers. But one step above that point are two types: Those who require explicit instructions, and those who won't listen to explicit instructions (because they already know everything about computers). It takes very little time before someone will be advised to use plain text and BCC, but those who refuse are lost. They just won't, because they know better than you do, nya! The only ones they will listen to are the ones that _they_ acknowledge as superior, usually only their secretary or boss. I've had people object to the point of abject hostility that I dare to do a "reply to all" to a vast list of people in which I was one in the "To:" line, and when I tell them to use BCC if they don't want that sort of thing to happen, they blame it all on me. Sure enough, the next email I get from them has some dozen or hundred people in the To line again. Here's my personal advice: Find a polite way to tell people what Netiquette is, then forget them. If they don't listen the first time, they won't listen the second. Don't bother trying to teach a frog to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the frog. |
| tracyanne Dec 31, 2007 1:33 PM EDT |
I think you all missed Claus's point. The fact is most people are self centred. You don't/can't teach them anything if it means they are asked to consider other people. You can, on the other hand, get them to bother about plain text emails bother with copy'n'paste i bother to delete stuff from email bother about a BCC line if they think THEY will get something out of it. On the other hand they aren't interested if it's merely (in their mind) to benefit someone else, even if they are reaping the benefits of someone else doing it. That's why when teaching people to Google, you find out what their interests are, and get them to Google those things, that's why searching for their name is so effective, and impresses them the most. Quoting:Don't bother trying to teach a frog to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the frog. Actually it's "Don't bother trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig." and it was Robert Heinlein to whom it is attributed. |
| a_hippie_2 Dec 31, 2007 8:10 PM EDT |
odd, my post came up empty. Shrug, will it was saved so here it is again: gone again. is there something broken on lx'er? Firefox and konq both fail to post my comment. . . |
| tuxchick Jan 01, 2008 5:36 AM EDT |
No tracyanne, you missed the point, which was that Claus missed the point. I think you're both reading some other article. |
| NoDough Jan 01, 2008 11:16 AM EDT |
a_hippie_2: Your posts are parsed. If there is a less-than sign without a matching greater-than sign, the contents are discarded. Not sure what happens if there is a matching sign, but no valid tag. But my experiment in this post suggests they are discarded as well. |
| tracyanne Jan 01, 2008 12:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:No tracyanne, you missed the point, which was that Claus missed the point. I think you're both reading some other article. If you say so. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 02, 2008 3:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:* People who sent HTML e-mails usually don't bother when getting HTML e-mails. * People who don't delete stuff from e-mails usually don't mind getting e-mails without deleted stuff. * People who dump their address books usually don't mind getting e-mails with address books dumped in the address field. You're missing the point. They send *me* email. They are bothering *me* and wasting *my* time. By not following netiquette they are saying that their time is more valuable than my time and I find that offensive. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 02, 2008 3:44 AM EDT |
> By not following netiquette they are saying that their time is more valuable than my time and I find that offensive. Indeed, I couldn't agree more. So once they demonstrate they can not or will not be taught differently, don't waste more of your time. |
| thenixedreport Jan 11, 2008 10:27 PM EDT |
Hmm.... Frustration is quite understandable. The same approach to teaching people won't work on everybody. Not everybody's going to be wowed by a nice cool graphical slide show with wizbang animations and sound effects explaining how certain features of an e-mail client help the user be more productive. In a sense, claus and Carla both have things correct. The user must be motivated to learn. A lot of users out there have this phobia that computers are monstrous, magical boxes that are all knowing. These users feel truly stupid for the first time in their life, and deep down, they hate it with a passion. That's why Justin Breithaupt, who also runs a computer business in Pomeroy, Washington has been talking to these same types of users to find out what works and what doesn't for them concerning an interface. I am doing my own research so that one day, users will find a reason to walk away from Big Bad Redmond. |
| jezuch Jan 12, 2008 4:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:A lot of users out there have this phobia that computers are monstrous, magical boxes that are all knowing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out Always alive... |
| thenixedreport Jan 13, 2008 12:15 AM EDT |
Bingo. Computers can do amazing things, but are as dumb as a brick and will only do exactly what they are told to do. ;) |
| gus3 Jan 13, 2008 2:14 AM EDT |
I really hate this stupid thing, I wish that they would sell it. It never does just what I want, But only what I tell it. |
| tuxchick Jan 13, 2008 11:15 AM EDT |
The point of my rant was not that I have this insane pathological need to make people use computers in the way that I think is best. I don't know how anyone could get that from the article; some of you make it sound like I'm pouncing on random computer users and demanding that they repent and reform. It's when people ask for my help- whether they actually pay me money, or whether I let myself be suckered into helping friends or family for free- and exert heroic efforts to avoid actually learning anything, that's what I get cheesed at. Thank you to the many lxerers who do get this. I do not care in the slightest about folks who aren't interested; it's the ones who say "help me learn this" and then refuse to exert the slightest effort to learn that are wastes of time. Some people simply should not ever go near a PC. Just like some folks should not be allowed to drive, or to handle sharp knives, or power tools, or many of the everyday things we take for granted. Not because they're incapable of learning a basic competence, but because somewhere in their lives they decided to be afraid of ever learning anything new, and refuse to even try. It's a sad thing to be in such a state, but I've chosen to not waste my time with such people. |
| thenixedreport Jan 13, 2008 9:53 PM EDT |
I never said that you had an insane pathological need to make people use computers in the way you thought was best nor did I state that you were pouncing on random users. I figured it was people who did not want to learn in the first place. Whether it was fear or it was disinterest altogether, there is usually a reason behind someone not wanting to learn. Lots of people over-complicate matters and therefore can not seem to learn fast enough. "somewhere in their lives they decided to be afraid of ever learning anything new, and refuse to even try. It's a sad thing to be in such a state, but I've chosen to not waste my time with such people." Understandable. However, you might want to watch the movie Idiocracy and then re-assess what you just said. Maybe the teaching style doesn't match the style of learning. There needs to be more teachers with different styles in that case. However, I guarantee that most who don't understand "clicking a mouse" and other forms of terminology are afraid of learning, because they think it takes a wizard to run those things, when that is not the case at all. Again, people do not like feeling stupid and more than likely feel really bad for not being "smart enough." Then again, I can be completely full of bat poop. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!