The rest of the world and geeks
Fred
puissante at lrc.puissante.com
Fri Jan 27 01:46:00 EST 2006
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 10:11, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
...
> <weenie>
> Pragmatically, I somewhat agree, but have to disagree in principle. One
> of the most enlightening experiences I've ever had was jury duty: 13 of us
> (including an alternate) sat through days of the most mind-numbing
> testimony regarding real estate that I've ever heard -- or ever want to
> hear. And yet these non-geek folks with whom I sat remembered the arcana,
> the judge's instructions, and the testimony at least as well -- if not
> better -- than I did. I have to say, it affirmed my belief in the jury
> system, and put lie to the joke about being judged by people not smart
> enough to get out of jury duty.
I'm not sure your experience is representative of the usual fare in juries.
On a past lawsuit my lawyer and I were engaged in, he made it quite clear
that he was concerned about the quality of the jurors we might get.
And many innocent persons in this country were convicted wrongly by juries,
and some even received the death sentence.
I hope I am never in the case where my life and limb has to depend on the
outcome of what a jury thinks. Not a chance I would want to take.
> However, the average Joe -- when not on jury duty, at least -- may have no
> *desire* to go and learn all about the stuff you mentioned above. To say
> that it is beyond them, however, I have to take issue with.
I think you read more into that than I had intended. My point was more that
they *should not have to* learn all of that. Technology *should be* easy to
use, not require a PhD in arcana. Ideally, sending encrypted email should be
no more complicated than hitting the "send" button.
> Since said
> "average person" has an IQ of 100 (by definition), I think it is improper
> to state that it is beyond them -- any more than real estate transactions
> are beyond me; while I know next to nothing about them, it's through
> ignorance, not ability. And, yes, my eyes *did* glaze over in court.
> </weenie>
There is a tremendous amount of knowledge in this world these days, and no
one can be expected to know it all. Real Estate bores me as well, but if I
*had to* learn it, I could. I just don't have the time, of course, nor the
desire. Though, as a homeowner, by all rights I *should* know more than I
do.
But there are other non-geek areas of knowledge that I am warming up to --
not because I want to, but because I *have* to. I shouldn't have to,
though. Nor should the "average Joe" need a PhD in cryptography just to
secure his email, either.
Now, having said that, I will also say this. I used to be a bit more
"egalitarian" about the abilities of the "common" man, but hard -- and
sometimes bitter -- experiences have taught me otherwise. We are simply not
"equal" in intellect nor ability nor insight nor creativity. We all have
various strengths and weaknesses in many different areas. Intelligence is
more like a vector in a high-dimensioned space than a singular scalar
number. As a hole, it makes for an interesting mix of possibilities with
our fellow humans; an endless stream of variety.
But even with that, to pretend or assume we are all unit vectors is a false
assumption.
-Fred
More information about the gnhlug-discuss
mailing list