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