Hacker News Reader

The problem isn't that these people can't use computers. It's that they can't THINK.

I find it's more specific than and not as serious as that. I got my first computer in 1982, first modem in 1985 (hence my username). I find that people who proudly state how not-technical they are actually purposely turn their brain off around computers. It's not that they can't think. They can and often do around non-technical things. But they automatically assume they're unable to fix anything computer-related so they don't even try. My wife is a perfect example of that. If I hear, "Printer is not working" again I think I'm going to throw it out the window. The latest time, she unplugged the printer USB cable to plug in her iPhone and then called me to fix the printer. If this was a "can't think" problem, she would belong in a group home. Instead it's a "won't think about technical things" problem.

I was one of those kids, and I would be so excited for them that I would bury them in whatever help they needed.

I was one of those kids too. Only my computer teacher was in his first year of teaching computers, having been drafted from the math program because "computers use math". He was completely just learning about computers. He would ask me, "Is that right, 300bps?" after almost everything he taught the class. He ended up just having me do special projects doing things like creating math games on the Apple ][e.

Hmmm, it's an interesting point. I think the reason people don't even try is because they recognize that they can't tell the difference between something that might take them 15 minutes of monkeying around to fix, and something that is beyond their competency. Worse, they are not sure that they won't make things when trying to fix the problem.

I'm sure it must be similar to the feeling I get when I'm working on a new code base that I'm not familiar with, and I need to make a modification in a function so that it calls another module correctly for some new functionality. But I can't tell if that change isn't going to break something somewhere else, so making that change becomes quite scary.

In the software development world, we handle this by creating suites of automatic tests that we can run after the change to make sure that what we just did doesn't break things. We also use config managent software so that we can back out any erroneous changes. These things aren't available to nontechnical users - they can't verify that they haven't broken anything, and if they have broken something, they may not be able to put things back the way they were. This pretty much guarantees that people won't experiment with their computer.

I'm sure it must be similar to the feeling I get when I'm working on a new code base that I'm not familiar with

Haha - I know that feeling well. First moveup with a new code base is always the scariest. You're always fearing something like, "Oh crap, I had no idea what that module did and I accidentally disabled it."

I think you may have given me an insight that will make me more tolerant of my wife's refusal to attempt fixing technical things on her own. Thank you.

I think part of the problem is that with the advent of the Internet, no computer comes with proper documentation that you can read to learn what a system does and how it does it. DOS was probably the last OS that could be completely described in its paper manual. Now learning about a new system has to be done through Google, experimentation and thoroughly inadequate help systems where it's very difficult to find an answer if you don't know how to describe the problem.

linux is completely described by its source code.

> linux is completely described by its source code.

I would say that linux is defined by the way its source code [in C] runs on machines [of various kinds]. It's also helpful to know some history, especially of unix, for context. And the communities of people that use linux. I think there's more to understanding linux, or even describing it, than the source code only.

It's only slightly less accurate to state that Windows is completely described by its binaries.

Both statements depend on your ability to devote time and appropriate expertise to discerning the documentation.

Some people are vehemently proud of their limited technical experience. You can't even convince them that they should learn more so that they can solve their own problems. It's a hopeless argument to have with one of these people.

They will only change their minds if they can convince themselves that it's important. Most people remain ignorant of the value of such skills. When there's cheap access to skilled labour to fix it for them then there's almost never going to be an opportunity for them to discover this value.

Then again the same is mostly true for a lot of other technologies we largely take for granted these days. Despite not knowing much about cars we use them all the time. Same with air conditioners, televisions, radios, etc.

My home air conditioner stopped working a couple of weeks ago. I turned it off and on, but that was about the extent of what I felt I could intelligently do. I called a technician, who spent 15 minutes or less in my basement diagnosing the problem and replacing a capacitor. He charged me $115 to replace a $17 capacitor.

I'm not complaining. I called him, I wrote the check, and I have a functioning air conditioner again. But it did make me wonder if I couldn't take a $115 class at the community college to learn air conditioner repair. (And I imagine I could get the capacitor for less than $17 too.)

What about the cost of the time you would put into the class? Surely that brings the total effective cost of the course to far more than $115, to acquire a skill you're unlikely to gain much from (unless you want to learn it for its own sake or become an AC tech).

If you pick up some general electronics and mechanical skills, that will go a long ways helping to understand what might be wrong with your car, or around the house.

Just last week I replaced the inducer fan on my natural-gas furnace, with no prior training other than watching a YouTube video. I was able to deduce that the inducer was the problem in the first place, because I wasn't afraid to take off the cover and carefully observe what the furnace was and wasn't doing. And understanding at a high level how furnaces worked in the first place.

Of course, to do that, I was able to draw upon decades of experience with all kinds of systems. My training started as a child by observing and helping my father in his workshop. Even so, just having some basic, basic skills and knowledge of debugging [1] can go a long ways to isolate what the problem is and then see if it is something you can fix yourself.

[1] http://www.debuggingrules.com/

If stuff doesn't break often enough, your skills might get a bit rusty.

I used to have to help my aunt with her computer. She eventually learned how to do a few things (create and edit documents; print), but it was like she had an absolute blind spot to anything I would say about how to do things.

Eventually I gave up and had my wife explain things to her. I swear she used the exact same words that I would have to explain some things, but my aunt understood her just fine and told her how much better she was at explaining. :|

Just mentioning this because it appears there are multiple factors at play, at least with some people. My aunt was a lawyer, by the way, so presumably she could think for herself logically on other topics.

Aside: I was also a kid who knew more than the programming teachers. And FWIW, I know a lot more about car maintenance than the author of the article, because (unlike him) I also apply my thinking skills to cars and just about everything else in my life. Seems like he shouldn't be throwing stones.

> Only my computer teacher was in his first year of teaching computers, having been drafted from the math program because "computers use math". He was completely just learning about computers.

Same here. My senior year independent study in programming was converting all the C++ projects and notes to Java because the AP exam was switching over. I think the idea was that the next year instead of helping she could say "look at what it should look like" or "well, this version here works".

It's partly partly true though. People aren't used to think about `network of things`. They will try to fiddle with the first layer they perceive and they will loose faith and motivation. Here's how they end up looking 'not being able to think'.

But on the other hand, computers and programs aren't build to be understood or fully manipulated with ease. It's often an ad-hoc mess of bad stateful abstractions that break very easily if you don't do things in some arbitrary order.

I'm on Alan Kay side when he thinks that computers programs are far too large accretions that could and should be reduced through better infrastructure. (his recent work was on an entire fully OOP desktop system in ~100Kloc instead of 100Mloc). In my mind giving this to people could lead to a better understanding and less psychological knots.

This is precisely the point Rebert Pirsig explores in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. You should read it if you find this to be curious.

> The problem isn't that these people can't use computers. It's that they can't THINK.

How do you know?

I presume that you believe that you have critical thinking skills and wouldn't make similar mistakes in other areas of life, but what is your evidence?

You probably know how to use a computer, maybe even fix a car. But how can you know that you don't have similar blindspots when it comes to health, finance, relationships, education, things that are seemingly easy for some people but inexplicably hard for others?

It's too easy to scoff at people being dumb by judging their computer skills on a site called Hacker News. Imagine the analogue article and discussion on a a site called "Fitness News".

I think what he was trying to say is that when you've learned critical thinking as a skill you can apply it to anywhere. So, if he was on fitness news instead of saying "I'm not getting buff." He'd say, "Well, here's the work out plan based on X, Y, and Z, and I've been eating 4000 calories a day based on A, B, and C, and I've looked up this that and the other thing but I'm not having any luck still. Does anyone have any ideas or see where I've gone wrong?".

I would agree with the original poster that a lot of people simply do not have great critical thinking skills. And it's certainly a skill. It's something which can be extracted and used in any area of life. Of course some people can develop a skill set and be able to critically think about something in particular with out being able to apply that knowledge to other areas of life, but if you can develop that skill set for all areas of life you'll be far better off.

You are underestimating the power of knowledge. I've fixed computers for people who are much smarter then me and have a higher intelligence by every reasonable measure.

The reason I can fix computers is that I know about things like DHCP, "The Registry" and BIOS, systems that have very little to do with logic and are only understandable by using them for decades.

Well yes, but that intelligent person probably at least tried something like restarting, checking if another website would open if their internet seemed down, turning their wifi on and off, etc.

The DHCP, the registry, and bios certainly take a fair amount of time to learn about fully enough to understand and be able to work with.

Not figuring out the monitor isn't turned on on the other hand.

I respectfully disagree.

The fundamental idea here is that some people learn how to learn, and others need to always be taught.

Learning "huh, when I hit this switch my wifi turns on or off" is pretty simple. Some people need to be told, and even then it's just a rote mechanical process - no thought as to why, how, or even that the switch is connected to anything. It's all magic.

I wanted to learn to lift even though I've never stepped foot in a gym. I did my research and bought the right books. I went into a gym and did exactly what I set out to do.

I need to replace my windshield wipers. I look up the information for it - it's right next to the new blades in Walmart. Dead simple. I bet a lot of people go to Pepboys for that.

It's as if the scientific method never existed, life is magic, and knowledge can only be gained by truly extraordinary humans.

It's as if the scientific method never existed, life is magic, and knowledge can only be gained by truly extraordinary humans.

That's exactly the problem with this.

We get to support the idea that all humans are created equally and deserve the same rights and freedoms, or we get to have that mindset. It's a bad spot to be in.

There's no such dichotomy; the other choice is, supporting the idea that humans are not all created equally, but still consider they deserve the same rights and freedoms.

And I'd rather have a mass of idiots (which I don't think most people are) ruling than an elite of people who consider themselves superior to others. At least the former are less likely to successfully torment me for my own good.

"supporting the idea that humans are not all created equally, but still consider they deserve the same rights and freedoms."

So, er, why? If you acknowledge that people aren't equally capable and endowed, what sort of sense does it make to place the same legal requirements on them?

Why should I be required to see as far as somebody else when driving? Why should I be prevented from making API requests on a public system (when I know how to do so safely) when somebody less trained or malicious would bring on down time?

It's far better simply to say that either everyone has the same capabilities, or to say that they ought be afforded benefits and restrictions that match their talents and deficiencies. Doing neither is unfair nonsensical from a societal standpoint.

As for the mass of idiots, no. I'd rather have a ruling elite, because they presumably be reasoned with--or removed in favor of a better elite. A mass of morons weighs heavily upon us, especially in the disinformation age.

It's far better simply to say that either everyone has the same capabilities, or to say that they ought be afforded benefits and restrictions that match their talents and deficiencies. Doing neither is unfair nonsensical from a societal standpoint.

That's not necessarily against what I had in mind. Essentially, all should have the same rights a priori. But a right may be "apply for an unbiased, specific exam that proves they are able of performing X without harming others". Of course not everyone should be able to do everything anyone else has is able to do at each moment. But no one should be denied that possibility just because they had some alcohol in their blood-surrogate, nor should anyone be waved from the requirements. And the requirements shouldn't be bullshit designed to keep certain groups away.

I'd rather have a ruling elite, because they presumably be reasoned with

Sure they can. But in politics, reason is mostly a way of justifying one's preferences. You can't reason with core axioms or goals, just with what they entail and/or the way of reaching them.

or removed in favor of a better elite.

By whom?

---

In any case, don't take me too seriously. I'm far too ignorant and immature to have a real position. I'll argue for anarcho-capitalism today and for situationism tomorrow, without really having my mind set into any.

> I'd teach them critical thinking, because it's really the only skill they need to learn

Metacognition isn't really possible to teach. It doesn't really transfer. Everyone talks about how important it is that students "learn how to learn", but it's 99% bullshit which only refuses to die because people want it to be true.

Now, there are a few things which work. A few examples from memory (it's worth googling a bit though, as I may be wrong):

- Thinking of the brain as a "muscle", to encourage students to improve incrementally. (OK, this is new, and it's hard, but if you work on it you'll get much better with time).

- Plan, Do, Check, Act.

- Setting goals (maybe).

- Picking out a small number of key ideas for any topic (typically 3, in English speaking countries - we like 3, I think Chinese speakers like 4 but there's nothing magic, it's just a cultural preference).

But I'll reiterate - when people say "learn critical thinking", they often don't know exactly what they are talking about. Mostly, they mistake their own narrow expertise with "deep" thinking, when in reality their own "critical thinking" skills wouldn't get them very far in an army boot camp, or a chess club, or a debating team, or any other environment which they aren't already well adapted to.

When most people say "learn critical thinking", they mean "get really good at it, like I am, so you don't get all bogged down by trivial details".

There's a difference between can't and won't. This issue is the latter, as exemplified by the example where a kid was hitting OK so fast the actual error message couldn't be read.

As a professor, I was astounded at how many students failed just because they wouldn't do the work. A large fraction were certainly capable of doing so (some spectacularly capable), but just...didn't. Having and increasing a vast array of educational resources available wasn't the solution because they wouldn't take the first step, no matter how simple.

Related, relevant issue: I know people — in Silicon Valley! — who are proud of the fact that their elementary schools (private) have no computers, and avoid the subject entirely. Apparently they believe computing too early will change, for the worse, a child's brain. I suspect it would do the opposite: help their children be better critical thinkers than their parents obviously are.

You know, books change the way the mind works, too. That's bad. Better keep books out of the hands of children before their minds are warped.

There are possible good reasons for this - I wouldn't give elementary students calculators, because they won't learn their math; similarly, in an educational environment (that's not teaching computing), computers are often more distracting than useful - the CS department at the university where I did my undergrad banned computers in first year lectures (not labs), because the students were playing games and browsing the web instead of paying attention in class; I think they made the right decision.

Calculators are not computers, and no one who understands what a computer is would suggest that one would somehow prevent a student from learning. We're talking about basic computer skills here: mousing, menus, command line, and some introductory coding. Those aren't nice-to-haves; they're necessities for elementary school students.

the students were playing games and browsing the web instead of paying attention in class

Sure, understood, but that's a red herring here. I'm not suggesting we outfit a whole classroom of second graders with laptops so they can play Angry Birds. I'm suggesting that children need computer skills.

Fair, I agree - and I think that basic computer literacy should be taught in schools - my point was just that if the way to teach the children computer literacy is to give them laptops to use in every class (it's trendy these days), they'll find a way to play Angry Birds, and will learn neither computer literacy nor their other lessons.

For your first sentence, I would rather say that they DON'T want to think when it comes to computer/maths/etc.

"I don't like it, hence I'm not good at it." gives them an easy reason to avoid the problem.

I pretty much agree with you, but I think the point is that focusing on technical education and incentivizing that learning (like the WPA2 key hidden in a 10,000 line text file) can help build critical thinking skills.

If instead of putting the computers to the side, actually building positive learning experiences involving computers, the critical thinking will be a natural outgrowth of that, IMHO.

It's that they can't THINK. They do not understand what critical thinking is, or how it works. They do not know how to approach problems or explore solutions.

http://arachnoid.com/lutusp/crashcourse.html