Absolutely. The biggest offenders in software engineering are the things people integrate into their identity (i.e. "I'm an Agile manager", "I'm a Java architect", "I'm a Lisp hacker"). Another red flag is when there are no clear ways of testing a hypothesis (i.e. "NoSQL databases are better for this task", "This management methodology is best for our organization", "Outsourcing is great if you do so-and-so"). Most, if not all, of the opinions regarding industrial software engineering are based in anecdotal experience, without the tiniest thought given to controlled experiments. C'est la vie.<p>PS: what's most confusing, for me, is that it seems impossible to fix all of the variables necessary to answer a question like "what technology is best for this real-world problem?". I've yet to hear of any good ways of systematically measuring the effect of technology choices on programmer productivity.
I feel like we go round and round, dealing with the same problems that our ancestors had to deal with.<p>What I see here is part of the human condition. Pitfalls that "most" people are doomed to repeat. People are born with similar ways of thinking. I would propose that intuition is most always wrong. This is one reason we must educate people. Unfortunately, Memories and Communication are not precise. And I realize that all job fields require some sort of education or training.<p>There exist Complex ideas, technologies, material things (eg. biology): that are not comprehensible by one single person at a time. This is why we have groups of people that make products and not individuals.<p>Also people age, lose their usefulness. If only you could educate people who would increase their intelligence, and never die.<p>We live in a world of conclusions based on facts. A conclusion can be wrong, a fact cannot. News media, blogs, conversation are an exchange of conclusions. We can't communicate in just facts because we can't work with that much data at a time.<p>If only, one could link to another: a computer or another brain and be able to access knowledge and its accuracy. Is this possible, I don't know.<p>There are many problems worth fixing (but probably won't any time soon):
a phonetic english alphabet with a different letter for each unique sound,
Human Language to AI command compiler,
optimize human mental process (engineer the human mind),
build biospheres in inhospitable regions of the Earth,
Fast internet that is cheap (100Mb/s (and I mean Megabit)) -> HD remote controlled robots,
Tactile feedback for TV just like we have visual and sound,
Engineer ways of rejuvenating/regeneration of humans so we can control our lifespan,
Creating or finding what makes humans "sentient" or "have a soul" or "conscious" or "self-aware"
-> Preserve this "consciousness" without a body for long trips of space flight
There's one paragraph I don't get:<p><pre><code> "I tried to find a principle for discovering more of these kinds of things, and came up with the following system. Any time you find yourself in a conversation at a cocktail party in which you do not feel uncomfortable that the hostess might come around and say, "Why are you fellows talking shop?" or that your wife will come around and say "Why are you flirting again?"--then you can be sure you are talking about something about which nobody knows anything."
</code></pre>
I've been trying figure out what he meant, so I can apply the same method.
Previous submission:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=993150" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=993150</a><p>A good book for background on how people in general think is What Intelligence Tests Miss by Keith Stanovich.<p><a href="http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852" rel="nofollow">http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...</a><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog...</a><p>As Feynman points out, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool." Human cognitive illusions are part of the human condition, and every scientist has to guard against them ceaselessly.
I just finished reading this: <a href="http://www.nthposition.com/thelastcargo.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.nthposition.com/thelastcargo.php</a><p>Very interesting. I especially liked the term "cargo prophets."<p>The article paints cargo cultists as performing, with fervor and rigor, a "magical repetition" of an "inexplicable complex of delusions."<p>And the cargo prophets, being the messengers, expound new canon to the "John Frum" myth which further glorifies and necessitates this "inexplicable complex of delusions," or rituals and methods.<p>The methods and rituals these cargo prophets ask followers to perform are NOT reason or integrity.<p>I could go on with my thoughts on this, but basically yes. I do see a very clear parallel.