The Experts, Pt. 2

I had intended to send my second thought bubble on experts floating out through the netsphere yesterday, but there were many interruptions. Of course, in the interest of honesty, I wasn't entirely sure what that second bubble was about. My overall point is fairly simple, so I'll try to state that here for clarity: expertise is very valuable, but it tends to stifle creative approaches without sufficient feedback from external sources, including novices. Well, that was easy. I would be surprised to find any substantial disagreement with that point of view.

I suspect what's behind the clash of thinking processes is often some basic difference between the value systems of the individuals involved. For a programmer developing a large application, the value system can become skewed in esoteric directions that have little to do with usability, while a user can quite intimidate a developer with his or her wide-ranging knowledge of that application, based on a value system of practical, and even creative, interaction with the software in daily life. Fortunately, the programmer is highly motivated to provide products with features that directly respond to the value systems of the users, and a collaborative effort is made to achieve that goal. This has worked out very well, for the most part, in the world of software.

Much of today's world might be viewed in terms of similar conflicting value systems, and much of what seems broken might be symbolized by the dysfunctional cooperation between those whose value systems do not coincide. This way of looking at the problem could be extended in so many different directions it's hard to know where to begin, but there are three I want to mention initially here, and return to from time to time in future posts. They are:

• American foreign policy and the average American's view of that policy
• Corporate policies and the average American's view of their policies
• Religious doctrine and, again, the average American's view of that doctrine

In each of the three areas above, there is a schism between the posture of a given entity, and the American people themselves. In each case, something of the collaborative process appears to be fundamentally ineffectual. Why should this be? What would short-circuit such a basic process that enjoys such success in environments like that between a software company and its users? With regard to software, a primary motivation for maintaining the balance is competition. If one company's developers don't listen to the users, another company's developers will. Some might refer to that as a "free market", but there can frequently be a dearth of real competition in a free market. In my personal experience, the best software has always been as a result of spirited competition for users between rival applications. Where there are problems related to the list above, it is often a lack of competition that contributes greatly to those problems.

I'm rummaging through all these concepts to try and build some framework for the perspectives I've gained by the reading and study I've been undertaking to try and understand what's behind the unholy mess everyone seems to be making of our lovely little earth. Even a moderately sane human being could only describe the major forces at work in the world today as perverse, or perhaps even the height of madness. I want to find some handy, accessible frames of reference because I've found there is method to be discovered beneath the chaos, and that's the most troubling aspect of all. It's one thing to feel that we're careening out of control. It's quite another to feel controlled. But there it is.

I have finished Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, and am nearly halfway through Howard Zinn's A Power Governments Cannot Suppress. These are books which stand against some elements the authors see as highly intentional, not some muddied result of poor planning, but from the perspective of average folks like you and I, an opposing force. I can't compel you to read these books, but now that I have, I need to find ways to integrate the perspective I've gained into this blog in a meaningful way that relates to shared knowledge. I don't expect I'll be able to accomplish that overnight, but I believe such an effort can be useful.

A lot of it is about respect. I developed a deep respect for the experts at Microsoft, and an equal respect for the armies of users. I encountered an application, then known as Outlook Express, and now, Windows Mail, from the perspective of bits and bytes, and hundreds of thousands of lines of code that, after some natural recoil from what seemed an enormous task, taught me to respect the subtle, intricate structure of the creation as it existed before my intrusion into its arcane world. After much study, what had seemed like random flights of fancy revealed beauties of design all the more satisfying because those secrets were only revealed when I had applied myself with sufficient effort to make myself ready to receive them. At Microsoft, software can have mystical overtones!

I have learned a little about respect, and the rewards that can be gained when sufficient respect is paid to the object of interest. The Zen of everyday life might be described as learning to have genuine respect with regard to all we encounter. So I do feel motivated to treat these questions with sufficient respect. As an indication of that, I will respect what seems like a good place to stop for the moment. If I've given the reader anything to consider further here, I will be pleased; but this is also for my benefit. Some parts of them will continue to rattle around in my head for the next day or two, until I know it's time to let some more of them spill out on my keyboard.