Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Alex Martelli]

"John W. Stevens" <jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com> wrote in message
news:399ADA82.DA50780C at basho.fc.hp.com...
    [snip]
> > > Leave economics to the economists.
> >
> > That would be like leaving English to the Lit majors (foreign-languages
> > majors, in my case, I guess): a rather silly option.
>
> Really?  I don't see how leaving the deconstruction of four hundred year
> old literature to experts is a silly option, but hey, if you need to do
> that, then you do what everybody else has to do when they need
> expertise: you become an expert, or hire an expert.

You don't necessarily need to do well at deconstructing 4-centuries-old
lit; you do need a practical grasp of English (if you want to communicate
with the typical English mother-tongue speaker, at least).

The fallacy in your reasoning is to treat 'expertise' as a binary, on/off
quantity: it's not.  Expertise at any subject, be it broad (English,
programming, economics), narrower (the works of Congreve, C++,
optimal-pricing theory), very specific (the genesis of "The Way of the
World", optimal implementations of virtual inheritance in code
generators for Intel processors, transaction and information costs
in the grain markets in Florence in 1720-1740), comes in all sorts
of *degrees* -- between 0.0 and 1.0, maybe (but some could have
MIS-information, <0.0, and some could be inventing totally new
theories and paradigms, >1.0, perhaps:-).

One acquires degrees of expertise at various subjecs (broad and
narrow ones, both) depending both on needs and on opportunities
(fully including personal interest).  One may decide to acquire
outside expertise (outsourcing) on a given occasion depending on
one's evaluation of the costs and benefits involved in that option
versus in-house 'development' (use and/or development of
existing expertise).

It's an economic decision.  You cannot take it effectively without
a >0.0 grasp of general economics principles (whether it's formal
or merely pragmatical); nor can you communicate (assuming that
English is the language spoken by your counterparts) about this
decision without a >0.0 grasp of English.  You just _cannot_
outsource _everything_ -- particularly, not communication, and
not all decisions.


> > As one needs to
> > communicate, there needs to be some direct mastery of the means --
>
> Ah.  You were refering to simply learning to communicate . . . a task
> you began before you were born, and probably continue to this day.  Just
> how would deconstruction of ancient English literature help you do that,
> though?  ;-)

Some consider it helps to gain greater expertise of a discipline X, to
study what others with good expertise at X have done in the past.  I
become a better communicator in English by reading Congreve, and
maybe an even better one by studying him in more depth; just as I
become a better programmer by reading Knuth's books, and maybe
an even better one by studying them in depth.

It may not work for you, but it sure works for me -- of all pleasures,
reading and studying is a good contender for _most useful_ one.


> English Literature is not about learning to communicate well using
> English . . . it is the study of English Literature.

The discipline may (recursively?) self-define as such, but that does
not impede me from taking whatever I want, and am able to, from
texts or courses in the subject.

Let the discipline of abstract algebra self-define as its practitioners
will, this detracts nothing (nor by itself does it add) from the large
usefulness the study of abstract algebra can have on my ability to
reason abstractly even in other domains (such as programming).


> > delegating it all is just unfeasible (how would you communicate to
> > your delegate what he is to communicate of, if you could not yourself
> > communicate...?-).
>
> Which kind of belies the old chestnut of: "You Computer guys need to
> learn to communicate!"  :-)

Everybody can probably profit by learning to communicate _better_.
But somebody with <= 0.0 ability to communicate would not survive
long.

> Obviously you need the neophyte's grasp of economics.  But you should
> not let a neophyte set economic policy, any more than you should let a
> Neuro Surgeon write mission critical software.

I need to set _my own_ "economic policy" -- make my own decisions
regarding what to do myself, what to purchase (or otherwise delegate)
instead.  Communication and decision-making are just more fundamental
in this regard than skills such as programming or surgery, which it MAY
be possible (and perhaps advisable) to delegate/purchase entirely.


> > As one needs to take decisions, there needs to be
> > some direct mastery of the tools -- delegating it all is just unfeasible
> > (how would you decide what to delegate, if you could not decide...?-).
>
> By one of the most basic of human relationships: trust.

Deciding to trust is a decision.  If you can't decide anything (decision
ability <= 0.0) you cannot decide to trust, whom to trust, what to
trust them about.


> > The "practical man", the one he think he can leave economics to the
> > economists, is just the slave of some dead economist without even
> > knowing he is.
>
> But that is not only perfectly true . . . it is unavoidably true.  You
> cannot be an expert at everything.  At one point or another, you must
> trust someone else.  The only reasonable response, then, is to carefully
> choose who you will put your trust in.

You cannot be an expert at everything, but you can gain good layman's
mastery of more disciplines than one would normally think, if you
choose to; enough to read, study, understand different theories, if
you want, and adopt useful working hypotheses on the likelihood of
what risks can be run, how/whether they can be hedged, and so on.

It's an _economic_ decision, again: how do you want to spend your
one truly limited resource... time.  If it gives you more joy to play
tennis, say, and as a consequence have your body in reasonably
good shape, you go for it; you don't necessarily choose to let other,
better players play tennis on your behalf.  Getting to the upper
centile of the population's grasp of matters economic may take less
effort than getting to the upper centile of the population's tennis
players, and, depending on what gives you joy, may be a better
investment of your time.  It makes just as much sense to "leave
economics to the economists" as to "leave tennis to the tennis
professionals" -- that is to say, none whatsoever.


Alex