Why are pollies so myopic, this may provide a clue.

The following is an essay from the August 1999, USAF Flying Safety magazine, and was originally published in 1949. It has been modified to apply to the current situation.

"Most of us look with amused contempt on the superstitions of uncivilized or uneducated peopleIf someone pins us down on the subject, we're scornful of any belief in such bugaboos as "three on a match", walking under a stepladder or Y2K will be a significant event. Superstition with us is in reality a matter of fun and nonsense

Without realizing it, however, it's possible for either a programmer or engineer to be a victim of a dangerous type of nonsense -absolute blind faith in their own infallibility and in the infallibility of others, a complacent self-assurance that the number of hours logged on a keyboard or slide-rule or years of mechanical experience hold almost magical qualities. This foolish attitude is acquired anytime they convince themselves that they have the business down pat. (READ: hoff, flint, y2kpro etal.)

This blind faith in his own ability may creep up on such an individual after they make their first project, or they might get that way with additional programs or promotions.

What has happened is that rather than continue to learn, rather than subject themselves to verifications by qualified independent means, rather than question their beliefs, they go forth on their self-created reputation and depend upon the past to get them through the future.

"I was working on processors when you couldn't get your TRS-80 to work," is a statement that has been heard in more than one IT shop. If the technician who said it believes it, there is little doubt that he has hypnotized himself into believing that he knows so much he can do no wrong. He may have just acquired his certificate from Community College, or he may have been programming UNIVAC. Age doesn't have any monopoly on this belief in one's own infallibility.

History has pretty well demonstrated that the most successful method of ridding people of superstitions is by education or replacing wrong beliefs with intelligent faiths. A person has to have faith in their own abilities in any field or endeavor, if they are to progress. But what we have to do to be as aware of our ignorance as we are of our knowledge is to keep our minds open all the time. No person can be allowed to call a halt to their learning.

You probably have met people at one time who told you they had forgotten more about driving than you would ever learn. There is a good chance that they are a statistic somewhere. Their blind trust in the number of hours driven just isn't powerful enough medicine to keep their name out of the obits.

A universal characteristic of really great men in all fields of endeavor is an undying curiosity about what they do not know and a humble realization of their own shortcomings. The more a really smart person knows about a subject the more they realize there is for them to learn.

If you laugh at the idea of three on a match being unlucky, you can't help but know that any idea of your own personal infallibility is a superstition with even less basis and one with infinitely graver consequences."

"It is as important to know what you don't know, as it is know what you know."

There is an overwhelming arrogance with regard to Y2K. And an overwhelming religious faith in technology and our government. Socrates suggested that we should question our beliefs and for this he was sentenced to death. "We" posit that if we don't question our beliefs we may very well be granting out own death sentence.

-- c4i (c4ixxx@hotmail.com), November 10, 1999

Answers

c4i, I always love a good read. Thanks for putting it up.

Does your "group" have any .gov/.mil updates from the 50 day mark?

Real c4i or not, you have a lot to say, and I'm glad you are here.

-- semper paratus (always@ready.now), November 10, 1999.

Is this the "real" c4i? Regardless, he/she is dead on with "an overwhelming religious faith in technology and our government." For me to be a "polly" would be to belive that the above statement is false. What I believe is the number of GI's on this board, and in general society at large, is a very small demographic. So

-- Magnolia (Magnooliaa@yahoo.com), November 10, 1999.

Being one of those 'I was programming UNIVAC before you were a twinkle in your dad's eye' types, I will second this. It is the ones who are just so *sure* of everything. No one can offer a criticism, of any kind, at any time. These are the folks who keep the hot-line service numbers in business.

But there is this to consider also. There are different perspectives. Given that we are *all* working from inadequate data, in that, what we know is what we see, all else being unreliable to one degree or another. (Friend of a friend of my brother-in-law type stories, or postings by anonymous people {in fairness, such as myself}, the 'official' stuff being in many cases such obvious 'PR', the lack of an upside to anyone who actually announced failure casting suspicion on all 'positive' stories). Then it follows that our experiences color our understanding of the problem.

Take, as an example, someone who works in one of the 'physical' engineering disciplines. From their perspective, engineering is about practical application of known quantities, following rigorous design regimens. It would never *occur* to them that someone might build a bridge, for example, that no design had been done on, and they just threw it up based on somebodies 'gut instinct' that this was the size of support beams required, or that that was the size footing.

Now take someone from the computer industry, where it is not unheard of for the code to be shipped before the *REQUIREMENTS* are completed. Much less the functional spec, or an analysis, or a design, an ICD, or any of that 'process stuff'.

Without a sustained effort to see the problem from other perspectives, the positions calcify and will not change. The viewpoint of the 'other side' is just too foreign to comprehend.

-- just another (another@engineer.com), November 10, 1999.

The "three on a match" superstition was born on the WWII battlefields where it was widely believed that night-time snipers would locate a potential target when the match was struck, sight on the target and squeeze off a round in the time in the time it took for three cigarettes to be lit. Casualties would sometimes be referred to as "the third man".

-- Lumber Jack (johnsellis@webtv.net), November 10, 1999.

Ummm Lumber jack I THINK it might be a bit older than WWII, more of a WW I (Trench warfare) thing.

Night Train

-- jes an OLD footballer (nighttr@in.lane), November 11, 1999.

Fellow Yourdynamites, this is your official confirmation that this is the real c4i.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 11, 1999.

another polly analysis. like this one. work with a lot of these.

-- surrounded by uncurious (dull@experts.bored), November 11, 1999.

I may be ignorant about alot of things, but not about my own ignorance

-- d.b. (dciinc@aol.com), November 11, 1999.