vanity and guilt, humility and pride
TRANSCRIPT
104 Computer
T his anniversary essay relatesthoughts about some of the e-mail messages stimulated by theseven essays I have contributedsince this column first appeared a
year ago. Of snail mail there has beennone—a reflection of the times, no doubt.
The e-mail responses fall roughly intofour categories, defined by the axes ofbrief-to-lengthy and positive-to-negative.Each month, Computer’s editors choosesome of the more substantial responsesfor the Letters to the Editor column, usu-ally publishing readers’ responses to anessay a couple of months after its publi-cation. Some of these messages—andmany of the longer unpublished ones—cause me to wonder about my success inprovoking thought and discussion abouttruly professional issues.
MERELY SECONDARY DETAILSTypically, the author of a disquieting
e-mail starts by congratulating me on theessay, either enthusiastically or perfunc-torily. That person then goes on to dis-pute my reminiscences and observations,although in most cases they are merelysecondary details intended to give nos-talgic conviviality to an otherwise dryand unrelenting narrative.
My first essay was meant to provokediscussion about what constitutes a pro-fession and how a profession differs froma trade or craft. As secondary enlighten-ment, I used the well-known nine-dotsproblem to observe that, while a techni-cian should be able to find a four-linesolution by seeing outside the boxformed by the dots, a professional shouldbe able to see outside the piece of paperthat the nine dots are drawn on to find aone-line solution.
Much of the e-mail this essay generatedfound fault with my one-line solution onvarious grounds, but none denied that itworked. The typical objection was thatrolling the paper into a tube is, for variousreasons, such as going into a third dimen-sion, invalid. I suspect that many suchobjections arose from a perceived threatto the popular cliché, “outside the box.”
Although I enjoy such exchanges, thepersistent focus on secondary topics causesme to worry that some readers are not get-ting past the details to the major issues.
VANITYEven the secondary e-mails can incite
thoughts about professional issues, how-ever. At the moment, I am involved in ane-mail exchange with the AmericanDialect Society over my speculation aboutthe origin of the term floppy disk (“TheGreat Term Robbery,” May 2001, pp. 96,94-95). This exchange has involved noless a celebrity than Eric S. Raymond, thewidely renowned author of The NewHacker’s Dictionary, who described myrecollections as “a thin, unsupported, andvery implausible tissue of conjectures... .”
I found Raymond’s condemnationespecially stinging because I had receivedan e-mail a couple of weeks earlier, pro-voked by the February column, “USElectoral Reform: The Obvious Obli-
gation,” that baldly told me I am “a com-plete idiot.” Such accusations raise anissue more general than the quality of mymemory or intellect: They raise a profes-sional issue. If our profession, howeverit might eventually evolve or be defined,is to gain the community’s respect—anecessity for our profession’s members tobe fully effective—those members mustfirst respect one another.
Apart from any question of politeness,professional disagreement must be han-dled in a professional manner, eventhrough e-mail. If an author makes a fac-tual error, the reader should simply pointout the error and cite the appropriateauthority. A reader who questions anauthor’s recollections should describeany disparity with enough backgroundto show that the contrary recollection hasmore weight than the original, or at leastenough to require reconsidering the orig-inal assertion.
In matters of opinion, however, profes-sional respect is paramount. The opinionsand judgments developed by a profes-
sion’s members distinguish that professionfrom a trade. To cite the Charles McCabequote that once adorned Computer’sOpen Channel column, “Any clod canhave the facts, but having opinions is anart.”
When debating opinions and recollec-tions, we must acknowledge their sub-jective nature; bear in mind that otherprofessionals can be as convinced of theirjudgments’ value as we are of ours; andbe prepared to change our opinions inthe light of professionally delivered alter-natives.
Professional respect should extendeven to intemperate comment from otherprofessionals, a principle whose validitybecame plain to me when I checked what
Vanity and Guilt,Humility and PrideNeville Holmes, University of Tasmania
T H E P R O F E S S I O N
Responses to this past year’scolumns emphasize thecomputing profession’s needto become more concernedabout professionalism.
Continued on page 102
102 Computer
T h e P r o f e s s i o nContinued from page 104
I had actually written about the origin ofthe term “floppy disk.” I certainly recallthat marketers of the time had rendered“flexible” meaningless, and thus made“flexy” descriptively useless. But to mydismay, I discovered that I had goneoverboard and asserted that the mar-keters had coined “floppy.” I have norecollection of any particular group ofpeople—other than the general body ofusers—being blamed or credited withthis coinage. Therefore, Raymond wascorrect even if he wasn’t right. This mis-take exposes another professional prin-ciple: Always double or triple check whatyou actually write when you record arecollection or opinion.
But honest mistakes, even carelessones, should not be bluntly scolded inpublic. In a very real sense, the faultbehind vituperation is vanity, insofar asvanity lies in putting self-regard aboverespect for others.
GUILT AND HUMILITYSelf-regard of a slightly different kind
manifests itself as guilt. A reader com-menting on the first several installmentsof The Profession accused me of “build-ing up [readers’] guilt,” presumablybecause he felt guilty (“Is Holmes Outto Get Us?” Letters, Jan. 2001, pp. 10-11). This accusation puzzled me quite abit at the time.
Guilt is an extremely personal andunconstructive feeling. If we make spe-
cific personal mistakes, such as the rec-ollection error I just confessed, we maywell experience some feeling of personaldiscomfort and even guilt. But feelingguilty about professional issues—in thiscase, about “paradigm shifts”—seems toimply a very personal and complete iden-tification with the profession, an attach-ment that runs very close to vanity.
A larger problem with allowing self-regard to dominate our attitude towardthe computing profession involves howthis behavior appears to the public andother professions. The closing two para-graphs in Robert Whelchel’s “TheDigerati,” written as his swan song whenhe retired as editor in chief of IEEETechnology and Society Magazine (Spring2001, pp. 43-47), bite particularly deep:
As a teacher of electrical engineering Iuse technical software daily. I am morein awe of its educational benefits thanmost of my students. ... I have nothingagainst computers and nothing against
properly functioning software. WhatI do oppose is the digerati attitudespawned by excessive pride and arro-gance, which promotes disregard anddisrespect for the rest of us. It is timefor the digerati to learn humility.
There undoubtedly is a paradigm shiftin learning due to ubiquitous comput-ing power. ... Trying to figure out howto live with and control this and simi-lar paradigm shifts requires seriouseffort. Those of us involved in suchtasks could benefit greatly fromdigerati input if they would abandontheir used-car salesman attitude thateverything they do is the greatest thingin the world.
Although we must take remarks suchas these seriously, we should not react byfeeling guilty, as doing so will not pro-mote our profession.
Whelchel urges that we “digerati”—hisencompassing and somewhat disparagingterm for computing professionals—learnhumility. We should indeed do so. Weshould also realize that the computingindustry’s blunder rate is far higher thanit should be and that we must take pro-fessional responsibility for it. In acknowl-edging and working to reduce thisblunder rate, we will show that we areindeed learning humility.
PRIDEWhelchel accuses us of “excessive
pride and arrogance.” Any arrogance isbad, but excessive pride deserves specialcondemnation—for it springs from van-ity, from an excess of self-regard. Wemust base proper pride in our professionon respect for our fellow practitioners,and confidence in the value of the pro-fession to clients, and, more importantly,to the community.
Our pride in the computing professionshould impel us to make our products,services, and general behavior more pro-fessional. As professionals, we mustwork to improve the computing indus-try’s record, and we must humbly andrespectfully strive to support people likeWhelchel, who seek to apply digital tech-nology for the benefit of the greatercommunity.
Our pride in the computing profession
should impel us to make our products, services, and general behavior more professional.
Circulation: Computer (ISSN 0018-9162) is published monthly by the IEEE ComputerSociety. IEEE Headquarters, Three Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016-5997; IEEE Computer Society Publications Office, 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, PO Box 3014, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314; voice +1 714 821 8380; fax +1 714 821 4010;IEEE Computer Society Headquarters,1730 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC20036-1903. IEEE Computer Society membership includes $14 for subscription ofComputer magazine ($14 for students). Nonmember subscription rate available uponrequest. Single-copy prices: members $10.00; nonmembers $20.00. This magazine isalso available in microfiche form.Postmaster: Send undelivered copies and address changes to Computer, IEEE ServiceCenter, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08855. Periodicals Postage Paid at New York,New York, and at additional mailing offices. Canadian GST #125634188. Canada PostPublications Mail (Canadian Distribution) Agreement Number 0487910. Printed inUSA.Editorial: Unless otherwise stated, bylined articles, as well as product and service descriptions, reflect the author’s or firm’s opinion. Inclusion in Computer does not necessarily constitute endorsement by the IEEE or the Computer Society. Allsubmissions are subject to editing for style, clarity, and space.
Innovative technology for computer professionals
In some areas, such as the field of edu-cation, we are in grave danger of contin-uing to achieve far less than we shouldhave. But we can take genuine pride inthe computing profession’s achievementsso far, and the possibilities for the futureare almost unimaginably rich.
T he new millennium seems an appro-priate time for the computing pro-fession to become more concerned
about professionalism. Significantly,Communications of the ACM started itsThe IT Professional column this yearunder the leadership of Peter Denning.Although its tone differs somewhat fromthis column, readers with an interest inthe computing profession should findDenning’s column interesting.
The e-mail The Profession column hasprovoked thus far strongly suggests thatcomputing professionals have a realinterest in professional issues. Anyonewho contributes an essay to the columnis, I believe, assured of a wide and inter-ested readership.
IEEE Computer Society members mightalso consider joining the IEEE Society onSocial Implications of Technology so thatthey can receive its quarterly publication,IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.Many of the articles in that publicationrelate directly to digital technology, andall of them would be of interest to com-puting professionals. ✸
Neville Holmes is an honorary researchassociate and a lecturer under contract atthe University of Tasmania’s School ofComputing. Contact him at [email protected].
IEEE Computer Society10662 Los Vaqueros Circle
Los Alamitos, California 90720-1314Phone: +1 714 821 8380
Fax: +1 714 821 4010http://computer.org
Advertising PersonnelAdvertiser / Product Page Number
ADVERT ISER / PRODUCT INDEXJ U LY 2 0 0 1
San Francisco, CAMatt LaneEmail: [email protected] Martinez-BarrientosEmail: [email protected]: +1 408 879 6666Fax: +1 408 879 6669
Chicago, IL (product)David KovacsEmail: [email protected]: +1 847 705 6867Fax: +1 847 705 6878
Chicago, IL (recruitment)Tom WilcoxenEmail: [email protected]: +1 847 498 4520 Fax: +1 847 498 5911
Atlanta, GAC. William Bentz IIIEmail: [email protected] MaddockEmail: [email protected] K. HueyEmail: [email protected]: +1 404 256 3800Fax: +1 404 255 7942
New York, NYDawn BeckerEmail: [email protected]: +1 732 772 0160Fax: +1 732 772 0161
Boston, MADavid SchisslerEmail: [email protected]: +1 508 394 4026Fax: +1 508 394 4926
Dallas, TXEric KincaidEmail: [email protected]: +1 214 553 9896Fax: +1 214 553 9897
JapanGerman TajiriEmail: [email protected]: +81 42 501 9551Fax: +81 42 501 9552
EuropeGlesni EvansEmail: [email protected]: +44 193 256 4999Fax: +44 193 256 4998
ACCIS 15
ActiveState 91
Advanced Software 91
Aether Systems 90
Borland 92
CCGrid 2002 47
C Level Design 91
COMPSAC 2001 1
HPCA 2002 63
ICPP 2001 83
ICSE 2002 101
IEEE Computer Society Membership 8-10
IONA 92
IPCCC 2002 Cover 3
IPDPS 2002 Cover 2
Los Alamos National Laboratory 85, 87
Meta Ware 90
National Technological University 15
NuSphere 90
OriginLab 90
ParaSoft Corporation 5
Princeton Softech Cover 4
RidgeRun 92
SoftQuad Software 90
VelociGen 92
Visual Numerics 91
Classified Advertising 84-89
Boldface denotes advertisements in this issue.Members save 25%
on all conferences sponsoredby the IEEE Computer Society.
Not a member? Join online today!
Members save 25%
on all conferences sponsoredby the IEEE Computer Society.
Not a member? Join online today!
computer.org/join/