
“I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000) - nkron
http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly//news/feuerstein_1000.html
======
cwyers
Leaving aside the politics, boy does the listed example suck.

Relational databases are about relations. The trite little employee/department
examples we've all seen before work because most people learning about
databases immediately can understand a whole bunch of different relations that
can occur here. You can think about concrete problems you might want to solve
using that data -- figuring out who has to do annual reviews of what employee,
doing payroll, etc. You can get a book's worth of mileage just adding things
to that simple set of tables.

Meanwhile, in this example -- if the ICJ wanted to make a database of war
criminals, this isn't close to how they'd do it. Storing the sort of data in
the example... using Excel might be overkill, you could do that in the text
editor of your choice. This isn't even a toy problem. It's not a simplified
version of the real thing for teaching purposes, it's a polemic slapped in the
middle of a bunch of boilerplate SQL for no other reason than because the
author is bored of writing SQL tutorials and is spicing it up by throwing in a
bunch of polemics. There's no connection between the material there and what
the user is supposed to be learning. It's distracting. It can be nothing but
distracting.

If you want to say that using business-oriented examples propagates a certain
sort of politics, fine (although nobody is using Oracle for anything else, the
license costs rule it out for hobbyist products). But make your examples
illuminate what you want to teach, not distract from it.

~~~
mjevans
They probably would use Excel or something; and they'd be horridly wrong.

One of the major features of a database is to allow multiple users to
simultaneously work on the set of data as a whole without unexpected data loss
or conflict*. (Obviously if two workers need to update the same resources and
are working with external programs those need to request the correct locks
and/or have transaction mechanisms that make sense.)

------
coreyp_1
I think I disagree with him here.

I tend to think that examples like his (polarizing topics) are distracting to
the message of the content.

I teach students, and they are, quite literally, paying me for my knowledge
and experience about that subject, not for me to distract everyone with my
personal opinions about unrelated issues. I doubt that any of them even know
my political beliefs.

~~~
aurelian15
Well, I see where you are coming from, and I don't necessarily agree that the
examples he chose are very good ones.

However, I think the overall point he makes is worth some consideration. Many
technical books (consciously or unconsciously on part of the author) frame
software as something that primarily satisfies commercial or business
interests. If you want, that in itself is a pretty polarising agenda, and I
often found myself moaning when reading yet another database book that gives
"managing employees" as an example. Why not use something mostly unbiased,
such as "invitations for your birthday party"?

That being said, I also agree with the author on the lack of public discourse
in North America. I recently moved to Canada and I am astounded by how little
politics are discussed here, even in those places where they should be
discussed (e.g., take a look at the trifle on the CBC News website "Politics"
section). Democracy lives from talking about controversial matters, and I
always get angry at people suggesting "not to talk about these things at work
(or family dinner for that matter)". This is not how we move things forward!
This is how I radically changed my mind on many matters over the course of
years. So, I'd suggest that we should embrace the extremes, discuss them in a
civilised manner, and meet somewhere in the middle. Avoiding these topics
altogether is only strengthening polarisation. Whether a book about technology
is the right place to do so, is rightly open for debate.

~~~
watwut
The birthday party example makes database look pointless. I can imagine
company big enough to need database for employees, birthday party is more
practical inside a text file.

I strongly prefer those democratic controversies not affecting my work. One
reason for keeping it out is so that people who think each others opinions are
horrible/unnatural can still produce work together.

~~~
aurelian15
I fully agree that my "birthday party" example sucks. I just couldn't think of
anything better.

Regarding the "no controversies at work" matter, I feel that coming to a
situation where you dismiss each others opinions as "horrible" is a problem in
the first place. Having worked with people ranging from Christian
fundamentalist to extreme left, I always have the feeling that we come to
agree that our differences are funded in a relatively small set of assumptions
about the world, and it is far easier to accept one another once you've come
to grasp these assumptions. If any discussion about these topics is widening
the divide instead of advancing mutual understanding, society is truly doomed.

So, if you don't want to _discuss_ these things at work, why not at least be
curious about other people's thoughts and honestly ask them in a non-
condescending way about why they think about something in a certain way?

~~~
watwut
They don't divide when the topic actually does not matter to you. That is when
you can easily be detached. When the outcome of the discussion affects you
personally, then it is much different. Speaking about Christian fundamentalist
specifically, if the consensus in work ends up being that I was supposed to be
more with children anyway or that I should be naturally submissive, then my
position and career will be fundamentally different then if the consensus ends
up being radical aggressive feminist women-are-always-right stance.

Those debates have consequences and that is why they are heated. Alternatively
we can make work about work where impact of these things is minified.

"So, if you don't want to discuss these things at work, why not at least be
curious about other people's thoughts and honestly ask them in a non-
condescending way about why they think about something in a certain way?"

Because I am here to do the job. I picked up this job because I liked
programming and problem solving. If I would be interested that much in
someones that was randomly assigned to the same team opinions about my gender,
motherhood, health care or tax policy, I would pick up different job.

I also strongly hate when people discuss topics like that for hours, then have
to stay late and then frame themselves as hard workers who stay late or demand
that I stay late too, because they need my support.

Discuss those things after work, with or without colleges.

------
realityking
The question I’d pose to the author is, what would he think of a book using
examples he disagrees with? Let’s say for advocating for arming every American
or against gay marriage.

The vast majority arguing like the author are not ok with this - it’s only
good if the content fits their world view.

~~~
chickenfries
> The vast majority arguing like the author are not ok with this

Your critique isn't very strong when it hinges on supposing something that is
not supported by the text, merely by hyperbolic "whatabouts" that you assume
the answer you wan't to critique. You're putting the author in a box rather
than engaging with the words that they wrote.

~~~
realityking
I’d agree if this was an active discussion between the author and me. But I’m
posing a question to an author of a piece written 17 years ago...

Allow me to reframe the question: if you’re fine with the book as-written,
would you still be fine with it if it expressed the opposite political views?

~~~
chickenfries
I don't think all political views are equivalent. Of course I'm supportive of
opinions that I agree with, like you point out. Opinions I disagree with or
espouse a world-view that is different than mine? Of course I'm fine with
that. I read and own many authors I disagree with because I value the
knowledge gained by reading them and understanding their words, even if I
disagree.

Your example though? > Let’s say for advocating for arming every American or
against gay marriage.

Arming them for what? To shoot gays? Yeah I would probably be pretty upset
about that. Advocating ethnic cleansing? "Alternative facts" about vaccines?

If I were on Twitter or something I might tweet, or write a blog post about it
trying to convince the publishers to change their mind or encouraging others
to support different publishers. I don't think that makes me a book burner.

In reality though unless it was something truly vile or dangerous that crosses
some sort of hard to define personal line I would probably not do anything at
all... I'm not a despotic ruler who cannot abide the existence of mere words I
disagree with...

~~~
realityking
Then you’re more open minded than most.

The point I was trying to get at is that when discussing a topic like “it is
ok to use obviously political examples in a book about programming”, then it’s
more interesting to consider what your response will be when they’re political
positions different from yours. Nobody minds being “confronted” with opinions
they already hold.

Note I explicitly didn’t give an example like ethnic cleansing or shooting
gays. Advocating for murder isn’t political opinion in my book.

------
happyrock
I realize this is from 2000 but why would anyone think this person's trite and
wholly conventional political opinions are in any way interesting or
noteworthy? Strange psychology this guy has, like he's just trying to rattle
off as many "controversial" "issues" as he can name, with no regard for his
readership... the whole thing comes across as juvenile and narcissistic.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _trite and wholly conventional political opinions_

It's weird that you judge political opinions on whether they're "conventional"
or not, as if you're looking for only the most novel, original politics.

I'm imagining a stereotypical hipster sipping kombucha, going "Ugh, tax reform
used to be cool before all the fucking college kids got into it. I've been
into legalizing meth lately--it's so _real,_ y'know?"

~~~
happyrock
There's nothing _wrong_ with having conventional political opinions, and I
wasn't really critiquing them as such. Again, my point was really about
Feuerstein's weird psychology, in that he thought cramming his database
programming book with such unremarkable observations was some bold act of
defiance. I'm just picturing him at his keyboard, "I'm gonna blow these
SHEEPLE'S minds... by opening their eyes to the TRUTH that companies profit
from operating prisons."

It reflects an indifference to his reader and a general kind of solipsism
about the proper role of political discourse. His subsequent explanation that
"everything is political" reflects the possibility of an obsessive, neurotic
mind, focused on every possible slight or injustice, restlessly waiting to
explode at any instant with unwanted political diatribes. I bet he's a joy to
be around.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
You've got an awfully rosy view of American politics if you think any of the
issues he mentioned _aren 't_ depressingly controversial. I'm not sure how you
can remain so naive with Trump in the White House.

(Of course Feuerstein was awfully naive to think that all his readers would
joyfully embrace this sort of thing. I'm not clear why he was surprised that
controversial politics cause controversy. But that's tangential to your
point.)

------
dwheeler
Interesting. I'm still processing this essay.

Perhaps the problem to many is that this approach interrupts the flow
necessary for fast learning. When I read a technical tome, I'm trying to
understand the technical content as rapidly as I can. Trying to consider the
political points, even if I agree with them, would greatly slow my learning
via distraction and thus would inhibit the reason I paid for the book. It does
feel a little misleading, like a bait and switch, if I had to pay for the book
and this wasn't made clear somewhere: "I paid for SQL but I got political
assertions instead that I could not easily skip."

I do agree that there is inadequate real political discourse, but this doesn't
seem like a solution. But it's a free country, write it and see who wants to
be your audience.

~~~
kazagistar
I dunno, I don't feel a need for flow when learning, and tone-heavy works are
oftenjoying my favorite. For example, Learn You A Haskell For Great Good is
one of my favorite language introductions, and also very heavy on random
colorful tidbits that might distract fom pure technical information.

------
59nadir
I thought the examples sounded more interesting than your usual ones and
honestly I would prefer those to whatever user login example you see usually.
There are probably several that I don't agree with politically, but who cares?
It's still a technical book and if people like the author's previous work I
don't see why the quality of it would have changed.

------
TaylorAlexander
I really liked this article.

More and more I feel as though my life and the lives of so many people around
me is cheapened as we are treated as tools to generate growth and consumption.

I long for a world where I and those around me are working to make a world
that has moved far beyond the consumerism and the competition attitude. I want
to collaborate with my fellow people, not compete with them. This is possible
for all digitizable value, but it takes work to build a library of wealth not
held down by intellectual property restrictions.

It is possible though.

------
tempodox
God forbid we should be distracted with Real Life when reading a book about
databases.

~~~
musage
> _We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while.
> How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important,
> about something real?_

\-- Ray Bradbury

------
jackvalentine
I think a lot of the criticisms of his approach hinge on making false
equivalences (what if he was a white nationalist!) and we should be careful of
that. His examples are partisan, but not particularly extreme to my eyes.

If the author wants to write a book with an inbuilt smaller audience more
power to him - the more extreme it gets then presumably the smaller the
audience gets.

------
jquast
way easier to understand complex syntax than reading yet another foo(bar)
example.

~~~
ianai
That’s a seriously good point. It’s far easier to understand certain concepts
with an actual real world example. (Not that his examples are exactly real
world...but they’re not foo/bar.)

------
cafard
One of very few Amazon reviews I have ever posted was a 5-star of Feuerstein's
_PL /Sql Best Practices_. I might not have done so, but for a one-star review
given by somebody unhappy with Feuerstein's dedication of the book to
Palestinian women (I think it was). I was not out to endorse (or damn)
Feuerstein's views on the Middle East, but I thought that the content of the
book should be reviewed on its own terms.

------
Kiro
I barely know who Kissinger is but the fact that the author admits it's
controversial (in contrast to say calling Hitler a war criminal) is enough for
me to avoid this guy's books at all cost.

If I read a technical book I presume the examples are objective. If I would
have read it without knowing anything beforehand I would take it literally and
all of a sudden become a Kissinger hater without realizing it's actually a
subjective political opinion.

~~~
shoo
I think perhaps you may be conflating "non-controversial" opinions with
"objective" opinions. As the author writes:

> The Hidden and Prevailing Ideology

> I believe that just about every technical book comes with a body of
> politics, an ideology that governs and usually restricts its example set. We
> don't notice the political slant because it reflects the dominant viewpoint
> in our society and is thus invisible.

Or more generally -- the status quo is highly political. If you choose to
follow a mainstream or establishment viewpoint, it does not logically follow
that this mainstream viewpoint is objective or true or correct or laudable,
although in some cases it may be. It gets more worrying when you don't
consciously realise you've made a choice.

But yes, perhaps accidentally absorbing and signalling non-mainstream
subjective political opinions could be hazardous to your career /
participation in society / life , but that has nothing to do with the truth or
otherwise of those political opinions.

~~~
Kiro
You are right. However, know I made a choice and I have no problem admitting
that I think Hitler is a more obvious war criminal than Kissinger, even if
it's possible it's all just a construct by the mainstream establishment. Call
me a sheep if you want.

~~~
alien_at_work
Both are very obviously war criminals. Hitler's actions were obviously more
egregious but war criminal is just a person who commits one or more war crimes
(regarless of scope), which they both (amoung many, many others) did.

------
n8n3k
Reminds me of ashidakim[1], a website that works adds into Zen Koans:

The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered
Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe
seven days of silence.

On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but
when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not
help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."

The second pupil was surprised to hear th first one talk. "We are not supposed
to say a word," he remarked.

"You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.

"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil. It can be
very difficult for people in Western culture to be silent. This is especially
true for any person who talks for a living, such as a _Columbus criminal
defense attorney_. Generally Westerners have a negative view towards silence,
where members of Eastern cultures tend to embrace it.

[1]:
[http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/71learningtobesilent.html](http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/71learningtobesilent.html)

------
musage
> The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a
> political attitude.

[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw](http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw)

Substitute art with anything else, it's still a political attitude. Politics
relates to how we live together, or fail to live together, not something
politicians do 24/7 and citizens do once every four years. And even that
wasn't so (though it is) the author did point out that a lot of technical
documentation _do_ contain political examples, it's just kind of invisible and
acceptable (to some people) when it's in support of the status quo, which even
"not touching X with a barge pole" is. As the biography of Howard Zinn is
titled: "You can't be neutral on a moving train."

People who think arresting and sentencing war criminals and other issues are
radical far out ideas that upset them so much they can't concentrate should
write their own books. Is that too much to ask? Let's say political examples
distract people, and make their life worse by some laughable, but still
measurable amount. What about the people who get _killed_ by us living in a
world where such examples are a valid criticism? They don't even get to _read_
the book and get offended. It all boils down to what class of problems you
prioritize, people who read technical documentation not getting distracted or
people not getting murdered. I say good on the author.

How many of the people who think the examples are "bad taste" or "polarizing"
or "controversial" or other synonyms of doubleplusungood are leveraging the
same criticisms in a more effective form? Dare I guess? At the heart of it, I
think people really don't like it when someone flaunts not having lost what
they did indeed lose or never even acquired.

> _When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you
> boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to
> be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn
> anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a
> legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter
> what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as
> you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this
> course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners. As a practical
> matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occasions where no statement is
> asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for
> suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable
> iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and
> watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant,
> nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your
> father 's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the
> secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make
> himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a
> close enemy of most men who would wish you well. I have seen ten years of
> young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they
> find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and
> wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some
> little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years,"
> reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use
> my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The
> man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has
> nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but
> speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in
> doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the
> appointed time._

\-- John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart
College, 1900

You may agree with that being words to live by or not, but you cannot tell
someone who lives by them to not live by them and nudge them in the slightest.
To get to that point, they likely fought harder battles than you can even
imagine, since you avoided them. Don't bring a soggy paper bag to a diamond
fight is what I'm essentially trying to say.

~~~
johnsonjo
Beautifully stated. Makes me appreciate more the people that put themselves
out there. It is definitely a hard road to speak up for things you believe in
but definitely a necessity to freedom in my opinion.

------
planb
Look at those responses he got from upset readers of the book. They are polite
and articulate their point. Nowadays, he would get death threats.

------
strken
This is horrifying. Left and right already read different news, different
fiction, different philosophy, and different scientific papers. Are they also
supposed to read different O'Reilly textbooks?

Granted, Kissinger should be a war criminal, but how does this press the case
against him? It just creates another degree of separation in the divergent
realities constructed by the two groups.

~~~
colemickens
Totally agree, we need to find middle ground on Kissinger so as to not offend
special snowflake liber... er, wait.

There is only one reality. The rest is politics and self-delusion.

~~~
strken
Alice doesn't know much about Kissinger, but detests Chomsky for denying the
Khmer Rouge. Bob doesn't know much about Chomsky, but detests Kissinger for
the bombing campaign. They both live in the same world, they both believe true
facts, neither is delusional, but the reality they see is not the same.

If they approached each other from a position of mutual respect over their
abilities and PL/SQL knowledge, they would have a chance to fill in the gaps
in their knowledge. If they instead publish a series of passive-aggressive
textbooks where Bob puts Kissinger in a table of war criminals while Alice
places Noam Chomsky in a user's table next to David Duke, they'll hate each
other and have no chance to fill in the gaps.

------
hitekker
Mods, it's worth putting "(2000)" in the title.

------
gozur88
That's the last book I'd buy from that author. If you want to write about
politics, write about politics. Don't try to sneak your political views into a
technical book.

~~~
Retra
What is this? "Write about what you want, but only if I also want it!" He
wants to write a technical book with political examples, and did. How do you
justify the requirement that books must into clean archetypical categories
against the "do what you want" argument you just made?

~~~
dymk
The title of the book is "Oracle PL/SQL Programming: Guide to Oracle8i
Features", not "Oracle PL/SQL Programming, plus my rambling political edge"

~~~
Retra
I'm not sure why you think that's a prohibition on political content in
examples. Lots of technical books have diatribes concerning many things
irrelevant to the subject matter.

I read a programming book that dared to have jokes in it once. _Gasp_! One
even talked about DNA and the wagging of dogs' tails. I suppose we've got to
be extra puritanical and dogmatic once our delicate political sensitivities
become more important than learning something. That way lies progress.

~~~
brain5ide
Jokes are what is called comic relief - a psychologic tool to ease the
acceptance of the content. I find it hard to imagine a political topic fitting
the same function. But who am I to judge the author o his choices of examples.
The only way is through not buying the book and maybe giving advice not to buy
it either.

------
Ice_cream_suit
Scholarly papers* on the design of atomic weapons would be better if the
equations indicated how many humans would be killed. __

So why cavil at the author suggesting, through the thoughful use of examples
that certain modes of acting have real world consequences ?

* Undoubtedly heavily classified. But have a look at the unclassified article I have linked to in another submission on nuclear warhead reentry vehicle design...

 __Certain assumptions would have to be made on the density of inhabitation of
the target zones.

------
monkeycantype
The authors point is that publishing examples that fit our expectations of a
standard example (employer & employee) is also a political statement, just
that it is one in support of the status quo and therefore provokes little
response. But it is still a political act, which contributes to the pervasive
sense that the relationships embedded in the examples are natural rather than
arbitrary and challengeable.

------
Annatar
It’s just a book. Without your mind to give it meaning, it has no meaning. If
you’re so easily offended because you’re sensitive like a mimosa, it’s
capitalism, don’t buy the book.

You had better concentrate on the examples if you want to learn something;
don’t be such sensitive daisies.

And it’s the author’s book, he can and may put any kind of examples he wants;
when you write your own book, you get to do the same thing.

------
quickthrower2
I wonder if any of the 'political' code has worked it's way via cargo-cult
programming into production

~~~
heartbreak
From the example listed, it’s political data, not political code.

~~~
quickthrower2
Political schema:

INSERT INTO war_criminal (name, activity) VALUES (culprit, event);

------
davegardner
In the books I've written I added references to movies that I liked as part of
the examples. I remember including a "PC Load Letter" error message as a
homage to Office Space. Other examples were more obscure, such an address or
phone number of one of the characters in the movie.

------
harrumph
ITT: Example after example of persons unaware of their own politics.

------
aurelian15
My main objection to the examples he gives is that a book about technology
leaves little to no space to expand on these matters. I think that providing
context is of utter importance in written media. In some sense, the author
exerts control over the reader, as reading is all about internalising the
author's thoughts, and does not give the opportunity to (immediately) ask
questions. Just stating (hidden) opinions about things that are off-topic,
abuses the trust that a reader puts into the author. Correspondingly, such
examples borderline on being rude and are likely to result in strong reactions
when discovered.

A well-balanced treatise on something that traces the author's line of thought
gives the reader the opportunity to consider his own opinion in the light of
the information that is being presented. However, as I wrote above, a book
about technology is not the right place for an excursion into the history of
war-crimes, and a technology author would first have to convince the reader
that he is actually eligible to talk about these matters.

Still, and as I already wrote in some child comment, the author is correct
that current technology-books often contain a "hidden" agenda (software being
framed as something that primarily satisfies commercial or business
interests), and it is also correct that democracies should more openly embrace
discussion on polarising topics instead of tabooing it. I would argue that
these two issues are best addressed in the following way:

a) Authors should actively think about whether examples are sufficiently
neutral, e.g., talk about a database for the organisation of your "birthday
party" (all people have birthdays, and many people celebrate them in one way
or another) instead of talking about the database managing your companies'
employees (at least if the title of your book is not "Relational Databases in
Human Resources"). Note that being neutral is different from being
uncontroversial. For example, when writing about cognitive neuroscience it is
impossible to not (at least implicitly) state that humans are "just animals",
although this statement surely upsets people's religious feelings. Yet the
statement is still on-topic and neutral, since it is the very premise of this
line of research.

b) Non-fictional texts are intrinsically about providing context, and
deviating into the off-topic is only watering down the value of these
writings. In the context of written communication, democracy is best advanced
by providing opinion-pieces which are clearly labelled as such, and (in a
perfect world) refer to completely unopinionated material for context. So if
you want to advance democracy, embrace discussing your world view, but only
when you know that your audience is ready for that (e.g. by clearly labeling
your writings as such, or by making sure that your peer actually wants to talk
about this topic), and back-up your claims.

------
shoo
re: this comment from the author:

> I believe that just about every technical book comes with a body of
> politics, an ideology that governs and usually restricts its example set. We
> don't notice the political slant because it reflects the dominant viewpoint
> in our society and is thus invisible.

It's not just mainstream technical books that are immersed in a dominant
political ideology. In his book "Disciplined Minds", Jeff Schmidt makes a
strong argument that political and ideological training and qualification play
a major part in the process of creating new professional workers:

> Unlike employees whose actions can be prescribed in unlimited detail, these
> workers have to understand their employer's interests, because there are
> moments when that understanding is all they have to go on. Employers
> designate these special nonmanagement workers "professionals".

> Preparing to become a professional is fundamentally different from preparing
> to become a nonprofessional, because the blank sheet professionals face
> holds an infinity of possibilities, and there is no way to teach or even
> list them all. Professional training therefore centers around ideology,
> because ideology guides the subtle decisions and creative choices that the
> professional makes as she fills the blank sheet. (The professional's work,
> in turn, propagates the ideology that guides it.) Even those whose range of
> discretion is humiliatingly insignificant require the special preparation:
> The system apparently considers ideology to be of paramount importance.
> Thus, if the work of a particular occupation is in part creative -- that is,
> if the decisions are not _purely_ routine or rote -- preparing and
> qualifying for that occupation will include a _major_ ideological component
> involving years of postsecondary schooling, even if the creative work is a
> _minor_ part of the job.

> This accounts for the seeming disparity between amount of preparation and
> authority on the job. ("After all the schooling I went through, they hardly
> let me make a difference around here.") And it accounts for the seemingly
> irrelevant part of the schooling required to get the paper credentials that
> allow one to work as a professional. Despite years of student opposition,
> these qualifying assignments are still imposed, precisely because they are
> _not_ irrelevant. They get the individual used to the kind of political
> framework within which the skills and techniques of the profession are
> applied.

> When employers designate certain jobs "professional" and insist that
> employees have professional training -- not just the technical skills that
> seem sufficient to do the work -- they must have more in mind that
> efficiency. Hierarchical organizations need professionals, because through
> professionals those at the top control the political content of what is
> produced, and because professionals contribute to the bosses' control of the
> workforce itself. It is crucial for the functioning and survival of the
> institution -- and the hierarchical system of production as a whole -- that
> the employees who make decisions do so in the interests of the employer. As
> we will see, the employer's control of the professional's creative work is
> assured by the ideological discipline developed during professional
> training. And the employer's control of the workforce is maintained in part
> through the professional's elitism and support for hierarchy in the
> workplace. The preparation process develops, and the qualification process
> measures, the student's willingness and ability to accept ideological
> direction from future employers. The one who has met the requirements -- the
> "qualified professional" \-- can be trusted to do what is "politically
> correct" when making decisions and creative choices at work.

Schmidt's book is is fantastic, and I thoroughly recommend it. See e.g.
[http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/](http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/)

------
ianamartin
I agree with cwyers that the example are bad. Databases (relational ones,
anyway) are good at describing relationships between clearly defined entities.
The reason that people use Employees and Managers or Sales and Month in books
is because they are clearly defined relationships and entities at the most
basic level.

Those kinds of super-dumbed-down examples serve a purpose: to provide a
prototypical way of thinking about the technology and how it's best used.

I mostly agree with the author about his politics, as far as I can tell from
what he wrote. But I think his agenda got ahead of him. I had really hard time
going to a small religious school when I was a kid because a daily dose of
"Jesus says . . ." seemed to me to be completely irrelevant to a math class.
It was, for lack of a better term, an unnecessary context switch. WTF am I
supposed to be thinking about right now? What I think or what I believe?

But examples of a war criminal database just don't fit when you're trying to
teach someone to (hopefully) do more than just copy and paste some code. The
point of these examples is to provide a mental template for how to think about
relationships between entities and what entities are.

If, on the other hand, the book were supposed to be more advanced and dealt
with topics like, "How to navigate hot-button topics in the workplace" or if
the example really wanted to model how one might design a database that served
the purpose of categorizing war criminals, I would be okay with it. As it is,
I just think it's a garbage example.

I do, however, think the author has a point about how much we gloss over
sublimated political and social speech. It's true. We do that. And we often
accidentally espouse the status quo by trying to be neutral. That is a
legitimate problem not only in technology but also in journalism and in every
endeavor that involves written language.

From that point of view, I applaud the author for trying something different.
And I can certainly understand the need to try something different when you've
been doing basically the same thing for 10 years.

That's my general response to this. My specific response to it is that
teachers--in whatever format: book, in-person, classroom--have an obligation
to only teach. Never to preach. People can go to churches for that if they
want. But if I'm teaching you, my mandate is to lead you. To point you in a
direction that will enable you to increase your knowledge. I struggle with
this quite a lot as a violin teacher of young children.

Classical music and its history and theory are full of politically and morally
charged ideas. It's not all about how to get the fingers of your left hand to
fall into a certain configuration in a certain time constraint. Or about how
to put your bow in exactly the right place with regard to a vibrating string.

You have to manage your relationship with your audience. You have to
understand why this music came to be, and yes, how things like religion were a
factor. It's not simple.

But my job as a teacher isn't to tell my students that Mozart was a womanizing
asshole, or to pass judgement on Tchaikovsky for being a closet homosexual who
was very kind to his wife in spite of being very frustrated.

My job is to lead the student. To show them where facts can be discovered and
ultimately to enable them to process those facts and draw their own
conclusions. To give the student a framework for how to process facts, analyze
them, and draw their own conclusions.

What I think about this author's approach is tied to my personal opinion of
what we should be doing when we are in leadership positions. Saying that
Kissinger is a war criminal doesn't inspire the kind of learning I think is
appropriate. It's stated as a fact. It's the copy-paste mindset that is so
detrimental to practically everyone. Memorize a fact. Repeat it. You need to
learn how to do a thing on the web. Use jQuery. Repeat it.

I find this didactic method deeply and morally repellent, even though I agree
with the politics espoused.

When we take up the mantle of a teacher or mentor or leader, we have an
obligation to lead people down a path of growth. Not browbeat them with
ideology. This approach smacks to me of someone who doesn't understand what
teaching really means.

Finally, I would bet money that the author has a different attitude about
things today, and that we shouldn't sit around crucifying someone for an
experiment they did 17 years ago. It was mostly harmless. We all make mistakes
when we are writing and teaching. I make mistakes as a teacher almost every
day. Sometimes more than once.

It's a good topic for thought, and even though I think it was the wrong move,
it makes me question and think about my methods and the ways I relate to
people. So maybe it wasn't so far off the path of leading-not-preaching as I
thought.

------
KODeKarnage
How much more common is this type of person nowadays?

Using a technical book to engage in hamfisted virtue signalling is such
incredible cringe!

~~~
colemickens
Boy I _love_ when people use the phrase "virtue signaling". It's the new
"SJW", in the sense that it's a bullshit phrase used by a political side in
what is almost always the result of projecting more than anything else.

It's so much easier than when the same sentiment is disguised and dressed up,
so I know more immediately to roll my eyes and move on. Thanks.

edit: Sorry, I shouldn't have replied. Didn't realize this person had negative
net karma.

