

Errors vs bugs and the end of stupidity - nqureshi
http://celandine13.livejournal.com/33599.html

======
opminion
This article reminds me of an essay by Edsger Dijkstra, EWD1036 [0], comparing
digital vs analog processes, and how they lead us to think of discrete bugs vs
continuous errors.

(I recall it as arguing against the naive tendency of considering machines as
continuous devices).

Interestingly, Dijkstra also uses a musician as example, for the alternative
view:

 _if the violinist slightly misplaces his finger, he plays slightly out of
tune_

[0]
[http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036...](http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html)

~~~
derleth
> if the violinist slightly misplaces his finger, he plays slightly out of
> tune

This depends on whether the slightly misplaced finger ends up on the correct
string, correct? I suppose to a violinist, however, a finger that was no
longer on the correct string would not be _slightly_ misplaced.

------
unimpressive
I try to attribute behavior to extrinsic properties whenever possible. And
then consider it intrinsic if proven otherwise.

Most people seem to do it the opposite way, which probably leads to a lot of
classification errors. Fixing an intrinsic problem is so hard that it's
considered a waste of time by most, whereas fixing an extrinsic problem is
within the realm of possibility.

I figure it's better to waste time trying to do the impossible if the
alternative is to leave a lot of low hanging fruit untouched.

~~~
taeric
Oddly, I've been pondering the intrinsic/extrinsic divide recently. I was
seeing the same thing you are referring to, I believe. Easy example is
traffic. People think it is something intrinsic to traffic that has them
upset. That is clearly false, if I can go through the same traffic and not be
upset.

So, firstly, is that essentially the same thing? And second, any good reading
on this idea?

~~~
calinet6
More close to extrinsic/intrinsic is the traffic problem itself.

Is traffic created by individuals, or is traffic created by a larger
systematic effect?

If you have the first perspective, then you're likely to be upset at people
and at the traffic. If you take the second perspective, you're likely to
understand its true nature and possible ways of fixing it.

In my experience, the systematic perspective is almost always the correct one.
Individuals are merely operating their best within their system. Exactly as in
the original post with her fingers and the piano. Brilliant analogy.

We need more systems thinking, beyond just intrinsic/extrinsic understanding.

I don't know any good reading on the psychological effect you speak of, but
good reading to start on systems thinking is Deming and go from there:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming>

~~~
unimpressive
This is basically what I was talking about.

------
gbog
Interesting view, but I wonder if it applies on so large a field the author
seem to believe. Piano may be a good example: some wrong notes can be bugs but
if the kid do not enjoy playing music and take it as a chore, no amount of bug
fixing will help.

Same for math, no-one said everyone must love them, because it is not that
lovable, and to be good at it math lover have a head start. So before getting
to the learning disability bug fixer you might want to make your kids fall in
love with math or grammar or whatever.

That's how I remember my love affair with math: one day a math teacher did
trigger love for math in me. It was a mix of telling me I was good at it,
showing me how powerful and wonderful a machine it is, and so on.

~~~
DeepDuh
You do have a point, but I wonder what's behind that 'love in math' you're
talking about. I tend to think that curiosity is the only basic character
trait needed to fall in love with something as basic as math, grammar, music
or physics. However, the way this kind of love is _triggered_ doesn't
necessarily correspond to how it is taught in lower classes. At least when I
went to primary school in the 90ies, 'math' was really just numerical
algorithms (which are IMO _not_ at the root of what math is, it's just one sub
field). What can it be applied to in our daily lives? (considering someone
doesn't take a higher math education) Knowing the price total in supermarkets,
that's about it.

Couldn't we include symbolic math at a much earlier age? Children enjoy the
building block properties of Legos starting at age 7 I'd say. How about we
give them basic problem solving tools in math at age 10? I think we need to
bring the potential feeling of achievement with mathematical tools to a much
lower age. That could be geometry or color theory or basic physics
(calculations with distance, velocity and time as an example).

~~~
gbog
> What can it be applied to in our daily lives?

I can only speak for myself but for me, the fact that math did not have any
daily life application was one of the greatest reason to love it.

I despised physics even if I was fairly good at it. I considered physics was
taking pure math virgin to a mud field and raped her there with "daily life"
problems.

~~~
DeepDuh
I understand what you mean, I think I'm wired in a similar way. However I'm
skeptical whether you can spead that kind of 'love' to a wider audience
without coming from the applied side of things. I believe the power to
describe some daily live phenomenon in a mathematical model and _then_ use
mathematical tools to predict behavior could be a very eye opening experience
for many children - and I think we could design exercises that follow such a
path, even with very basic algebraic tools.

Simultaneously we could also come from the other end - describing a new world
in a structured language (programming) - in order to awaken desires to learn
new expressions. I remember, when I was a kid I wanted to program an
'Asteroids' clone, but I couldn't get the flying behavior quite right. I was
excited when I learned about vector geometry - finally I had the tool I need
to model that.

~~~
gbog
I see also what you mean, but this might apply more to programming or physics
than to math. Being completely "useless" is a feature, not a bug, for math
(and poetry, music, metaphysics, astronomy). Pure speculation or useless
braingames is a thing many humans enjoy, see Rubix-cube or Sudoku.

------
leepowers
If I had to summarize this blog post in one phrase it would be: _work the
problem not the person_. The act of solving the problem changes the person.

The major exception to this is intent. When a person isn't interested in
solving the problem this technique will be less effective. And since all pre-
college education is compulsory there will always be a significant percentage
of students in need of an attitude adjustment.

~~~
calinet6
Then the _attitude_ is the problem, and you need to work that. Fix the system
to change the attitude.

As an aside, no one commenting on this post really understands it.

She's saying: look, it's not a person problem, it's a systematic problem. If
you look at everything this way, it's a better paradigm; it opens doors, it
allows you to grow, instead of shutting down based on incorrect assumptions
and false pretenses.

In fact, I'll go broader: few people on HN or in the business community at
large really understands that people problems are really systems problems.

Systems thinking. That's what she's talking about. And _she's absolutely
right,_ it's the most powerful paradigm shift available, and more people need
to have it.

This guy applied it to management:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming>

Her music teacher applied it to piano. Both geniuses.

Everyone here should apply it to business. Trust me.

------
jacques_chester
In the matter of talking about bugs, I try to use terminology influenced by
the SEI.

"It's crashed" --> "It has failed".

"It's behaving buggily" --> "There is a fault / it is faulting".

"It's a bug" --> "It's a defect".

The one to me that really matters is "defects". It's a matter of taste, but I
find that the term "bug" implies mysterious agency. "Defect" correctly
describes that ... there's a defect. Something is wrong and it can be fixed.

~~~
calinet6
Her point was far greater than that, and it was where the "defects" come from.

The answer is the system; not the individual. And that is one of the greatest
leaps in understanding possible for a person.

~~~
jacques_chester
Sure. There's a difference between assigning causes and assigning blame. But
assuming that human error is the root of failure is a useful lie.

<http://chester.id.au/2012/04/09/review-drift-into-failure/>

