

Scott Adams: Future Jobs (and Irreplaceable Skill Sets) - cwan
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/future_jobs/

======
ramit
Very interesting. This describes my coursework at Stanford almost exactly.

My major was STS (Science, Technology, and Society) with a minor in
psychology. Then I studied sociology in grad school.

What I focused on was social influence, persuasion, and behavioral change. I
took courses on negotiation, deception, cults, magic, minority influence,
organizational development, group dynamics, arbitration, personality/social
psychology, persuasive technology, and a ton more. I was a researcher in the
Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab for years.

And I mixed it with practical applications of negotiations in the field.

The coursework has helped me dramatically in understanding the motivations,
attitudes, and behaviors of others.

I still remember one of my Comm professors talking about how other technical
disciplines tend to look down on areas like psych/comm. She said something
I'll never forget: "The value isn't in the difficulty of the material, but the
usefulness."

I use my social psychology background in my work with people on
iwillteachyoutoberich every day.

~~~
jackowayed
It seems like a double-major in STS and CS would pretty much make for the
ultimate entrepreneur.

Need to raise money, get customers, convince great people to work for you, or
sell the company? Draw on your STS skills. Need to write amazing software?
Draw on your CS skills.

I'll have to look into STS and consider that, but unfortunately, I don't
really want to double major because I want time to do other stuff (like hack
and maybe have a social life).

~~~
ramit
There is actually a specific STS specialization in CS if you're more
technically inclined.

------
dpritchett
I'm finding that these awkward "manipulation" skills that Adams describes are
simply leverage to multiply the impact of one's technical skills within a
company.

I work in the IT organization of a Fortune 100. Due to our size and
modularization the skills of persuasion and influence (and consensus building,
presentation skills, social skills, name recognition) are very important if I
hope to have an impact here beyond that of my own code quality.

Being "right" on a technical matter is worthless if no one takes you or your
ideas seriously.

~~~
tonystubblebine
Excellent summary of how to be an effective programmer. In any group
situation, it's not good enough to merely be right.

~~~
logicalmind
It's even worse than that. If you work in a large hierarchical company you can
be right and be able to present your correctness in a very clear and useful
way. But it is unlikely that your superior is going to allow you speak
directly to his superior. That is how politics work. Which brings us back to
the original article.

~~~
dpritchett
This is why you build a consensus. Selling your idea directly to the person in
charge of making the decision is less convincing than disseminating the idea
across the organization. Arrange for the superior's superior to hear it from
his/her trusted associates and then hand it back down to you as a managerial
directive.

As always, the only way to make someone do what you want them to do is to
convince them that they want to do it because it's in their interest. Simply
presenting a good idea directly to the person in charge won't be enough if the
idea represents a change to entrenched organizational policies.

------
pigbucket
This is a great idea. It's also a two-thousand year-old idea, updated to
include golf and "art (specifically design)." Missing from the list of
possible courses is a study of elevated language as a tool of persuasion (as
in Longinus' On the Sublime), but aside from that it looks like the study of
Rhetoric in the most generalized sense. I went to pull the url for Wiki's page
on Rhetoric and noticed this gem half way down: "The Greeks liked to use
rhetoric especially if there was a fire."--something Scott Adams might have
said. I'm sure it'll be gone tomorrow. Anyway, the link:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric>

~~~
gjm11
> The Greeks liked to use rhetoric especially if there was a fire.

Ye gods. Fixed it.

(The edit that introduced that text did nothing else. The user who made that
edit has made no other edits to Wikipedia. [EDITED to add: and the account was
created 2 minutes before that edit.] Looks like vandalism, though a rather odd
sort of vandalism.)

------
Volscio
Also see Snarkmarket's New Liberal Arts curriculum:
<http://snarkmarket.com/nla/>

Attention Economics, Brevity, Coding and Decoding, Creativity, Finding, Food,
Genderfuck, Home Economics, Inaccuracy, Iteration, Journalism, Mapping,
Marketing, Micropolitics, Myth and Magic, Negotiation, Photography, Play,
Reality Engineering, Translation, Video Literacy

------
aik
I think he has a great point here. I think the most important part of that
kind of education would be to awaken the masses to the fact that they're being
manipulated every single day by everything around them, whether someone has
constructed the manipulation on purpose or not. Clearly the ideas in most
people's heads aren't their own and judging by how canned they sound, I can't
imagine they have put much thought themselves into the idea.

This would be immensely useful in creating people who were perhaps more
resistant to persuasion strategies of our education system, government,
product marketing, and humans in general; and instead create people who are
themselves more freely thinking - producers and thinkers instead of pure
consumers.

In addition, it's unbelievable that people (including me) are overcome by the
simplest of persuasive strategies. If we weren't so poorly (on purpose)
educated on rhetoric and debate, and if we had some understanding and
dependence on our inner selves and strength, I believe things would be very
different.

I'm behind this idea!

~~~
jseliger
_I think the most important part of that kind of education would be to awaken
the masses to the fact that they're being manipulated every single day by
everything around them, whether someone has constructed the manipulation on
purpose or not._

I'm a grad student in English lit at the University of Arizona, and based on
my experience teaching freshmen comp and listening to various other teachers
and so on, I'd guess that the world is not particularly interested in being
awoken, never has been, and probably will never will be.

A small segment, yes, but definitely not "the masses."

* If we weren't so poorly (on purpose) educated on rhetoric and debate,*

I think this is highly improbable: don't attribute to malice what can be
explained by ignorance, incompetence, and randomness.

~~~
aik
"I think this is highly improbable"

I apologize - I should have either not included the parenthesis comment or
explained it further. So to explain it a little further, I don't think we give
our forefathers enough credit when they devised the school system that they
did post-civil war. I agree this thought is a bit conspiratorial at nature,
however it does say something when our system is obviously missing certain
basic subjects to assist in critical thought, especially with the knowledge
that the most intelligent and successful minds created it. I'm still forming
an opinion here, but I do find it suspicious.

"the world is not particularly interested in being awoken, never has been, and
probably will never will be."

This may be true, however it is in everyone's best interest that they are
'awoken' to the best of their abilities. Also, with the semi-recent
discovery/invention of frighteningly-effective persuasion techniques, I
believe this is more important than ever.

~~~
jerf
You don't really need to hypothesize. It isn't a conspiracy theory that
schools were designed to produce good factory workers, it is documented
historical fact. (Where by "documented historical fact" I mean as factual as
any "historical" fact ever is.) See something like
<http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm> . You do not have to agree
with Gatto's prescription for what schools should become or agree with his
reaction to the fact that schools were designed to produce good factory
workers to agree that the proposition is very well grounded in fact, when it
comes complete with quotes about the intention from the people who were
creating our schools in the first place.

For myself, I do not believe that people still truly intend it this way; I do
not believe there is a mass conscious effort to prevent critical thinking
skills from being developed or to deliberately hold people back from realizing
their true potential. If you find your brain rebelling against the entire idea
that schools could have been created for this purpose, remember this was over
a hundred years ago, and I for one don't claim this is _still_ the animus
behind schools. In fact I suggest that the vast bulk of people's actions
demonstrate a true desire to arm children with the best education they can be
given, it's just that the average person, even the average person deeply
involved with education, is clueless about how to actually bring that result
about in the real world. Meanwhile, the pattern of "what a school looks like"
was laid down when this _was_ a conscious intention and through literally 5 or
6 generations now has accidentally been enshrined as Gospel, and few people
are yet thinking outside the box; those that do are laughed at at best,
vilified at worst. Fortunately, the Internet will, eventually, change this,
though probably not until the _current_ teen generation, the one that has
never known the world without it, is the majority on the PTA.

------
percept
I read that list and see "MBA," especially considering activities both inside
and outside the classroom, and the sort of profile top programs want to see
from applicants.

~~~
Lukeas14
I read it and saw "PUA." Its as if they took all the underlying skills of
manipulation and gaming psychology and applied it to business/networking.

------
rywang
I've always wondered about the effectiveness of courses that claim to teach
"Management" or "Negotiation" or "Networking." There's certainly theory to
these subjects and practicing in a contrived setting may help, but I suspect
there are fairly narrow limits on what can be learned about these subjects in
the classroom.

Likewise, I'd be suspicious of a program that claims to "create people who can
enter any room and make it their bitch."

~~~
il
If you've ever studied persuasion, for example Cialdini, you'll find that
there are very specific, concrete concepts and techniques presented. The type
of theories Cialdini presents can very easily be taken into practice.

------
doki_pen
Good article, but this stuck out "Selling yourself, which sounds almost noble,
is little more than manipulating other people to do what is good for you but
might not be so good for others."

That's bullshit. There are plenty of opportunities to make money in a mutually
beneficial relationship. This is the difference between ethical business and
unethical business. If your focus is getting over on other people, then you
can rationalize all you want, but you are an unethical person.

You can influence people to do thing that are in their own best interest. Use
the force for good, not evil.

~~~
noverloop
any decision that isn't based on hard facts has an element of persuasion in
it.

------
JoeAltmaier
Even this may become obsolete. Even management may become automated. Ever try
to argue with an automated phone support system? Eventually our boss may be
one of those.

------
Mongoose
What are some outlets that technically-skilled people can partake in to get
experience in the "persuasion coursework" he describes? I'm a CS undergrad and
dabble in probably half of his list in my downtime, but would like to get more
experience with sales, economics, and general persuasiveness. Dabbling in
groups like Toastmasters comes to mind, but what are some others?

~~~
ramit
2 suggestions:

1\. Here are some good books on psychology (specifically behavioral change):
[http://astore.amazon.com/iwillteachyou-20?_encoding=UTF8&...](http://astore.amazon.com/iwillteachyou-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=4)

2\. Hang out with persuasive friends. Try to understand the meta-lessons of
what they do. You can ask them, but often people don't have cognitive access
to explain what they do, so sometimes you'll just have to observe.

When you combine theory with practice, you can get powerful results.

------
brc
Regardless of coursework, a lot of this stuff should be on the to-do list for
even experienced people. The further you move through your career, the more
second-nature your technical skills, and the more need there is for
communication and persuasion.

Personally I spend more time reading up on these things than I do reading up
on the latest technical developments.

------
aspir
I had a concentration in Human Geography in college. Essentially it was the
analysis of populations as effected by economics, politics, the enviroment,
space and place, and how they are all connected in explicit and implicit ways.
With the exception of the public speaking aspect, I feel that course of study
slightly encompasses the topic in the referred post.

------
feverishaaron
I thought this is why people get juris doctorates.

~~~
itg
A JD won't teach you anything about persuasion. That only comes after years of
experience.

------
porter
Somebody needs to put together a personalmba like list and crash course for
these topics. I would gladly pay for this.

~~~
petercooper
I've been working on a book called _Self Promotion for Geeks_ for a while now,
based upon some support I got through HN comments a year or so ago. It covers
several of these topics in the context of image and promoting startups,
software, and ideas in respect of technically minded people. I wasn't planning
on revealing anything for a few more weeks, but if anyone's interested, feel
free to contact me or comment here and I'll contact you later.

(One remaining sticking points is whether I rename and retarget it as "for
Software Developers," but my research shows so far that people are generally
OK with the term "geek" covering the areas I mentioned. Welcoming opinions
here still, though.)

------
jacquesm
It looks like plenty of that could easily apply to any marketing education.

------
greenlblue
Why don't you call the courses what they really should be called: Conning 101,
203, 301, etc.

~~~
zupatol
I'm surprised he writes selling yourself sounds almost noble. To me it sounds
literally like prostitution.

