I had been thinking about the PEL debate on the value of higher education, and came across this compelling story by Damon Horowitz.
Did you know that Google has an "in-house philosopher"? Horowitz shares his personal story of self-transformation in this article for the Chronicle of Higher Education. With a background in software engineering, he had developed a career in the world of information technology. He had established his own business engineering "natural language processing" components for Artificial Intelligence systems. (Natural language processing is the part of AI, usually based on formal logic, that is supposed to make computers understand us).
But his challenging encounters with the limitations of AI led him to broader philosophical questions about "the nature of thought, the structure of language, [and] the grounds of meaning." Horowitz thus left the world of IT to do a PhD in Philosophy and has today become a sort of evangelist for appreciation of the humanities in the world of technology. He makes an argument for the value of leaving technology to do a degree in the humanities (it is an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed after all), but even if you are not sold on that idea, his point extends to a larger argument about importance of bringing a humanities perspective to the world of technology which is bad off for its lack:
From Technologist to Philosopher
http://chronicle.com/article/From-Technologist-to/128231/
- Tom McDonald
Tom
You can watch Horowitz on TED and see him present this paper at Stanford’s vid site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DBt9mVdgnI&NR=1.
This idea of instilling humanistic sensibilities and creativity in engineers was the rage in the late 70s and early 80s. All sorts of curricular experiments, behavioristic papers at conferences of the American Society of Engineering Educators, required reading books like Pirsig’s ‘ZAMM,’ Roger von Oech’s ‘Whack on the Side of the Head,’ Sam Florman ‘Existential Pleasures of Engineering,’ understanding left brain vs. right brain, self-directed learning for engineering material, testing students to determine their Myers-Briggs personality types, etc.
I do not think for one minute that Horowitz is right about the benefits of philosophy for technology or promoting humanistic thoughts or more ethically enlightened technology. But if one is so inclined as to think philosophy can do this, I suggest that it is for the business management group, not engineering, that the reschooling would be impactful. Google engineers will only embrace Burning Man as long as their company’s leaders say so.
When I ponder what possible impact on engineering the philosophy I have learned during my somewhat intensive self-study of the field since retiring from engineering 6 years ago, I never see any – none.
First, the supposedly anit-humanist strawman oft constructed:
““Maybe you, too, are disposed toward critical thinking. Maybe, despite the comfort and security that your job offers, you, too, have noticed cracks in the technotopian bubble.
Maybe you are worn out by endless marketing platitudes about the endless benefits of your products; and you’re not entirely at ease with your contribution to the broader culture industry.
Maybe you are unsatisfied by oversimplifications in the product itself. What exactly is the relationship created by “friending” someone online? How can your online profile capture the full glory of your performance of self?”
Maybe you’re just not a good thinker in general! So of course, the humanities has something for you as well.
I’m disappointed by Horowitz’s readiness to make those who work primarily on, with, through technology/science unthinking automaton simpletons who lack an imaginative or thoughtful bone in their body.
Surely with that juxtaposition, who wouldn’t flee to the humanities?
Then there’s this persuasive argument, perhaps a by-product of the non-scientific and apparently non-evidence supported land he fled to:
“Getting a humanities Ph.D. is the most deterministic path you can find to becoming exceptional in the industry. It is no longer just engineers who dominate our technology leadership, because it is no longer the case that computers are so mysterious that only engineers can understand what they are capable of. There is an industrywide shift toward more “product thinking” in leadership—leaders who understand the social and cultural contexts in which our technologies are deployed.
Products must appeal to human beings, and a rigorously cultivated humanistic sensibility is a valued asset for this challenge. That is perhaps why a technology leader of the highest status—Steve Jobs—recently credited an appreciation for the liberal arts as key to his company’s tremendous success with their various i-gadgets.
It is a convenient truth: You go into the humanities to pursue your intellectual passion; and it just so happens, as a by-product, that you emerge as a desired commodity for industry. Such is the halo of human flourishing.”
So save yourselfs, rich technophiles, and in so doing, become a more prized commodity as well!
Philosophy PhDs for all!
It sounds like Horowitz wasn’t helped by the “humanities” per se, as he was hurt by his apparently stilted undergraduate education and intellectually stifled career.
Ethan, when you say you are “disappointed by Horowitz’s readiness to make those who work primarily on, with, through technology/science unthinking automaton simpletons who lack an imaginative or thoughtful bone in their body” I wonder whether you have worked in the technology industry. I have been working in consumer-oriented web and mobile apps development in corporate environments for over ten years, and though I do not take Horowitz’s argument to be perfect by any stretch, I can testify that his sort of perspective is not as common as it should be. I would desperately appreciate for someone at his level to instill a sense of humanistic critical thinking toward narrow-minded techno-culture in the companies I have worked for.
You are probably right, and I wouldn’t doubt your experience or it’s etrapability (yay for making up words).
That said, do you think it’s easier, or mor likely, for people on the humanities side to cross into the tech/science realm, or for more people to make the Horowitz move?
I had a sophemore year Statitcs professor (PhD in aerospace engineering) who had taken to getting his masters in philosophy later on in life. He always claimed that it was easier to come up the science/math side and then go down the humanities route, than to go to go in reverse.
It seems, with philosophy at least, that that isn’t unheard of, given so many of the famous philosopher’s mathmatical backgrounds.
How do you see it Tom?
Tom
I have spent my whole engineering career often frustratingly aware of what you are getting at. It is THE key thesis of Pirsig’s ZAMM book – romantic v classic quality (or, art/science, opposite Myers-Brigg temperament, right/left brain, conventional/libertine, even, in some sense, progressive/conservative).
What I have come to conclude is that it simply takes all kinds. The sphere of creature relationships lies in the contrast of these poles.