The "debugger" mentality

[juryjone]

As a programmer, I've encountered quite a few people in my profession who are good at finding the problems in a program. These people may, or may not, be able to actually write a program from scratch. Those that can't write a program seem to have a different skill set, a different way of looking at things, than those that do. They may be brilliant at locating the line of code that's the problem, but not the, well, let's say, mental patience to construct a program block by block, line by line.

The reason this comes to mind is that I see this kind of mentality in other places in life, such as amongst our 9/11 conspiracy theorists or ID proponents. I originally saw it amongst the IDers. There's no verifiable theory that they propose; their entire argument is that the theory of evolution is wrong because of "lines of code" that are "wrong". They're good at picking at little portions of the whole picture, but utterly unable of coming up with a picture of their own.

The same thing happens with the 9/11 nuts. They have no proof of a conspiracy; all they have is "questions raised" when looking at the details of what happened. When an attempt is made to answer that question, they move on to other "facts", just like IDers.

And I guess that's where my analogy fails. Because most programmers, debuggers or creators, will accept an argument that is proved to them. If a debugger is shown that the code is correct because of this section over here, then they will accept that and look for another answer. IDers and conspiracy niuts do not.

But regardless of the analogy, do you think that there are types of people who truly can't see the forest for the trees, because of their makeup? And should we then blame them when they draw a bad conclusion from a couple of trees?

(Actually, my answer is yes, we should. Life's a b****, deal with it.)

 

[bob_kark]

Are you suggesting that this is genetic or a learned behavior?

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, the trees they see aren't there....

 

[senorpogo]

And I guess that's where my analogy fails. Because most programmers, debuggers or creators, will accept an argument that is proved to them. If a debugger is shown that the code is correct because of this section over here, then they will accept that and look for another answer. IDers and conspiracy niuts do not.

But regardless of the analogy, do you think that there are types of people who truly can't see the forest for the trees, because of their makeup? And should we then blame them when they draw a bad conclusion from a couple of trees?

(Actually, my answer is yes, we should. Life's a b****, deal with it.)

Insightful post.

I believe that everyone is capable of critical thinking. The problem (and the reason your analogy falls apart) is because a debugger's identity, unlike an IDer's and CT's, is not intrinsically connected to whether the line of code is correct or if the program as a whole functions. Because "believers" define a portion of themselves by their beliefs, they feel personally threatened when those beliefs are challenged. Their very being is under attack. And all this, sadly, becomes an obstacle to thinking critically and being objective.

Ultimately, I refuse to accept that some people are just hardwired to not think critically. Rather, it's other forces in their life that force them to avoid it.

 

[drkitten]

As a programmer, I've encountered quite a few people in my profession who are good at finding the problems in a program. These people may, or may not, be able to actually write a program from scratch. Those that can't write a program seem to have a different skill set, a different way of looking at things, than those that do. They may be brilliant at locating the line of code that's the problem, but not the, well, let's say, mental patience to construct a program block by block, line by line.

The reason this comes to mind is that I see this kind of mentality in other places in life, such as amongst our 9/11 conspiracy theorists or ID proponents. I originally saw it amongst the IDers.

The problem with this analogy is that most of the good debuggers that I know have a fairly shrewd sense of when there is a problem and when there isnt'. That's what makes them good debuggers. I knew a lot of bad debuggers who would focus on a single line of code, where they were sure there was a problem, and rework it time after time after time -- even when it was right, sometimes even when it was provably so.

I guess that's where my analogy fails. Because most programmers, debuggers or creators, will accept an argument that is proved to them. If a debugger is shown that the code is correct because of this section over here, then they will accept that and look for another answer. IDers and conspiracy niuts do not.

But regardless of the analogy, do you think that there are types of people who truly can't see the forest for the trees, because of their makeup? And should we then blame them when they draw a bad conclusion from a couple of trees?

Absolutely.

If I bounce a check, and get charged some huge overdraft fee, I can't go into the bank and say "well, I'm innumerate and I truly can't figure out whether or not there's still money in the account."

If I go driving without my glasses and hit someone, I can't tell them "well, it's in my makeup -- I can't see the dashboard without artificial aid."

If I apply for a job and misspell every third word on my cover letter, I can't expect the hiring officer simply to shrug his shoulders and interview me anyway.

If I have limitations, it's my own responsibility to be aware of them and to take appropriate precautions.

 

[Pardalis]

Some people have good intuition. It can be very helpful in investigations, especially with experience, it's a good tool. But it shouldn't be running the ship.

 

[juryjone]

Are you suggesting that this is genetic or a learned behavior?

I gues I'm not saying that it's either - it's more like a viewpoint. If you say someone doesn't have a sense of humor, does that mean they are genetically or behaviorally incapable of enjoying a joke? Maybe, in their current frame of mind, they just don't find anything funny.

If someone is chronically depressed, drugs can help to a certain extent, but the person will need to want to modify thier behavior. I don't know that IDers and CTers are incapable of changing the way they look at the world; and I don't know if their "blinders" are only on for the single topic or if their whole worldview is the same way.

I guess all I'm saying is that they may be led into CTs or defending ID by their way of looking at the world, regardless of how they developed that viewpoint.

I guess I'm not making myself that clear, either. Heading home from work; will continue tomorrow.

 

[juryjone]

One more post before I go.

senorpogo and drkitten,
I agree that it's not hardwired and that it is ultimately no excuse (read the small print). It is just an observation that we keep arguing with these people that can't seem to see the whole picture, and that can't from thier own watertight theories. All they're good at is tearing down other ideas by poking at a small chink, going to another when that one is filled, then going back to the first and poking again before the filling has dried.

Other people have alluded to the similarities in arguments by the IDers and CTers; I was just trying to see what may drive those similarities.

Bye for now.

 

[BenK]

I can relate that to dealing with users. So many claim "it just happened". It could be a file "disappearing", a setting being changed, or a program being installed. They will adamantly proclaim they "didn't do anything". The problem I have is that they are rarely "lying" and take great offense if I accuse them. In my world I just want to fix the problem, I generally agree "it just happened" and get on with my day.

 

[SirPhilip]

The same thing happens with the 9/11 nuts. They have no proof of a conspiracy; all they have is "questions raised" when looking at the details of what happened. When an attempt is made to answer that question, they move on to other "facts", just like IDers.

What's your definition of a "9/11 nut"? At this rate, in a few months, anyone who thinks we invaded Iraq because of 9/11 will be considered, if not totally uninformed, clinically insane.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Bugs

As a programmer myself I may also point out that the person responsible for a piece of code is often the worst person to spot any flaw in it. Normally because they have preconceived ideas for the way it will be used and rarely test it properly outside that envelope.

Unfortunately since these Loose Change people are the architects of their own conspiracy they will probably never except even the most perfectly logical and incontrovertible evidence that indicates an opposing view.

 

[juryjone]

What's your definition of a "9/11 nut"? At this rate, in a few months, anyone who thinks we invaded Iraq because of 9/11 will be considered, if not totally uninformed, clinically insane.

Just to draw a line in the sand - I don't think the people who say we invaded Iraq because of 9/11 are nuts; after all, that's what they were told by the administration (before they denied saying anything of the sort). I think the nuts are the ones who say the administration planned 9/11 so that we could invade Iraq.

Unfortunately since these Loose Change people are the architects of their own conspiracy they will probably never except even the most perfectly logical and incontrovertible evidence that indicates an opposing view.

Architects of what? All they are doing is picking apart the official version.

"Looks like a controlled demolition to me."
"How could the explosives have been planted?"
"Looks like a controlled demolition to this other guy, too."
"Yeah, but how could the explosives have been planted?"
"The CIA and Rudy Giuliani had offices in WTC7, and no planes hit WTC7."
"OK, so now you're talking about WTC7. So are you saying that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by planes so that they could then set off explosives in WTC7?"
"Looks like a controlled demolition to me."

They point out single impressions, unable to provide a plausible grand unifying theory. IDers say "goddidit", CTers say "globalistsdidit". "It just happened, we don't have to explain how."

 

[Morrigan]

Speaking on a purely abstract level: I don't think there is anything wrong with picking apart a common theory, even if you have nothing conclusive to offer, granting, of course, that your points are sound.
If a government told an official story about something that had several glaring flaws in them, and someone pointed out those flaws and thus concluded that the government is lying or hiding something, but the same person didn't have a clear idea himself of what really happened, that doesn't mean we should stop doubting.

Of course, in this case, it doesn't apply because (as far as I know) just about every point the conspiracy theorists made have been refuted, and also because there is a clear agenda of the conspiracy theory - no matter what explanations were brought to them, if it didn't involve a conspiracy they'd refuse it. Same with IDers, whose attempt at pointing flaws in the theory of evolution are so full of logical holes and intellectual dishonesty that you can hardly take them seriously.

I guess my hypothetical scenario just rarely happens in that way. :\

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Just as a nitpick, I think CTers and IDers can be distinguished in important ways. CTers look like a religion, but it’s just an analogy. IDers of course are a religion. They’re defending a massive infrastructure of beliefs, lifestyle choices, &tc. When you attack ID, you attack the IDer on multiple grounds.

The CTers strike me more as a personality disorder, as I mentioned in this other thread. To attack them is to run up against a kind of low level mental illness, or so I’m guessing.

In either case, the end result is pretty much the same -- logic fails. But I think it’s important to distinguish root causes.