A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

the non-computerate



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 13th 18, 09:30 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default the non-computerate

Mayayana wrote (in a thread in the '7 'group that started out about
Adobe):

I think that when you get adept with computers
it's easy to forget how much work that took. It
took me months to get the hang of image editing.

(That was the original thread subject. This is wider.)
Now it seems simple, but for someone new it's
dozens of menu items that are not self-explanatory.
For people who aren't linear thinkers and don't
have a touch of OCD, doing anything on a computer
is pure tedium. They don't want to know any more
than they have to.


I think we all need to be reminded of that from time to time: that there
are people who're not interested in computing any more than necessary -
or, within computing, aren't interested in some aspect more than they
need to be: image editing, word processing, programming (including web,
script, and other things, not just C and the like).

What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just
not _interested_, either in computing as a whole, or the specific aspect
we are. I see the same attitude in myself towards food preparation: I
_know_ I could save money, be healthier, and have extra wonderful
experiences if I were to just ... - I'm just _not interested_, and will
never be. Mayayana's last sentence, though only 11 words, is a big one.

The same probably applies to many if not all aspects of life: car
maintenance; gardening; DIY generally; language(s); grammar. We could
probably all save money, avoid being ripped off, and so on by learning
more about many things. But we _choose_ not to. And trying, beyond a
point, to interest us, is just likely to make us grumpy - because we
know we are in the wrong (though that's arguable), and someone who
"knows" they are in the wrong is one of the grumpiest.

I say trying _beyond a point_ is unproductive: of course, it is
intensely rewarding when someone "sees the light", as in "now I see what
you're getting at" - which is why we all try (-:. But it's best to be
able to see when to give up! (And I'm probably as bad as any, at not
seeing.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...
  #2  
Old September 13th 18, 12:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default the non-computerate

On 13/09/2018 09:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Mayayana wrote (in a thread in the '7 'group that started out about Adobe):

I think that when you get adept with computers
it's easy to forget how much work that took. It
took me months to get the hang of image editing.
(That was the original thread subject. This is wider.)
Now it seems simple, but for someone new it's
dozens of menu items that are not self-explanatory.
For people who aren't linear thinkers and don't
have a touch of OCD, doing anything on a computer
is pure tedium. They don't want to know any more
than they have to.


I think we all need to be reminded of that from time to time: that there
are people who're not interested in computing any more than necessary -
or, within computing, aren't interested in some aspect more than they
need to be: image editing, word processing, programming (including web,
script, and other things, not just C and the like).


Exactly, to *most* people outside of interest groups such as this, a
computer is a *tool*, for doing some type of work or pursuing some type
of interest, and they aren't interested in the intricate workings of the
tool any more than I am interested in the metallurgy of the face of the
hammer I use to drive in a nail, fascinating though that subject might
be to a materials scientist. The fact that computers are general
purpose tools that can do so much more than the one or two things that
most people use them for is neither here nor there, what is important to
them is getting done whatever job that the computer is used as a tool to
do, preferably with the least hassle and most convenience.

  #3  
Old September 13th 18, 04:06 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
pyotr filipivich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default the non-computerate

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" on Thu, 13 Sep 2018
09:30:22 +0100 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
Mayayana wrote (in a thread in the '7 'group that started out about
Adobe):

I think that when you get adept with computers
it's easy to forget how much work that took. It
took me months to get the hang of image editing.

(That was the original thread subject. This is wider.)
Now it seems simple, but for someone new it's
dozens of menu items that are not self-explanatory.
For people who aren't linear thinkers and don't
have a touch of OCD, doing anything on a computer
is pure tedium. They don't want to know any more
than they have to.


I think we all need to be reminded of that from time to time: that there
are people who're not interested in computing any more than necessary -
or, within computing, aren't interested in some aspect more than they
need to be: image editing, word processing, programming (including web,
script, and other things, not just C and the like).

What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just
not _interested_, either in computing as a whole, or the specific aspect
we are. I see the same attitude in myself towards food preparation: I
_know_ I could save money, be healthier, and have extra wonderful
experiences if I were to just ... - I'm just _not interested_, and will
never be. Mayayana's last sentence, though only 11 words, is a big one.

The same probably applies to many if not all aspects of life: car
maintenance; gardening; DIY generally; language(s); grammar. We could
probably all save money, avoid being ripped off, and so on by learning
more about many things. But we _choose_ not to. And trying, beyond a
point, to interest us, is just likely to make us grumpy - because we
know we are in the wrong (though that's arguable), and someone who
"knows" they are in the wrong is one of the grumpiest.

I say trying _beyond a point_ is unproductive: of course, it is
intensely rewarding when someone "sees the light", as in "now I see what
you're getting at" - which is why we all try (-:. But it's best to be
able to see when to give up! (And I'm probably as bad as any, at not
seeing.)


Amen and amen.

My wife uses the expression "I only have so many spoons". I can
spend my spoons on learning the intricacies of a subject (car repair,
computer operating system programming, the cultural and political
implications of social media in southwest Asia theocracies) or I can
spend them on something I've an interested in (Aristotle, the impact
of the transition from Gagothic to Cyrillic alphabets and the spread
of Slavonic literacy into 12 century Novgorod, and scale models of
Norman construction in 'the west'{Not "doll houses" B-) } )

I'm not saying the {subject} is unimportant, just that it is
unimportant to me.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
  #4  
Old September 13th 18, 04:30 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default the non-computerate

"pyotr filipivich" wrote

| the impact
| of the transition from Gagothic to Cyrillic alphabets and the spread
| of Slavonic literacy into 12 century Novgorod

You took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone
would have to be nuts not to find that interesting.
We should start a discussion group at your house.
John can bring some of his snack ramen and cocoa
puffs.



  #5  
Old September 13th 18, 04:56 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Big Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default the non-computerate

On 09/13/2018 04:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Mayayana wrote (in a thread in the '7 'group that started out about Adobe):

* I think that when you get adept with computers
it's easy to forget how much work that took. It
took me months to get the hang of image editing.

(That was the original thread subject. This is wider.)
Now it seems simple, but for someone new it's
dozens of menu items that are not self-explanatory.
For people who aren't linear thinkers and don't
have a touch of OCD, doing anything on a computer
is pure tedium. They don't want to know any more
than they have to.


I think we all need to be reminded of that from time to time: that there
are people who're not interested in computing any more than necessary -
or, within computing, aren't interested in some aspect more than they
need to be: image editing, word processing, programming (including web,
script, and other things, not just C and the like).

What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just
not _interested_, either in computing as a whole, or the specific aspect
we are. I see the same attitude in myself towards food preparation: I
_know_ I could save money, be healthier, and have extra wonderful
experiences if I were to just ... - I'm just _not interested_, and will
never be. Mayayana's last sentence, though only 11 words, is a big one.

The same probably applies to many if not all aspects of life: car
maintenance; gardening; DIY generally; language(s); grammar. We could
probably all save money, avoid being ripped off, and so on by learning
more about many things. But we _choose_ not to. And trying, beyond a
point, to interest us, is just likely to make us grumpy - because we
know we are in the wrong (though that's arguable), and someone who
"knows" they are in the wrong is one of the grumpiest.

I say trying _beyond a point_ is unproductive: of course, it is
intensely rewarding when someone "sees the light", as in "now I see what
you're getting at" - which is why we all try (-:. But it's best to be
able to see when to give up! (And I'm probably as bad as any, at not
seeing.)


Lack of repeated use can also change things. I used to know fluidly a
4GL programming language. Spent 10-15 years doing it and was dang good.
After years retired, I have little hope I could redo it. I could
possibly read it, but engineer it or improve on it, NO.
  #6  
Old September 13th 18, 04:58 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default the non-computerate

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just
| not _interested_

I think it's not an accident that this comes up
in computer groups. There are a lot of poorly
socialized people who don't adapt well in general
but who do well with computers. That's basically
the profile of the nerd. Nerds aren't mocked because
they like science but because they don't connect
well socially and are confident that anything but
science is both inferior and irrelevant. Jocks
are idiots. Humanities people are dreamers. Religious
people are misled cowards. Artists are just plain nuts.
Bankers are a necessary evil. It's a form of mono-
paradigmatic ignorance, like a fundamentalist
preacher. Except the fundamentalist preacher is
relatively openminded. He can at least make sense
of the outlook of the nerd. The nerd will reject the
preacher as simply an idiot.

There was a great scene in A Beautiful Mind where
the physicist is on a date and, lacking any kind of
social skills, he decides to tell his date that while
she will probably slap him and has every right to
do so, what he really wants is to **** her. She's
relieved, despite his awkward presentation, and
they end up getting married. I found the scene very
touching. It was an unsocialized nerd being open
to life with courage, even though he was completely
out of his element.


  #7  
Old September 13th 18, 07:24 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default the non-computerate

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-09-13 04:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're
just not _interested_

[...]


... and people who have different interests than you aren't thick, either.

Well rejoined, but I never said that. Actually, I had in mind someone
when I was composing my post: he's a sheep-farmer, who lives in a very
isolated (for the UK) spot in rural Northumberland; when we visit him,
we always had to tell him - again! - how to use his TV boxes. Technology
altogether just isn't his thing. But he's by no means thick; he runs his
sheep-farming business, is a war veteran, has a shotgun licence, can
drive, and has more knowledge of many aspects of his rougher life than
I'd ever have. But no way he'd ever get on with a computer. (I once
heard him mutter "city boy" about me - without any malice - when I
displayed my ignorance of or incompetence at something that was so
natural to him.) I consider him a good friend; I think we respect each
other.

[Sadly, he had a stroke about a year ago (lay on the floor for many
hours until fortunately the people at the farm up the hill realised his
curtains weren't open or shut when they'd have expected them to be, or
something like that). He can now hardly speak, and can get agitated when
he tries and someone doesn't understand what he's trying to say; he
spent most of the year in various hospitals/care facilities. I think it
says a lot for his intelligence that the authorities have seen fit to
let him return to his isolated home (put Rivergreen Mill into Google
Maps - that identifies the farm, he's in the old mill next to it).]

I was considering mentioning him in my original post, but I thought it
was already too long.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You can be tough without being rude - Nick Clegg, 2014 July
  #8  
Old September 13th 18, 07:31 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default the non-computerate

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| What we need to remember is *these people are not thick*: they're just
| not _interested_

I think it's not an accident that this comes up
in computer groups. There are a lot of poorly
socialized people who don't adapt well in general
but who do well with computers. That's basically
the profile of the nerd. Nerds aren't mocked because
they like science but because they don't connect
well socially and are confident that anything but
science is both inferior and irrelevant.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that entirely. _Some_ people with an
overpowering interest - not just in science - don't connect well
socially, but not all.

Jocks
are idiots. Humanities people are dreamers. Religious
people are misled cowards. Artists are just plain nuts.
Bankers are a necessary evil.


Anyone left you haven't insulted (-:?

It's a form of mono-
paradigmatic ignorance, like a fundamentalist
preacher. Except the fundamentalist preacher is
relatively openminded. He can at least make sense
of the outlook of the nerd. The nerd will reject the
preacher as simply an idiot.


This nerd doesn't. Many preachers - or religious people in general - are
highly intelligent; they just have the faith "gene" (for want of a
better word; it isn't genetic) that some of us don't. Faith isn't a
matter of scientific proof, it's a whole different way of thinking. (Of
course _some_ priests are idiots - as are some nerds, and some people
from any group. And some are charlatans, though I suspect fewer - and/or
to a lesser extent - than TV dramas would have us believe.)

There was a great scene in A Beautiful Mind where
the physicist is on a date and, lacking any kind of
social skills, he decides to tell his date that while
she will probably slap him and has every right to
do so, what he really wants is to **** her. She's
relieved, despite his awkward presentation, and
they end up getting married. I found the scene very
touching. It was an unsocialized nerd being open
to life with courage, even though he was completely
out of his element.

He _did_ have a beautiful mind, though. Patron saint of nerds - though
far more intelligent than most of us (science or arts [for the sake of
brevity - I don't accept that dichotomy]).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You can be tough without being rude - Nick Clegg, 2014 July
  #9  
Old September 13th 18, 08:22 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
pyotr filipivich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default the non-computerate

Big Al on Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:56:49 -0400 typed
in alt.windows7.general the following:

I say trying _beyond a point_ is unproductive: of course, it is
intensely rewarding when someone "sees the light", as in "now I see what
you're getting at" - which is why we all try (-:. But it's best to be
able to see when to give up! (And I'm probably as bad as any, at not
seeing.)


Lack of repeated use can also change things. I used to know fluidly a
4GL programming language. Spent 10-15 years doing it and was dang good.
After years retired, I have little hope I could redo it. I could
possibly read it, but engineer it or improve on it, NO.


I can read GD&T, but not sure I can "write" it. {"Geometric
Dimension and Tolerance" : machinist / design speak for "how to set
the values of "good" to make sure the parts are "good"}
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
  #10  
Old September 13th 18, 08:25 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
pyotr filipivich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default the non-computerate

"Mayayana" on Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:30:10
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote

| the impact
| of the transition from Gagothic to Cyrillic alphabets and the spread
| of Slavonic literacy into 12 century Novgorod

You took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone
would have to be nuts not to find that interesting.
We should start a discussion group at your house.
John can bring some of his snack ramen and cocoa
puffs.


Let me check with the wife.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.