Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!pesnta!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: The Silicon Syndrome Message-ID: <2047@peora.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 13:43:46 EST Article-I.D.: peora.2047 Posted: Tue Mar 25 13:43:46 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 07:25:17 EST References: <42200027@convex> <637@hou2f.UUCP> <2c7dfefa.7005@apollo.uucp> <726@rti-sel.UUCP> Organization: Concurrent Computer Corporation, Orlando, Fl Lines: 68 > Expect in what way? You mean expect your SO to keep up a certain level > of expertise in a conversation? And why is that so important in a > personal relationship to you? Seems to me the qualities that are > important in an SO (or a non-SO friend) are things like empathy, a > sense of humor, a willingness and ability to compromise, the ability > to keep up h/er end of a conversation, etc. I tend somewhat to disagree with this in a more general sense. Really there are two problems. First, it is extremely frustrating when one's SO has no *idea* whatsoever about the sort of work you do. For example, if I had an SO at present, it would be nice sometimes to explain things like why it's so frustrating that some people I work with do certain things in a certain way, or to explain some amazing new way of implementing something, or some new architectural invention I've thought of. The problem in this regard is that people who do really well at their work generally have an enthusiasm for it that goes far beyond mere dull work, and involves a sort of enthusiasm-for-creativity. As such, it is an emotional process, and emotional considerations come to bear on it. However, that's a minor problem. What's more of a problem is when one's SO doesn't even *think* the way you do; and this tends to be the case when you are an engineer, let's say, and your SO is in some totally unrelated field that does not involve rigorous thinking, e.g., politics, journalism, etc. In this respect the problem falls more under the category of general compatibility; myself, I get particularly annoyed with people who say things that are completely illogical, as tends to be the case in a lot of reasoning involving things like the examples above. So I think that it is not so important to have an SO in the same *field* you are in, as it is to have an SO who at least thinks in the same general way you do; so there tend to be compatible fields. I think for example of my most recent XSO, a biochemist/philosopher; she certainly knew nothing at all about computer science, and thus could not share in my enthusiasm when I first read about Hopfield Networks, for example, but on the other hand we could sit and watch political debates on TV and be equally and compatibly amused at the many examples of bad reasoning evident there. As for the line of reasoning that "I wouldn't want to go home and talk more about theoretical computer science," I tend to think there's sort of a flaw there; not to criticize Bill Ingogly's opinions (which I generally agree with), but when he comments > When I get off work I want to discuss literature. Art. Current events. I perceive this basic problem: suppose you are a computer scientist, and your SO is an English or art teacher. Well, when *she* gets off work, she is not going to want to discuss literature or art any more than you are going to want to discuss computer science, by this same reasoning. It is better to get tired of a subject together. Certainly computer scientists are not constrained to discussing computer science; when I goto lunch with the folks at work we rarely talk about computer science. (On the other hand, when I write a corny CS pun into a sentence, it is nice if the person reading it can understand it.) Finally, as for keeping up one's end of a conversation... this comes naturally if two people have sufficiently compatible interests. In my own experience I've found the worst problems to result when one person is interested in a completely different set of things than the other. In such a case, there's really nothing to talk about, and most conversation will be boring and uninteresting. I think it is unwise to attribute these problems to a lack of conversational "skills"; while skillful conversation may be useful in superficial relationships, in the long run if you are to be very rewarded in your discussion, you should talk about things mutually interesting. -- E. Roskos "It's Halley's comet!"