One way to tell how good people are at empathy is to watch them explain a technical matter to someone without a technical background. We probably all know people who, though otherwise smart, are just comically bad at this. If someone asks them at a dinner party what a programming language is, they"ll say something like "Oh, a high-level language is what the compiler uses as input to generate object code." High-level language? Compiler? Object code? Someone who doesn"t know what a programming language is obviously doesn"t know what these things are, either.
Part of what software has to do is explain itself. So to write good software you have to understand how little users understand. They"re going to walk up to the software with no preparation, and it had better do what they guess it will, because they"re not going to read the manual. The best system I"ve ever seen in this respect was the original Macintosh, in 1984. It did what software almost never does: it just worked.
Source code, too, should explain itself. If I could get people to remember just one quote about programming, it would be the one at the beginning of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.
Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.
Figure 2-2. Piero della Francesca"s Federico da Montefeltro, 1465-66 (detail).
You need to have empathy not just for your users, but for your readers. It"s in your interest, because you"ll be one of them. Many a hacker has written a program only to find on returning to it six months later that he has no idea how it works. I know several people who"ve sworn off Perl after such experiences.
Lack of empathy is a.s.sociated with intelligence, to the point that there is even something of a fashion for it in some places. But I don"t think there"s any correlation. You can do well in math and the natural sciences without having to learn empathy, and people in these fields tend to be smart, so the two qualities have come to be a.s.sociated. But there are plenty of dumb people who are bad at empathy too.
So, if hacking works like painting and writing, is it as cool? After all, you only get one life. You might as well spend it working on something great.
Unfortunately, the question is hard to answer. There is always a big time lag in prestige. It"s like light from a distant star. Painting has prestige now because of great work people did five hundred years ago. At the time, no one thought these paintings were as important as we do today. It would have seemed very odd to people in 1465 that Federico da Montefeltro, the Duke of Urbino, would one day be known mostly as the guy with the strange nose in a painting by Piero della Francesca.
So while I admit that hacking doesn"t seem as cool as painting now, we should remember that painting itself didn"t seem as cool in its glory days as it does now.
What we can say with some confidence is that these are the glory days of hacking. In most fields the great work is done early on. The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpa.s.sed. Shakespeare appeared just as professional theater was being born, and pushed the medium so far that every playwright since has had to live in his shadow. Albrecht Durer did the same thing with engraving, and Jane Austen with the novel.
Over and over we see the same pattern. A new medium appears, and people are so excited about it that they explore most of its possibilities in the first couple generations. Hacking seems to be in this phase now.
Painting was not, in Leonardo"s time, as cool as his work helped make it. How cool hacking turns out to be will depend on what we can do with this new medium.
Chapter 3. What You Can"t Say.
Have you ever seen an old photo of yourself and been embarra.s.sed at the way you looked? Did we actually dress like that? We did. And we had no idea how silly we looked. It"s the nature of fashion to be invisible, in the same way the movement of the earth is invisible to all of us riding on it.
What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They"re just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they"re much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.
If you could travel back in a time machine, one thing would be true no matter where you went: you"d have to watch what you said. Opinions we consider harmless could have gotten you in big trouble. I"ve already said at least one thing that would have gotten me in big trouble in most of Europe in the seventeenth century, and did get Galileo in big trouble when he said it-that the earth moves.
Nerds are always getting in trouble. They say improper things for the same reason they dress unfashionably and have good ideas. Convention has less hold over them.
It seems to be a constant throughout history: in every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise.
Is our time any different? To anyone who has read any amount of history, the answer is almost certainly no. It would be a remarkable coincidence if ours were the first era to get everything just right.
It"s tantalizing to think we believe things that people in the future will find ridiculous. What would someone coming back to visit us in a time machine have to be careful not to say? That"s what I want to study here. But I want to do more than just shock everyone with the heresy du jour. I want to find general recipes for discovering what you can"t say, in any era.
3.1. The Conformist Test
Let"s start with a test: do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?
If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you"re supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn"t. Odds are you just think whatever you"re told.
The other alternative would be that you independently considered every question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered acceptable. That seems unlikely, because you"d also have to make the same mistakes. Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that"s very convincing evidence.
Like every other era in history, our moral map almost certainly contains mistakes. And anyone who makes the same mistakes probably didn"t do it by accident. It would be like someone claiming they had independently decided in 1972 that bell-bottom jeans were a good idea.
If you believe everything you"re supposed to now, how can you be sure you wouldn"t also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s-or among the Mongols in 1200, for that matter? Odds are you would have.
Back in the era of terms like "well-adjusted," the idea seemed to be that there was something wrong with you if you thought things you didn"t dare say out loud. This seems backward. Almost certainly, there is something wrong with you if you don"t think things you don"t dare say out loud.
3.2. Trouble
What can"t we say? One way to find these ideas is simply to look at things people do say, and get in trouble for.
Of course, we"re not just looking for things we can"t say. We"re looking for things we can"t say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open. But many of the things people get in trouble for saying probably do make it over this second, lower threshold. No one gets in trouble for saying that 2 + 2 is 5, or that people in Pittsburgh are ten feet tall. Such obviously false statements might be treated as jokes, or at worst as evidence of insanity, but they are not likely to make anyone mad. The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true.
If Galileo had said that people in Padua were ten feet tall, he would have been regarded as a harmless eccentric. Saying the earth orbited the sun was another matter. The church knew this would set people thinking.
Certainly, as we look back on the past, this rule of thumb works well. A lot of the statements that got people in trouble seem harmless now. So it"s likely that visitors from the future would agree with at least some of the statements that get people in trouble today. Do we have no Galileos? Not likely.
To find them, keep track of opinions that get people in trouble, and start asking, could this be true? Ok, it may be heretical (or whatever modern equivalent), but might it also be true?
3.3. Heresy
This won"t get us all the answers, though. What if no one happens to have gotten in trouble for a particular idea yet? What if some idea would be so radioactively controversial that no one would dare express it in public? How can we find these too?
Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy," "sacrilege," and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of Western history, as in more recent times "indecent," "improper," and "un-American" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they"re mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force.
The word "defeatist," for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill"s aggressive policy was "defeatist." Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that.
We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that"s a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it"s false, we should start paying attention.
So another way to figure out which of our taboos future generations will laugh at is to start with the labels. Take a label-"s.e.xist," for example-and try to think of some ideas that would be called that. Then for each ask, might this be true?
Just start listing ideas at random? Yes, because they won"t really be random. The ideas that come to mind first will be the most plausible ones. They"ll be things you"ve already noticed but didn"t let yourself think.
In 1989 some clever researchers tracked the eye movements of radiologists as they scanned chest images for signs of lung cancer.
They found that even when the radiologists missed a cancerous lesion, their eyes had usually paused at the site of it. Part of their brain knew there was something there; it just didn"t percolate up into conscious knowledge. I think many interesting heretical thoughts are already mostly formed in our minds. If we turn off our self-censorship temporarily, those will be the first to emerge.
3.4. Time and s.p.a.ce
If we could look into the future it would be obvious which of our ideas they"d laugh at. We can"t do that, but we can do something almost as good: we can look into the past. Another way to figure out what we"re getting wrong is to look at what used to be acceptable and is now unthinkable.
Changes between the past and the present sometimes do represent progress. In a field like physics, if we disagree with past generations it"s because we"re right and they"re wrong. But this becomes rapidly less true as you move away from the certainty of the hard sciences. By the time you get to social questions, many changes are just fashion. The age of consent fluctuates like hemlines.
We may imagine that we are a great deal smarter and more virtuous than past generations, but the more history you read, the less likely this seems. People in past times were much like us. Not heroes, not barbarians. Whatever their ideas were, they were ideas reasonable people could believe.
So here is another source of interesting heresies. Diff present ideas against those of various past cultures, and see what you get. Some will be shocking by present standards. Ok, fine; but which might also be true?
You don"t have to look into the past to find big differences. In our own time, different societies have wildly varying ideas of what"s ok and what isn"t. So you can try diffing other cultures" ideas against ours as well. (The best way to do that is to visit them.) You might find contradictory taboos. In one culture it might seem shocking to think x, while in another it was shocking not to. But I think usually the shock is on one side. In one culture x is ok, and in another it"s considered shocking. My hypothesis is that the side that"s shocked is most likely to be the mistaken one.
I suspect the only taboos that are more than taboos are the ones that are universal, or nearly so. Murder for example. But any idea that"s considered harmless in a significant percentage of times and places, and yet is taboo in ours, is a good candidate for something we"re mistaken about.
For example, at the high-water mark of political correctness in the early 1990s, Harvard distributed to its faculty and staff a brochure saying, among other things, that it was inappropriate to compliment a colleague"s or student"s clothes. No more "nice shirt." I think this principle is rare among the world"s cultures, past or present. There are probably more where it"s considered especially polite to compliment someone"s clothing than where it"s considered improper. So odds are this is, in a mild form, an example of one of the taboos a visitor from the future would have to be careful to avoid if he happened to set his time machine for Cambridge, Ma.s.sachusetts, 1992.
3.5. Prigs
Of course, if they have time machines in the future they"ll probably have a separate reference manual just for Cambridge. This has always been a fussy place, a town of i dotters and t crossers, where you"re liable to get both your grammar and your ideas corrected in the same conversation. And that suggests another way to find taboos. Look for prigs, and see what"s inside their heads.
Kids" heads are repositories of all our taboos. It seems fitting to us that kids" ideas should be bright and clean. The picture we give them of the world is not merely simplified, to suit their developing minds, but sanitized as well, to suit our ideas of what kids should think.
You can see this on a small scale in the matter of dirty words. A lot of my friends are starting to have children now, and they"re all trying not to use words like "f.u.c.k" and "s.h.i.t" within baby"s hearing, lest baby start using these words too. But these words are part of the language, and adults use them all the time. So parents are giving their kids an inaccurate idea of the language by not using them. Why do they do this? Because they don"t think it"s fitting that kids should use the whole language. We like children to seem innocent.
Most adults, likewise, deliberately give kids a misleading view of the world. One of the most obvious examples is Santa Claus. We think it"s cute for little kids to believe in Santa Claus. I myself think it"s cute for little kids to believe in Santa Claus. But one wonders, do we tell them this stuff for their sake, or for ours?
I"m not arguing for or against this idea here. It is probably inevitable that parents should want to dress up their kids" minds in cute little baby outfits. I"ll probably do it myself. The important thing for our purposes is that, as a result, a well brought-up teenage kid"s brain is amore or less complete collection of all our taboos and in mint condition, because they"re untainted by experience. Whatever we think that will later turn out to be ridiculous, it"s almost certainly inside that head.
How do we get at these ideas? By the following thought experiment. Imagine a kind of latter-day Conrad character who has worked for a time as a mercenary in Africa, for a time as a doctor in Nepal, for a time as the manager of a nightclub in Miami. The specifics don"t matter-just someone who has seen a lot. Now imagine comparing what"s inside this guy"s head with what"s inside the head of a well-behaved sixteen-year-old girl from the suburbs. What does he think that would shock her? He knows the world; she knows, or at least embodies, present taboos. Subtract one from the other, and the result is what we can"t say.
3.6. Mechanism
I can think of one more way to figure out what we can"t say: to look at how taboos are created. How do moral fashions arise, and why are they adopted? If we can understand this mechanism, we may be able to see it at work in our own time.
Moral fashions don"t seem to be created the way ordinary fashions are. Ordinary fashions seem to arise by accident when everyone imitates the whim of some influential person. The fashion for broad-toed shoes in late fifteenthcentury Europe began because Charles VIII of France had six toes on one foot. The fashion for the name Gary began when the actor Frank Cooper adopted the name of a tough mill town in Indiana. Moral fashions more often seem to be created deliberately. When there"s something we can"t say, it"s often because some group doesn"t want us to.
The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous. The irony of Galileo"s situation was that he got in trouble for repeating Copernicus"s ideas. Copernicus himself didn"t. In fact, Copernicus was a canon of a cathedral, and dedicated his book to the pope. But by Galileo"s time the church was in the throes of the Counter-Reformation and was much more worried about unorthodox ideas.
To launch a taboo, a group has to be poised halfway between weakness and power. A confident group doesn"t need taboos to protect it. It"s not considered improper to make disparaging remarks about Americans, or the English. And yet a group has to be powerful enough to enforce a taboo. Coprophiles, as of this writing, don"t seem to be numerous or energetic enough to have had their interests promoted to a lifestyle.
I suspect the biggest source of moral taboos will turn out to be power struggles in which one side barely has the upper hand. That"s where you"ll find a group powerful enough to enforce taboos, but weak enough to need them.
Most struggles, whatever they"re really about, will be cast as struggles between competing ideas. The English Reformation was at bottom a struggle for wealth and power, but it ended up being cast as a struggle to preserve the souls of Englishmen from the corrupting influence of Rome. It"s easier to get people to fight for an idea. And whichever side wins, their ideas will also be considered to have triumphed, as if G.o.d wanted to signal his agreement by selecting that side as the victor.
We often like to think of World War II as a triumph of freedom over totalitarianism. We conveniently forget that the Soviet Union was also one of the winners.
I"m not saying that struggles are never about ideas, just that they will always be made to seem to be about ideas, whether they are or not. And just as there is nothing so unfashionable as the last, discarded fashion, there is nothing so wrong as the principles of the most recently defeated opponent. Representational art is only now recovering from the approval of both Hitler and Stalin.
Although fashions in ideas tend to arise from different sources than fashions in clothing, the mechanism of their adoption seems much the same. The early adopters will be driven by ambition: self-consciously cool people who want to distinguish themselves from the common herd. As the fashion becomes established they"ll be joined by a second, much larger group, driven by fear. This second group adopt the fashion not because they want to stand out but because they are afraid of standing out.
So if you want to figure out what we can"t say, look at the machinery of fashion and try to predict what it would make un-sayable. What groups are powerful but nervous, and what ideas would they like to suppress? What ideas were tarnished by a.s.sociation when they ended up on the losing side of a recent struggle? If a self-consciously cool person wanted to differentiate himself from preceding fashions (e.g. from his parents), which of their ideas would he tend to reject? What are conventional-minded people afraid of saying?
This technique won"t find us all the things we can"t say. I can think of some that aren"t the result of any recent struggle. Many of our taboos are rooted deep in the past. But this approach, combined with the preceding four, will turn up a good number of unthinkable ideas.
3.7. Why
Some would ask, why would one want to do this? Why deliberately go poking around among nasty, disreputable ideas? Why look under rocks?
I do it, first of all, for the same reason I did look under rocks as a kid: plain curiosity. And I"m especially curious about anything that"s forbidden. Let me see and decide for myself.
Second, I do it because I don"t like the idea of being mistaken. If, like other eras, we believe things that will later seem ridiculous, I want to know what they are so that I, at least, can avoid believing them.
Third, I do it because it"s good for the brain. To do good work you need a brain that can go anywhere. And you especially need a brain that"s in the habit of going where it"s not supposed to.
Great work tends to grow out of ideas that others have overlooked, and no idea is so overlooked as one that"s unthinkable. Natural selection, for example. It"s so simple. Why didn"t anyone think of it before? Well, that is all too obvious. Darwin himself was careful to tiptoe around the implications of his theory. He wanted to spend his time thinking about biology, not arguing with people who accused him of being an atheist.
In the sciences, especially, it"s a great advantage to be able to question a.s.sumptions. The m.o. of scientists, or at least of the good ones, is precisely that: look for places where conventional wisdom is broken, and then try to pry apart the cracks and see what"s underneath. That"s where new theories come from.
A good scientist, in other words, does not merely ignore conventional wisdom, but makes a special effort to break it. Scientists go looking for trouble. This should be the m.o. of any scholar, but scientists seem much more willing to look under rocks.
Why? It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. Or it could be because it"s clearer in the sciences whether theories are true or false, and this makes scientists bolder. (Or it could be that, because it"s clearer in the sciences whether theories are true or false, you have to be smart to get jobs as a scientist, rather than just a good politician.) Whatever the reason, there seems a clear correlation between intelligence and willingness to consider shocking ideas. This isn"t just because smart people actively work to find holes in conventional thinking. Conventions also have less hold over them to start with. You can see that in the way they dress.
It"s not only in the sciences that heresy pays off. In any compet.i.tive field, you can win big by seeing things that others daren"t. And in every field there are probably heresies few dare utter. Within the US car industry there is a lot of hand-wringing about declining market share. Yet the cause is so obvious that any observant outsider could explain it in a second: they make bad cars. And they have for so long that by now the US car brands are antibrands-something you"d buy a car despite, not because of. Cadillac stopped being the Cadillac of cars in about 1970. And yet I suspect no one dares say this. Otherwise these companies would have tried to fix the problem.
Training yourself to think unthinkable thoughts has advantages beyond the thoughts themselves. It"s like stretching. When you stretch before running, you put your body into positions much more extreme than any it will a.s.sume during the run. If you can think things so outside the box that they"d make people"s hair stand on end, you"ll have no trouble with the small trips outside the box that people call innovative.
3.8. Pensieri Stret ti