Forgot your password?
Cyhist Apr 3 1997 B
Document Actions
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:40:45 -0800
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: "Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail)" <stahlman@RADIOMAIL.NET>
Subject: Re: CM> Netish opinions
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Folks:
I apologize that I've not been on this list long enough to appreciate what "some of our best replies" might be refering to and I certainly wasn't suggesting that "undisciplined recall" isn't a great catalyst for more careful commentary. I couldn't agree more that, "Gee, I sorta remember it happened this way . . ." is very important to historical research -- particularly in an open discussion such as this where a more accurate follow-on can really nail the events under examination.
What I was suggesting was something quite different, however. The "netish opinion" I was refering to is more akin to "common wisdom" and is more in the realm of explanation or interpretation than recall of events or description of facts. Repeating widely held opinions that profess to *explain* why something occured is, IMHO, not very constructive and, precisely because it is "common wisdom", such comments don't usually lead to great insights. I'm much more interested in "uncommon wisdom", as I suspect many of you are as well.
PCs clearly were used by various forces within corporations to gain an upperhand on other forces inside the corporation. But, to the extent that the corporation paid the bill, these purchases were more-or-less explicit decisions to accomplish a corporate goal. What was that goal?
Was it to decentralize, per se? I sorta doubt it having been in the business of designing/marketing/selling/programming computer systems for 15 years before spending 10 years analysing why people made these transactions. In my experience, the *real* justification has always been cutting costs. There has never been a satisfactory demonstration of real productivity (or quality) benefits from computers, IMHO, but cost-cutting is readily and repeatedly been shown. Afterall, this stuff is automation and automation is displacing human labor (and its attendant costs). Right?
I fear that we all too often fall into the "George Gilder Syndrome." Having worked quite closely with him for many years, I know that he starts with a conclusion and then collects the "facts" to support his argument. I was, for a time, one of his chief "fact-finders." His core belief in the benefits of destroying hierarchy (common to many techno-utopians) leads him to conclude that computers accomplish his decentralizing goal -- along with destroying nation-states and leading to economic wealth. As a result of his platform at Forbes, Gilder has defined the "common wisdom" on these matters to a great degree and we all wind up tempted to repeat his conclusions whenever we feel pressured to explain events. But, is he even in the ballpark?
I'm fairly certain that he is quite wrong in each of his conclusions -- not just because he fakes it with his non-arguments but because there are much better and more non-ideological explanations available. All that I'm suggesting, in a friendly way, is that we try not to fall in line behind Gilder or any other "common wisdom" as we endeavor to flesh out the real history of computing. Let's look for "uncommon wisdom" as best we can.
Mark Stahlman
New Media Associates
New York City
newmedia@mcimail.com
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: "Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail)" <stahlman@RADIOMAIL.NET>
Subject: Re: CM> Netish opinions
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Folks:
I apologize that I've not been on this list long enough to appreciate what "some of our best replies" might be refering to and I certainly wasn't suggesting that "undisciplined recall" isn't a great catalyst for more careful commentary. I couldn't agree more that, "Gee, I sorta remember it happened this way . . ." is very important to historical research -- particularly in an open discussion such as this where a more accurate follow-on can really nail the events under examination.
What I was suggesting was something quite different, however. The "netish opinion" I was refering to is more akin to "common wisdom" and is more in the realm of explanation or interpretation than recall of events or description of facts. Repeating widely held opinions that profess to *explain* why something occured is, IMHO, not very constructive and, precisely because it is "common wisdom", such comments don't usually lead to great insights. I'm much more interested in "uncommon wisdom", as I suspect many of you are as well.
PCs clearly were used by various forces within corporations to gain an upperhand on other forces inside the corporation. But, to the extent that the corporation paid the bill, these purchases were more-or-less explicit decisions to accomplish a corporate goal. What was that goal?
Was it to decentralize, per se? I sorta doubt it having been in the business of designing/marketing/selling/programming computer systems for 15 years before spending 10 years analysing why people made these transactions. In my experience, the *real* justification has always been cutting costs. There has never been a satisfactory demonstration of real productivity (or quality) benefits from computers, IMHO, but cost-cutting is readily and repeatedly been shown. Afterall, this stuff is automation and automation is displacing human labor (and its attendant costs). Right?
I fear that we all too often fall into the "George Gilder Syndrome." Having worked quite closely with him for many years, I know that he starts with a conclusion and then collects the "facts" to support his argument. I was, for a time, one of his chief "fact-finders." His core belief in the benefits of destroying hierarchy (common to many techno-utopians) leads him to conclude that computers accomplish his decentralizing goal -- along with destroying nation-states and leading to economic wealth. As a result of his platform at Forbes, Gilder has defined the "common wisdom" on these matters to a great degree and we all wind up tempted to repeat his conclusions whenever we feel pressured to explain events. But, is he even in the ballpark?
I'm fairly certain that he is quite wrong in each of his conclusions -- not just because he fakes it with his non-arguments but because there are much better and more non-ideological explanations available. All that I'm suggesting, in a friendly way, is that we try not to fall in line behind Gilder or any other "common wisdom" as we endeavor to flesh out the real history of computing. Let's look for "uncommon wisdom" as best we can.
Mark Stahlman
New Media Associates
New York City
newmedia@mcimail.com
______________________________________________________________________
