The word “technical” is far too underspecified. I’ve seen it used to mean both “applied” and “theoretical”.
In an information technology company, the common use seems to be to distinguish folks who need to deeply understand the technology from those who don’t. Since understanding information technology often requires some knowledge of computer science and even math, those fields are considered technical by association.
In any case, I agree that the business value of science and technology education is often underrated, at least here in the United States. Even the best MBAs seem to have “technical” undergraduate degrees.
Daniel, how do you define technical? My interpretation of the word is, “having to do with technique.”
For example, I used to play the drums, and there were technical drummers and non-technical drummers. This was true for all musicians. The Beatles, for example; very non-technical. They didn’t know how to read music, their music was dead simple, and the didn’t deviate from a whole lot of popular norms. A technical musician would play music that is much more sophisticated: it is challenging to play, is played with perfect form, draws from various genres, and is unconventional. These attributes must be finely balanced with the musical feel to avoid sacrificing the popular appeal of the piece.
When you say, “writing code…is not hard for technical reasons, not any more than painting, movie-making and sculpture are technical challenges,” are you referring to the difficulty in finding this balance? The technical aspects are easy come by–practice a lot, and you’ll have perfect form. Listen to a variety of genres and artists. And so on. But composing a beautiful piece of music is an art, not a science. This applies to the art of software, as well.
Part of your post seems to attribute “technical” to the science aspect, while your comment seems to imply, “having to do with technology.”
How business relates to this, I don’t know. How does interviewing relate to a research methodology, anyway?
For example, I used to play the drums, and there were technical drummers and non-technical drummers. This was true for all musicians. The Beatles, for example; very non-technical. They didn’t know how to read music, their music was dead simple, and the didn’t deviate from a whole lot of popular norms. A technical musician would play music that is much more sophisticated: it is challenging to play, is played with perfect form, draws from various genres, and is unconventional. These attributes must be finely balanced with the musical feel to avoid sacrificing the popular appeal of the piece.
Great example.
When you say, “writing code…is not hard for technical reasons, not any more than painting, movie-making and sculpture are technical challenges,” are you referring to the difficulty in finding this balance? The technical aspects are easy come by–practice a lot, and you’ll have perfect form. Listen to a variety of genres and artists. And so on. But composing a beautiful piece of music is an art, not a science. This applies to the art of software, as well.
I meant that writing good code is not about “learning the languages and the software engineering literature.” I can teach anyone how to program in a day. Few people will ever be good at it, no matter how well they master the technical elements (the grammar, the bags of tricks…).
Part of your post seems to attribute “technical” to the science aspect, while your comment seems to imply, “having to do with technology.”
I have no idea what “technical” means exactly. I am a scientist who has to do with technology, sometimes as a hobby, sometimes as part of my research, sometimes as part of my teaching. But define myself as a scientist above all else. Hence, I am not a “technical person”.
A lot of work I do is mathematical.
How business relates to this, I don’t know. How does interviewing relate to a research methodology, anyway?
Research in business, apparently, is running interviews, collecting people’s opinions, and summarizing it.
I think the part to be afraid of is whether or not North America continues to produce knowledge. It really does not matter whether or not they perform the actual grunt work. For instance, many successful professors have not produced a line of code in years. If these professors still can grasp the underlying concepts I don’t think them not doing the work will harshly affect their continued production. But the assumption is that they are familiar with the fundamentals if CS.
As long as there is effective communication between the “artists†and “managers†I don’t think we should miss a beat.
Also, a lot of companies such as Microsoft have adjusted their pay grades to both technical and non-technical positions. So you can basically still climb the corporate latter as a technical specialist as apposed to a project manager. So there is a good chance that quality Indian programmers (in NA) may be compensated the same as your sons.
While some mathematicians and computer scientists can deeply understand technology, many don’t.
In fact, I know a couple of people who teach computer science, but they cannot really maintain their own machines or networks.
You can be a great computer scientist and have trouble using Microsoft Word.
In any case, I cannot consider a degree in Mathematics or Computer Scientist to be technical.
The word “technical” is far too underspecified. I’ve seen it used to mean both “applied” and “theoretical”.
In an information technology company, the common use seems to be to distinguish folks who need to deeply understand the technology from those who don’t. Since understanding information technology often requires some knowledge of computer science and even math, those fields are considered technical by association.
In any case, I agree that the business value of science and technology education is often underrated, at least here in the United States. Even the best MBAs seem to have “technical” undergraduate degrees.
Daniel, how do you define technical? My interpretation of the word is, “having to do with technique.”
For example, I used to play the drums, and there were technical drummers and non-technical drummers. This was true for all musicians. The Beatles, for example; very non-technical. They didn’t know how to read music, their music was dead simple, and the didn’t deviate from a whole lot of popular norms. A technical musician would play music that is much more sophisticated: it is challenging to play, is played with perfect form, draws from various genres, and is unconventional. These attributes must be finely balanced with the musical feel to avoid sacrificing the popular appeal of the piece.
When you say, “writing code…is not hard for technical reasons, not any more than painting, movie-making and sculpture are technical challenges,” are you referring to the difficulty in finding this balance? The technical aspects are easy come by–practice a lot, and you’ll have perfect form. Listen to a variety of genres and artists. And so on. But composing a beautiful piece of music is an art, not a science. This applies to the art of software, as well.
Part of your post seems to attribute “technical” to the science aspect, while your comment seems to imply, “having to do with technology.”
How business relates to this, I don’t know. How does interviewing relate to a research methodology, anyway?
For example, I used to play the drums, and there were technical drummers and non-technical drummers. This was true for all musicians. The Beatles, for example; very non-technical. They didn’t know how to read music, their music was dead simple, and the didn’t deviate from a whole lot of popular norms. A technical musician would play music that is much more sophisticated: it is challenging to play, is played with perfect form, draws from various genres, and is unconventional. These attributes must be finely balanced with the musical feel to avoid sacrificing the popular appeal of the piece.
Great example.
When you say, “writing code…is not hard for technical reasons, not any more than painting, movie-making and sculpture are technical challenges,” are you referring to the difficulty in finding this balance? The technical aspects are easy come by–practice a lot, and you’ll have perfect form. Listen to a variety of genres and artists. And so on. But composing a beautiful piece of music is an art, not a science. This applies to the art of software, as well.
I meant that writing good code is not about “learning the languages and the software engineering literature.” I can teach anyone how to program in a day. Few people will ever be good at it, no matter how well they master the technical elements (the grammar, the bags of tricks…).
Part of your post seems to attribute “technical” to the science aspect, while your comment seems to imply, “having to do with technology.”
I have no idea what “technical” means exactly. I am a scientist who has to do with technology, sometimes as a hobby, sometimes as part of my research, sometimes as part of my teaching. But define myself as a scientist above all else. Hence, I am not a “technical person”.
A lot of work I do is mathematical.
How business relates to this, I don’t know. How does interviewing relate to a research methodology, anyway?
Research in business, apparently, is running interviews, collecting people’s opinions, and summarizing it.
I think the part to be afraid of is whether or not North America continues to produce knowledge. It really does not matter whether or not they perform the actual grunt work. For instance, many successful professors have not produced a line of code in years. If these professors still can grasp the underlying concepts I don’t think them not doing the work will harshly affect their continued production. But the assumption is that they are familiar with the fundamentals if CS.
As long as there is effective communication between the “artists†and “managers†I don’t think we should miss a beat.
Also, a lot of companies such as Microsoft have adjusted their pay grades to both technical and non-technical positions. So you can basically still climb the corporate latter as a technical specialist as apposed to a project manager. So there is a good chance that quality Indian programmers (in NA) may be compensated the same as your sons.