There's a certain kind of techbro who thinks it's a knock-down argument to say "Well, you haven't built anything". As if the only people whose expertise counts are those close to the machine. I'm reminded (again) of
@timnitGebru 's wise comments on "the hierarchy of knowledge". >>
I've been pondering some recently about where that hierarchy comes from. It's surely reinforced by the way that $$ (both commercial and, sadly, federal research funds) tends to flow --- and people mistaking VCs, for example, as wise decision makers.
But I also think that some of it has roots in the way different subjects are taught. Math & CS are both (frequently) taught in very gate-keepy ways (think weeder classes) and also students are evaluated with very cut & dried exams.
>>
So you end up with people thinking they are "good at" or "bad at" these things, and furthermore situations where those who are "good at" them are the winners of (sometimes literal) contests.
Meanwhile, if you look to the humanities and humanistic social sciences, the teaching is (on average, say) less gate-keepy (though not perfect!) and the evaluation requires spending time together in the details of open-ended explorations (essays, qualitative studies).
>>
@emilymbender
How does one know whether the humanities are less gate-keepy? In some sense they have to be comparable, because the ratio of students to faculty is similar.
Wouldn't this mean that the gate-keeping is social rather than more obviously skill-based, and hidden, rather than open?
