Thread by @HeyChelseaTroy

Okay.

Let's talk about the word 'interested' in Cook's quote that he has been 'interested in it for a while.'

That word has a very specific role and legacy in the modern tech industry, and who uses it, and why.

/1

https://twitter.com/MacRumors/status/1458095088718991372

In tech, I frequently hear the word 'interesting' used as a universal compliment signaling worthiness of attention.

"This refactor was interesting" means "it was worth doing and we made the right decision"

"This technology is interesting" insinuates that we should use it.

/2

But that "interesting" descriptor is frequently unique to the person giving it.

I don't mean it's subjective in the sense of "everyone might hav a different opinion about this"

I mean people will call it "interesting" based SOLELY on its benefit for them personally.

/3

In the context of tech discussion, "interesting" doesn't usually mean "innovative & mentally stimulating." It means "in my (the speaker's) interest."

All by itself, that's fine. People are allowed to talk about what's in their interest.

Here's the problem.

/4

The problem: speakers will say "interesting" when something's in their interest, but will ACT like it means "innovative & mentally stimulating." Will ACT like it means "universally worthy of attention."

Are they deliberately lying?

I actually don't think so.

/5

I think what's happening is, the way tech uses the word "interesting" makes it easy to conflate "good for ME" with "good for EVERYONE."

It has a role as a linguistic laundering mechanism, of sorts.

/6

That linguistic laundering mechanism promotes a lack of empathy.

By the way, conflate 'empathy' with 'nice,' here. "Lack of empathy" doesn't mean "this person is mean."

It means "this person conflates their personal feelings and experiences with a UNIVERSAL one."

/7

The skill of developing empathy is ALL about recognizing that you've been ASSUMING that YOUR experience is universal,

explicitly seeking to understand OTHER experiences,

and learning the skill of trying on the perspectives of those with differing experiences.

It is HARD.

/8

And by and large, it's a thing that powerful tech people don't have to do.

Tech defaults to them. It's EASIER to survive/advance in tech by adopting (or at least assimilating to) that worldview.

Why: /9
chelseatroy.com/2021/07/30/the…

What is that tech wolrdview?

Core tenets:

1. We are smart people who approach problems logically
2. Our superior intellect, and the things we build with it, can singlehandedly SAVE THE WORLD.
3. When we amass power and capital, that is ALWAYS a good thing, because of #2.

/10

DON'T conflate empathy with nice UGH I should stop doing live threads

(And along the way we get to buy 27 mansions and a fleet of yachts, but that's okay; we deserve it, because we're saving the world).

/11

Tech folk start using "interesting" as a compliment because it reinforces their self-image as logical intellects.

They KEEP using "interesting" when the compliment is actually "this would be good for me."

But as they amass power and capital...

/12

... the negative impacts of the things that tech builds impact them less. So their interests become further and further from the public interest, even as the word "interesting" permits them to continue to conflate those two things.

/13

When you've amassed riches/power in an industry that calls itself logical, you get the idea that you're Very Good At Logic.

So you treat everything as a thought experiment. And since the power buffers you from consequences, for you, everything IS a thought experiment.

/14

And this is where you get "crypto is interesting to me."

Crypto is interesting to moneyed, powerful tech folks who consider amassing more money and power to be in their interest.

/15

Moneyed/powerful techies then treat that self-interest as universal logical laudability.

But to everyone outside this tiny echelon of techies, crypto isn't a thought experiment. Crypto's sweeping ecological and social consequences are not theoretical for them.

/16

And crypto is just one example. There are puh-LENTY of examples in tech where a company with a lot of power and data treated people's privacy, their livelihoods, and their lives cavalierly.

Because, to the people who own/write the code, it's all just a thought experiment.

/17

As long as that power imbalance remains in tech, I don't see this issue going away. Best short-term solution I can think of is to try to get some optimizing criteria on the table besides "self-interest disguised as universal intellectual appeal."

18/18