Specialization is for insects

Eric Shelton (AKA The Shelton) recently shared a post, Heinlein was wrong. The post appears to be an excerpt from Tom Nichols’ The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters. The excerpt refers to the following from Robert Heinlein:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I don’t want to re-quote Eric’s post here but the excerpt makes the following points:

  • Heinlein is telling us that truly capable human beings, should be able to do almost anything
  • The quote is a noble sentiment, it celebrates human adaptability and resilience, but it’s wrong.
  • A homesteader making his own house and the materials to assemble it was inefficient and produced only “rudimentary housing.”
  • No one expects metallurgy, architecture, and glazing in a skyscraper to be executed by the same person.
  • The workers in a skyscraper possess some overlapping knowledge but respect the professional abilities of many others and concentrate on doing what he or she knows best.
  • We cannot function without admitting the limits of our knowledge and trusting in the expertise of others

The Life Judo slogan is taken from this quote so it is not surprising I think the above is well meant nonsense. Heinlein wrote a “human being” should be able to do his list, not a remarkable person. It is not a noble sentiment but a specific point. Rudimentary housing is far better than freezing your ass off, and if you can’t make rudimentary shelter you are relying on our modern support system to function flawlessly and relying on yourself to have flawless judgement and knowledge of the future. The last three points made by Mr. Nichols can be addressed completely by Heinlein’s requirement to take orders, give orders, cooperate, and act alone.

Making the claim that specialization is for insects is not a call for isolation and rugged individualism. It is a call to be useful and of value to the people around you. Are people in need? Can you be of assistance? What if you are separated from the group? Do they need to mobilize resources and take on new risks to save you or can they count on you to find your way back more or less on your own?

Heinlein is placing a list of skills in your mind and letting you have a response. Are you energized at the prospect of becoming better rounded or do you shrink away from exposing yourself to the inevitable failure of learning?

We don’t need to achieve unparalleled levels of excellence in all facets of our life. It has been well said that perfect is the enemy of good enough. Rather than be excellent, can you do these and other things at all? My observation in the world and my own experience indicates the expanding of one’s skill set expands one’s freedom. It’s also a lot of fun.

But Mr. Nichols was applying his point more to society than to the individual! My point still stands. Have you ever noticed that biology involves chemistry and that chemistry involves physics and that physics involves math and that communicating mathematical concepts in relation to real world issues involves good writing skills? Do you recall that the information about the 9/11 attacks was known to the government but the compartmentalization of the information prevented the whole picture emerging?

When we specialize we are putting our understanding in silos. Are you in the foreign policy silo or steel worker silo or the management silo? This does not serve our society, our industry, nor our science. Nowhere in Heinlein’s quote are we admonished against achieving excellence. In fact his reference to giving and receiving orders and acting cooperatively implies strongly that there are to be people expert enough to clearly be in charge.

If I need brain surgery or an engine block blueprinted I want the operator to be an expert and truly fantastic at the task. However, it does not follow that I want or need the surgeon or machinist to be ignorant of how to cook a meal, write a sonnet, or build a wall.

Mr Nichols may well have a valid point to make but he has chosen the wrong context to make it. I cannot think of a better thing for any society of humans than that they should all strive to live the terms Heinlein lays out for us.

The U.N. – Oxford Union debate

The Oxford Union was founded in 1823 and is a famous platform for debate. The merits of a given motion are debated and then a vote is taken.

The motion: This House Believes the United Nations is a Failing Institution.

Eight speakers with strong arguments on either side.

I’m not a fan of the U.N. but it was fun and educational to hear about people’s argument’s in favor of it, as well as brutal criticisms. Saudi Arabia being on the U.N. human rights council would be one of them. Does that seem right to you?

Ammunition and house fires

How dangerous is ammunition in a house fire? Guns use ammunition to go BOOM. Wouldn’t a round or worse, a pallet load, of ammunition do the same when heated long enough?

Apparently not. In this video question of ammunition safety and volatility is FULLY examined.

It is important to note that a gun with a round in the chamber in a fire will fire as if the trigger were pulled if it gets hot enough.

Why isn’t ammunition more volatile? Because smokeless powder used in modern ammunition is not an explosive. Smokeless powder is a propellant and it burns, it does not detonate.

It was striking how hard it was to get ammunition to misbehave.