A programmer’s society replaces a lawyer’s society

A programmer’s society replaces a lawyer’s society

: Many of my contemporaries went to law school not to be lawyers but to learn the discipline of the craft and use it in their professions and lives. Before my time, people got classical educations instead. In the next generation, I think people will learn programming instead — and that will have a subtle but deep effect on society.

That occurred to me this morning as I dropped my son off at computer camp. He’s eagerly learning C++ now and he is already a PHP jockey. But he says he doesn’t want to program for a living (though he still has many years to decide). Still, he likes the discipline and logic and impact of programming. Many of his contemporaries are doing the same these days; we all know lots of “former programmers,” eh?

So I wondered what impact that will have on how the society thinks.

As a friend of mine — a law-trained businessman — said the other day, he comes to management as a process of questioning (read: interrogation): He keeps asking his people questions until they and he know what to do. The ex-lawyer across the table said she approaches business looking for what can go wrong and getting every contingency in writing.

Lawyers are necessarily a suspicious breed. They live by rules. They think in terms of us vs. them. They think contention. They argue for sport. They always think they can appeal to a higher authority. They aim for victory. They are patient.

All those traits have an impact on American society — many or most of them not good. The fact that lawyers run government is at the root of many of government’s problems: Government has become all about arguing, little about serving.

But now imagine if former programmers start rising to the heights of American business and government and cultural life.

Programmers are logical. They believe in cause and effect. They believe any problem can be solved if you just find the cause. When they do battle, it’s with a mistake, not a person. They live in the details. They believe in openness and transparency. They also believe in following rules but the rules of reality — what a machine can and can’t do — over the rules man made up. They believe in planning. They, too, are patient. What else?

The impact of former programmers on society will likely be good. Maybe they will help us operate more transparently. Maybe they will help us focus on solutions rather than problems.

: UPDATE: Rick Klau, a nonpracticing lawyer himself, posts a great and nicely feathered response to this post making lots of good points — more than I made — among them:

But I think the more important point is the underlying goal of law: to maintain the status quo, to be predictable. Programming, on the other hand, is built on a culture of innovation

19 responses to “A programmer’s society replaces a lawyer’s society”

  1. Russkie Avatar
    Russkie

    There’s lots of former programmers who work as pointy-headed bosses or marketroids in high-tech companies, and they have none of the wonderful qualities that you mention.
    The hardcore types who really believe in transparency etc. don’t have the charisma or people skills to make it in either management or politics.

  2. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    > They believe in cause and effect.
    Alternatives being what? And why is believing in them good?
    > They believe any problem can be solved if you just find the cause.
    The corollary is more important – if you haven’t found the cause, you can’t solve the problem, no matter how much you like the things that you have found and/or tried.
    BTW – What Jarvis described is “just” engineering. Folks who interact with objective reality, where who you are doesn’t matter, do have a different way of dealing with things.

  3. Rick Klau Avatar

    Jeff – great post; some comments are here.
    –Rick

  4. Independent George Avatar

    So, Congress will wait until the last minute, then pull a 60-hour marathon legislative session to pass a budget, then spend the next ten months debugging it while fighting over who’s Kung-Fu is the best?

  5. Mitch H. Avatar

    Programmers tend to believe in cause and effect to such an extent that they perceive it whether or not it actually exists. They tend towards the conspiratorial. They’re prone to believe that they understand a process before they actually have done so. They have a strong bias towards black-and-white, binary perception – things either are or are not. They tend to be intellectually arrogant. They’re often intolerant of opposing opinions.
    Programmers aren’t better people than lawyers. They’re people who don’t think like lawyers. This is, at best, a wash in moral terms.

  6. Shawn Levasseur Avatar

    Former programmers as CEOs: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs.
    Each of them presides over the most cash rich businesses around.
    Can’t argue with success…

  7. Xavier Botero Avatar

    As a programmer with a lot of programmer friends, I’m in complete agreement. My comments here.

  8. Chris Haseman Avatar

    I think there’s one more difference between Programmers and lawyers…
    For a programmer…there is always a black or white answer to every problem. The computer determines which engineer is right and which is wrong.
    With Law, it’s a judge, our a jury that decides a case, so no one is ever clearly correct and the laws are (as they should be) always somewhat ambiguious.
    I’m not sure how that difference would play out in society however….

  9. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    So, Congress will wait until the last minute, then pull a 60-hour marathon legislative session to pass a budget, then spend the next ten months debugging it while fighting over who’s Kung-Fu is the best?
    And that will differ from today how?

  10. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    To be serious for a moment, I think many of the things you’re talking about are good: programmers learn not just what do-while means, but must learn mathematical logic, other forms of mathematics, and formal, rigorous modes of thought. They also learn the insight behind one of my Grandfather’s favorite proverbs: “If the bird book and the bird disagree, believe the bird.” (Something the baby engineers I teach or who work for me learn to hate.)
    And believe me, I’ve spent nearly 40 years doing it, including MS and PhD, so I absolutely think it’s valuable. (I would like to know how those people who are ex-programmers stopped. Cold turkey? Is there some kind of a patch? Or meetings?)
    But what worries me about it is that programmers, professional college-trained programmers, basically don’t learn anything else. They learn truth tables and quantification, but they don’t learn why an ad hominem circumstantial or an equivocation undermines a person’s argument. At University of Colorado, where I was an undergrad and now sometimes teach, a Computer Science major can graduate — hell, is almost forced to graduate — without taking a single humanities course of any sort.
    The result is that programmers are as prone to looney-ism as anyone, from looney-libertarianism to looney Chomskyism (it’s worth remembering that the place where Chomsky has had an actual lasting scientific impact is in computer science and mathematics.)
    I wish I had some grand conclusion, but I don’t.

  11. Hunter McDaniel Avatar
    Hunter McDaniel

    I wish I could be as optimistic as Jeff. Unfortunately, in the collision between technology (programmers) and copyright (lawyers) I see the lawyers winning so far.

  12. Andy Avatar

    I see a rise in vaporware and attitude. “If you don’t program, you can’t tell when I’m lying” has been around for decades. Mostly confined to the IT department. Now spreading to other layers of management.
    I see much more of a gaming mentality than an ethics based approach to business. Grab-it-now vs delay the gratification for a greater good. Earn it for the individual vs earn it in a group.
    I also see a lower flash point to anger for being betrayed or lied to. Less examination of facts and quicker leap to assumptions regarding motives.
    Both groups have fewer interpersonal skills and less respect for the bonds of trust. Obligations to act and be trustworthy are viewed unequally with outsiders. They feel less need to build a trusting relationship.
    You are right to see a parallel between the two. A contrast to the broader world where business is done by persons who are neither is also important. Ethics and trust are the foundation of all relationships. Those who view them as options in a game live in a different world from the rest of us.

  13. Matteo Avatar

    I put in 16 years as a very hardcore programmer between 1985 and 2001. One thing I’ll say about programming: there is no way to ‘con’ a computer into what you want it to do. Hopefully a more “programmer influenced” society would insist on seeing facts and solid reasoning (reasoning which addresses the strongest arguments of the opponent, rather than employing ad hominem strawman caricatures), rather than propaganda, when it comes to political discussion, news “reporting”, government finances, etc.

  14. Jawahar Mundlapati Avatar
    Jawahar Mundlapati

    Studying political science along with programming helps in contributing more to the society…

  15. David Foster Avatar

    Interesting. I do think that the legal mindset has become too influential in our society, with many detrimental effects. I must point out, though, that much programming is very similar to law (specifically, contract law) in that one must think through all possible conditions, including unpleasant ones…probably 90% of any sophisticated program (viz, an operating system) involves dealing with exception conditions of one sort or another.
    The zero-sum aspect, though, is absent, so the thought process is usually less caustic.

  16. Tom Grey Avatar

    There is an increase in Business Intelligence / Key Performance Indicators, and drill down technology, in business – IT today.
    eGov’t and full transparency of gov’t actions is coming — just as it’s coming to the newsroom. It will be fought by middle managers who don’t want it known how little, in terms of results, they contribute.
    The power of capitalism to increase wealth is the focus on “profit” — the increase in wealth due to an organization’s effects. Quantified, watched, and, if CEOs don’t create enough of it, the CEO gets replaced.
    Gov’t services are going to be quantified, measured, and tracked. It’s starting to happen, finally, in education. It will, it should, it CAN happen in all gov’t areas.
    See http://www.fpdc.gov/fpdc/fpdc_home.htm
    and others.
    What programming teaches is the need for test cases and following the logic of how the system handles it. A main QA issue is the question, how do you know it’s right? By some specific output.
    Tracking the expected specific outputs, results, rather than the “desire” or motivation or sincerity. Results orientation will be a big improvement.

  17. Tomas Kohl Avatar

    A very inspiring post, and a very controversial one as well. As someone who used to code for a living and still recalls those days quite fondly, I’ve got no illusions about programmers and their possible impact on our society. I looked at your argument and found it worth challenging:
    “(…) Government is about arguing, then serving. Best arguments win, or those backed by most capable (and perhaps ruthless) individuals. There needs to be a constant fight of ideas, a darwinian battle of species. It’s the Europe’s social democrats who are more like programmers, trying to figure out how to make this damn machine called society work – social engineering is their beloved discipline. But humans cannot be subjugated as easily as machines and social engineers often leave public service in tears, mission not accomplished.”

  18. dick Avatar

    As a former programmer, retired after 40 years of dealing with the big computer, I think you do have some good points. However, there are some problems also.
    Some programmers become so hidebound that they write the same programs over and over again for years and learn nothing and see nothing. The programs work as designed but the idea that the design should change does not enter into the equation.
    Some programmers embrace the new ideas as being teh answer to everything without taking into account the idea that some of the old ideas really did have merit and should not be lost.
    Some programmers get so tied up in the logic that they fail to bring people into the equation. I was not a scientific programmer although I did program some scientific projects. In the business programming, the human has to be taken into the equation. You have to figure out how the human mind works and write the program so that the operations become “user friendly.” This means that you have to place yourself in the shoes of the person using the program and figure out what needs to happen in what sequence so that the user will be comfortable with how the program works. You also, and this is where I am in full agreement with the poster above who talked about the humanities courses, have to be able to write up and tell the user how to operate the stuff. If you cannot do this in language that is both true to how the program works and words that the user understands and also words that are used the same way the user uses them (bad sentence structure but if you follow it will make sense), then all the clever tricks in the world will not be worth it.
    You also must be able to sit down with the end user and find out what he or she really needs and wants. There must be a real dialogue among those involved and an agreed upon methodology to resolve that need and want.
    I guess what I am saying is that while there really are rules involved, in the non-scientific part of programming the process approaches what the legal profession should do. That neither does in the day to day business of life is the problem with both approaches. As currently practices and taught both seem to forget the human animal as part of the equation and keep trying to force him into predetermined cages. That is what has to change and until the educational establishment changes I do not see it happening soon. Seems as if the more they monkey with the educational guidelines, the further from the ideal they get.

  19. Brett Avatar

    If programmers were all that logical, the software would work better than most of it does.