I missed the part where he tells us why we're better off being uneducated about our craft.

It's kind of a back-handed compliment, I guess. Apparently he thinks only the context-driven crowd can be expected to know what they are talking about!

Well, you're certainly entitled to draw whatever inferences you like. However, I hope that you'd consider a different interpretation, based on a difference between questioning and rejecting.

I'm not saying that there's no value in (say) the text of Shakespeare's plays; but I am saying that it's important to question what the text leaves in, what it leaves out, and what it might put in. That was what McLuhan was very concerned about. He saw that issue starting with the phonetic alphabet, through movable type, and on to electronic media. (Note that McLuhan takes a much broader view of "media" than you seem to here; for McLuhan, a medium was anything that effected a change—but I suppose you didn't read my article either.) Representations of something change the thing; they take our experience of the original thing from immediate to mediated. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but the experience of one is definitely different from experience of the other.

Read the blog post above carefully and you'll note (well, I hope you'll note) that I'm suggesting a change in focus, questioning and de-centring the document, and not rejecting the idea of documents altogether.

Philosophy, ontology and epistemology might characterise some disucssions by consultant types – but most testers would benefit tremendously by using their critical faculties alone.

I trust you intended the first part of the sentence ironically. However, I think that the development of critical faculties depends on philosophy (the love of wisdom), ontology (how we view the world), and epistemology (how we know what we know). That may not be how the conversation begins, but I think those issues emerge for those who care about the work that they do.

Perhaps you disagree. Or to put it another way, perhaps you have a philosophical objection because our ontologies disagree based on our epistemologies. Or to put it yet another way, "whatever", "onward", or "oh, bollocks".

Cheers,

—Michael B.

It starts with automation, and tools, but neither of those words are mentioned after the third paragraph.

You might like to have a look at the beginning of the sixth paragraph. You also note later (although you disagree) that I am claiming that tools are media, of which more in a moment.

The McLuhan background isn't referenced after paragraph 4 but doesn't seem to segue into paragraph 5. Why is it there?…
"literacy without social concern is meaningless" – this doesn't follow from the text in the blog. It might be substantiated by Pattanyak in his pitch which you don't reference.

David Pattanayak, mentioned in paragraph 5, was one of the scholars at the conference referenced in paragraph 4. I'm sorry if this wasn't sufficiently clear.

I don't see the relevance inferred in para 6. What exactly is the connection? I also don't understand the 'Chapel Hill Approach…'. Who references that work except the context-driven folk? CH is an age ago – nobody except a few testing archaeologists read that sutff?

For me, part of understanding the present involves trying to understand the past. I believe that few read about Chapel Hill less because it's old and irrelevant, but more because it was so successful. Its message is tacitly repeated every day in the words and actions of those who see testing as a simple technical problem, and who believe that if only we did enough checking (mediated by test scripts and/or automated), we'd be fine.

The quotes are really proposing that speeches made without written prompts (Powerpoint 100BC?) are superior to written texts used by less capable orators…I've ordered a copy of the book – I'll make a more considered response in time.

That's an interesting interpretation. I'd be grateful if you could point out evidence for it. Perhaps you can do that after you've read the piece in full. Maybe the Amazon reviewer, citing Socrates, missed the part in which Socrates notes "Know then, fair youth, that the former discourse was the word of Phaedrus, the son of Vain Man,…" That is, Socrates was parodying what Phaedrus would have saidI. I'm no expert on the classics either, but I generally prefer reading them myself before making conclusions about them based on an Amazon reviewer's review, even if he is a top 100 reviewer. (By the way, the review to which you refer is here: http://www.amazon.com/Phaedrus-Oxford-Worlds-Classics-Plato/dp/0192802771)

I'm not sure of the connection here. No I am sure – there is none.

Spoken like a developer! There is no bug. Is there a possibility that there is a connection, but that I haven't expressed it sufficiently clearly for you? Or that I (and others) might see a connection that you don't, and that being reasonable people, we might disagree reasonably? Apparently not; there is no connection.

More in a moment…

It starts with automation, and tools, but neither of those words are mentioned after the third paragraph. Were those words used to attract attention or are they germane to the discussion that follows? I'm not clear.

The McLuhan background isn't referenced after paragraph 4 but doesn't seem to segue into paragraph 5. Why is it there?

Para 5 says not much. "literacy without social concern is meaningless" – this doesn't follow from the text in the blog. It might be substantiated by Pattanyak in his pitch which you don't reference. OK, let's take that as given. (But why bother?)

No – I don't see the relevance inferred in para 6. What exactly is the connection? I also don't understand the 'Chapel Hill Approach…'. Who references that work except the context-driven folk? CH is an age ago – nobody except a few testing archaeologists read that sutff? But again – let's move on…

Para 7. No I don't think you've made the case that test scripts = media (most people *still* test in an ad-hoc way, don't they?), so your next segue doesn't follow.

The next sections are very interesting – but not for the reasons you suggest. The quotes are really proposing that speeches made without written prompts (Powerpoint 100BC?) are superior to written texts used by less capable orators.

It's a 2500 year old rant. Brilliant orators and thinkers who didn't write things down were jealous of published writers. The paragraphs may simply be sour grapes targeted at more (finanacially) successful writers who subsequently have been forgotten perhaps?

Extracted from an Amazon reriew of Plato : Phaedrus: A Translation With Notes: "The second speech (by Socrates), while an impeccable model of correct rhetoric, and reaching the correct conclusion is also essentially flawed- for it makes no appeal to the deepest fundamental causes of things. Simply put, it lacks soul." I'm no expert on the classics, but it sounds like he was a dreamer – with no experience of the real world, and certainly not our world 2500 years after his death. (He committed suicide 'on principle'). I've ordered a copy of the book – I'll make a more considered response in time.

Whatever.

Is there a connection with the classical view and unscripted testing? Purrrlease. The classical view seems to imply that the written word has little value; that the only rewarding performance is a live performance (by the original 'orator'). I'm sorry, but this sounds like the puerile boasting of some 14 year old who defends a crappy pop group by saying – "they are better live".

The only Shakespeare worth seeing was a live perfomance? Er no, I'm sure. If that was the case all his works should have been trashed in 1616. In fact, if no one had written down Plato's soliloquy's – they would have been long forgotten. Nah – doesn't compute.

I'm not sure of the connection here. No I am sure – there is none.

Onwards.

I agree mostly with testing being an intellectual, cerebral activity. (Sapient is presumptious). Philosophy, ontology and epistemology might characterise some disucssions by consultant types – but most testers would benefit tremendously by using their critical faculties alone. Let's focus on that hey?

As you’ve pointed out lot’s of times, an important part of testing is acquiring information about the product. That information is worthless if it isn’t communicated clearly and timely to the right persons. In my vision tools can help to make sure the message is acquired and composed fast and communicated in a reliable, clear, and unambiguous manner. I think good tools are essential for this, can make a difference with your competitors. But you’re right: it is about the message. The message is always most important.

Thank you so much for commenting!

unfortunately, you’ve written it, so it’s unavailable to illiterates without help.As you well know, I’m all too happy to talk to people as well. Illiterates are unlikely to be spared.

Being illiterate doesn’t mean you can’t speak.David Pattanayak sounds erudite enough to me that I can believe that he intended the irony there.

I don’t think we should rail against any form of communication–writing, speaking, drawing, gesturing, demonstrating, or what have you–but only against omitting a priori any form of communication that might be helpful to the sender and the receiver.Amen; there’s been way too much of the a priori omission stuff over the span of my career, and doubtless over yours. The point of the Orality and Literacy Conference was not to attack literacy, but rather to de-centre it. (Yes, it sets up another joke about literacy, but that that is the way we spell "centre" in these parts.) In the same program, Eric Havelock noted that in addition to reading and writing, we should also teach kids to speak—he said "we speak appallingly badly in this country"—and to listen—and to sing, and to dance. (Hmmm… considering the disaster that we sometimes make of teaching, perhaps we should focus on letting the kids learn, rather than trying to teach them; or on letting them unlearn the "rules" that we've tried to teach them.)

I’m going to get you next month in the Experiential Exercise Design Workshop.And I, for one, cannot wait.

Thanks again for the comments.

—Michael B.

Second, notice the assumption in the quote, “What I am worried about is that there are 800 million illiterates in the world, and for those 800 million illiterates, there is nobody to speak…”

Being illiterate doesn’t mean you can’t speak. My grandmother was illiterate in at least three languages that I know of, but she could certainly speak all three of them.

So, to further your argument, consider that even people who are considered “literate” may not be very good at writing their thoughts, and some who can write are not very good at speaking their thoughts.

I don’t think we should rail against any form of communication–writing, speaking, drawing, gesturing, demonstrating, or what have you–but only against omitting a priori any form of communication that might be helpful to the sender and the receiver. (Perhaps because you believe there’s one and only one “right” way.)

We are, after all, in the communication business. I wish I could tell your readers that in person, then have them experience it. By blogging, I’m (for the moment) settling for less, but I’m going to get you next month in the Experiential Exercise Design Workshop.