吳佩玲，大數據更需要人文素養，哈佛商業評論，2017/7/31
J.M. 根據以下三本新書，答案是：「很有用。」從矽谷到美國國防部，大家開始了解，若想有效解決現今面臨的最大社會與技術挑戰，我們必須仔細考量它們的人性面：這部分正是人文科系畢業生受過良好訓練之後培養的專長，姑且稱為電影、歷史、哲學書呆子的反撲。
According to three new books, the answeris “ Quite a lot.” From Silicon Valley to the Pentagon, people are beginning to realize that to effectively tackle today’s biggest social and technological challenges, we need to think critically about their human context—something humanitiesgraduates happen to be well trained to do. Call it the revenge of the film, history, and philosophy nerds.
In The Fuzzy and the Techie, venture capitalist Scott Hartley takes aim at the “false dichotomy” between the humanities and computer science. Some tech industry leaders have proclaimed that studying anything besides the STEM fields is a mistake if you want a job in the digital economy. Here’s a typical dictum, from Sun Microsystems cofounder Vinod Khosla: “Little of the material taught in Liberal Arts programs today is relevant to the future.”...
哈特雷認為，如果希望學生能解決大規模的人類議題，我們應促使他們擴大教育和興趣範圍，而不是縮小。他列出一長串成功的科技領導人，是取得人文科系學位的。在這裡只列出幾位執行長：Slack 公司的史都華．巴特菲爾德（Stewart Butterfield）主修哲學、阿里巴巴（Alibaba）的馬雲（Jack Ma）主修英語、YouTube的蘇珊．沃西基（Susan Wojcicki）主修歷史與文學、Airbnb的布萊恩．切斯基（Brian Chesky）主修美術。當然，我們還是需要技術專家，但我們同時也需要一些人，來理解人類行為背後的原因，以及如何產生那些行為。...
If we want to prepare students to solve large-scale human problems, Hartley argues, we must push them to widen, not narrow, their education and interests. He ticks off a long list of successful tech leaders who hold degrees in the humanities. To mention just a few CEOs: Stewart Butterfield, Slack, philosophy; Jack Ma, Alibaba, English; Susan Wojcicki, YouTube, history and literature; Brian Chesky, Airbnb, fine arts. Of course, we need technical experts, Hartley says, but we also need people who grasp the whys and hows of human behavior....
人性的背景脈絡，也是西北大學人文學科教授蓋瑞．索爾．莫森（Gary Saul Morson）與經濟學教授莫頓．夏皮羅（Morton Schapiro）在《金錢與感性》（Cents and Sensibility）一書中的重點。他們認為，經濟模型難以發揮效用，是因為不了解人。經濟學往往忽略三件事：文化對決策的影響、以故事解釋人類行為的效用，以及道德考量。人們並非存在於真空世界，以假設他們生活在真空世界的方式來對待，不但過於簡化，甚至可能造成傷害。人性的背景脈絡，也是西北大學人文學科教授蓋瑞．索爾．莫森（Gary Saul Morson）與經濟學教授莫頓．夏皮羅（Morton Schapiro）在《金錢與感性》（Cents and Sensibility）一書中的重點。他們認為，經濟模型難以發揮效用，是因為不了解人。經濟學往往忽略三件事：文化對決策的影響、以故事解釋人類行為的效用，以及道德考量。人們並非存在於真空世界，以假設他們生活在真空世界的方式來對待，不但過於簡化，甚至可能造成傷害。...
The human context is also the focus of Cents and Sensibility, by Gary Saul Morson and Morton Schapiro, professors of the humanities and economics, respectively, at Northwestern University. They argue that when economic models fall short, they do so for want of human understanding. Economics tends to ignore three things: culture’s effect on decision making, the usefulness of stories in explaining people’s actions, and ethical considerations. People don’t exist in a vacuum, and treating them as if they do is both reductive and potentially harmful.
策略顧問克利斯汀．麥茲伯格（Christian Madsbjerg）撰寫的《意義建構》（Sensemaking），接續莫森和夏皮羅的觀察，並回歸哈特雷的論點。麥茲伯格認為，除非企業用心了解它們數據資料組所代表的那些人，否則終將與自己服務的市場漸行漸遠。他說，企業需要的深入文化知識，並不是來自以數字為導向的市場研究，而是以人文導向的方式來研究文字內容、語言與人。...Sensemaking , by strategy consultant Christian Madsbjerg, picks up the thread from Morson and Schapiro and carries it back to Hartley.Madsbjerg argues that unless companies take pains to understand the human beings represented in their data sets, they risk losing touch with the markets they’re serving. He says the deep cultural knowledge businesses need comes not from numbers-driven marketresearch but from ahumanities -driven study of texts, languages, and people....這三本書都強調同樣的觀念，選擇學習領域的重要性，遠不及尋找方法來拓展思考；這個概念，獲得一系列新書的回響：企管教授藍道．史卓思（Randall Stross）的《實用教育》（A Practical Education）、記者喬治．安德斯（George Anders）的《無所不能》（You Can Do Anything）。STEM學生可以關心人類，就像主修英語的學生，也可以用科學方法來研究事情（包括本文作者，剛進大學時研讀電腦科學，後來主修英文）。我們應謹慎避免讓跨學科之間的互相貶抑，造成我們死守在最熟知的領域。俗話說：「如果你只有一把槌子，很容易將每件事當成釘子來處理。」同樣地，如果我們迫使自己用同樣的方式來處理所有問題，我們會讓自己和這世界處於多麼不利的位置？
What these three books converge on is the idea that choosing a field of study is less important than finding ways to expand our thinking, an idea echoed by yet another set of new releases: A Practical Education, by business professor Randall Stross, and You Can Do Anything, by journalist George Anders. STEM students can care about human beings, just as English majors (including this one, who started college studying computer science) can investigate things scientifically. We should be careful not to let interdisciplinary jockeying make us cling to what we know best. Everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer, as the saying goes. Similarly, at how great a disadvantage might we put ourselves—and the world—if we force our minds to approach all problems the same way?
沒有留言:
張貼留言