Oct 23, 2009
In any given task, I've found the hardest step to be the proof. Proof can come in different forms. In my daily work as a programmer, proof comes in the form of code. In most situations in which I'm given a problem to solve, my intuition often provides me with a solution almost immediately. While there are always additional sub-problems that crop up along the way, these tend to be less of a challenge mentally than the actual process of converting the solution into lines of code on a screen.
Proof comes in many other forms. When at a restaurant, there is a constant battle in my mind between 1) ordering a dish I've never tried before to justify eating out in the first place — or put another way that supports my point — to prove that it was a good idea to eat out, and 2) ordering something I've had before, that has already proven itself as worthy of satisfy the first criteria. Almost all conversations of a complexity level above the weather or sports results requires a process in which you convert the abstract, yet concrete convictions you have into coherent and persuasive arguments for the benefit of the other side of the conversation. And this discourse doesn't even have to revolve around a difference of opinion — even the simplest anecdote, quip, joke or viewpoint requires this process of converting a thought into something tangible.
There is of course a basic necessity in this process, and in fact there is joy to be found in it. But lately I've begun to notice the process being extended unnecessarily, drawn out so long that the final idea is drowned in a sea of over complication. What once was a simple idea becomes a diluted mess. Every year tens or hundreds of thousands of Masters and PHD students spend countless hours on academic proofs. A significant portion of them, I feel, are producing work that proves a point that was already intrinsically known to be true. This appears, to me at least, as a waste of time and talent by those involved. This is in turn caused by the requirements of the academic world, since we as a society have decided to measure intelligence, competence and success by ones ability to argue a point. While this may be a fair indicator in some ways, it is simultaneously feeding two detrimental facets of society; politics, in which a sickening proportion of time is spent by it's practitioners arguing their ideas, while the more important act of effecting change rapidly becomes an afterthought; and mainstream media, in which it's practitioners wage a never ending battle to convince and influence, the level of regard to basic truths that were once self-evident rapidly diminishing.
It's these bad, needless, unnecessary or just plain toxic proofs that need to be reduced, to make way for the good ones; the conversion of an thought or idea into a tangible, meaningful and useful result that enriches and enhances, instead of convolutes. It's about making or doing something, anything, instead of just talking about it. It's something I wish I could do more of, and I'm even now asking myself the question of which side of the coin this essay falls on, but it's something I feel is important and worthwhile continuing to improve on a personal level.