- posted on
- October 4, 2007
- by Liz Danzico
The Rise of Cutting Corners
Just about 15 years ago, during college days in Pennsylvania, I found the secret place. It was a signless storefront off campus where they sold one thing: notes from college courses. Not just any course notes, but wonderfully meticulous notes taken by responsible students in class. Notes were transcribed, cleaned up, and sold for a reasonable amount.
The official explanation for the business was to provide equal opportunity for students who had to miss a class. But it was no secret: everyone knew. This store was in the business of selling free passes.
Down With Dumb
While cutting corners was acceptable in college, this kind of corner cutting has traditionally been discouraged. Taking “the easy way” has had negative connotations—it is not a virtue that Americans, and particularly New Yorkers, value. Or at least I thought so.
Getting away with things has been a recent quiet phenomenon, in large part due to the success of the For Dummies series. Starting with DOS for Dummies in 1991, this series seems to be prospering, demystifying a growing number of daily activities. A recent trip to my very own supermarket in Brooklyn revealed an aisle selling Hangers for Dummies and Pots and Pans for Dummies. And the list goes on and on and on and on. Do we really need this much help?
There’s something about the series that’s always connoted cheating to me. Sure, the series purports itself to be an easy explanation for the layperson. But just like the college notes store, everyone knows For Dummies is about getting away with something. What happened to the diligence of learning something ourselves? Are we really this comfortable with playing dumb?
The Long Way
Cutting corners is not a bad or wrong concept. And For Dummies is just one example of fostering this ideal. Shortcutting or offloading knowledge onto other people or systems is necessary in many cases. We rely on mobile devices to store phone numbers; we rely on our RSS readers to remind us which websites we like to read; bookmarks to remember website addresses; our spouses or partners to remember birthdays and anniversaries. But when the shortcuts result in missing knowledge that would be useful to us — when we rely on the easy way out simply because we can — we may be cheating ourselves out of a full understanding. We may only be seeing a part of the story.
There is, of course, a difference between cutting corners and efficiency. I’m all for efficiency-promoting tools like TextExpander, Skitch, and even Peel. But these are time-saving tools rather than knowledge-cutting tools. There’s a big difference. If we keep looking for ways to cut corners in the things should be learning and practicing, what will we be left with?
There’s something to be said for doing things the hard way. Something to be said for celebrating Smart.
This kind of culture is all around us. Look at how many people think they’re a designer because they read Photoshop for Dummies, or people who think they’re accountants after picking up a similar book? The list goes on and on. We put too much of an emphasis on the end, and never enough on the means.
I agree, and also believe we should celebrate Smart. I am all for time-saving tools. I don’t, however, think that knowledge-cutting tools are all bad… because I think that there is a direct relationship between time-saving and knowledge-saving. I also think that under the right circumstances, efficiency and lack of effort are the same, if you can identify how much effort is needed.
Dummies books are fine for person A; they provide just enough information for someone who doesn’t need to know the whole story. They are perfect for trivial applications of knowledge. For example, if person A wanted to know a little about how to season a pan, he/she wouldn’t want to know the history of the pan, what other types of pans there are, etc. Person A just wants to figure out how to season the pan… and the Pots and Pans for Dummies book might be just what they need. A then has a lot of extra time, and proceeds to have a drink with friends.
Person B is a developer and understands most of what is going on. B doesn’t know every last detail, but he/she understands most of the tools that are required for the project. B has to apply knowledge to a non-trivial application, and therefore has learned more than a dummies book could tell him/her. However, B still skips paragraphs in his books, and his/her eyes glaze over when co-workers discuss details of unicode, inheritance, closures, and table merges. On the other hand, B uses all of the skipped learning time getting more work done.
And finally, person C is a knowledge sponge. C spends all of his/her time reading every last mundane detail about what they are working on, all of the history behind them, and related techniques. C is the person who can describe unicode, inheritance, closures, table merges and much more. The problem with person C is that he/she knows more than the non-trivial application calls for and is upset they didn’t get to go for a drink with their friend, as they were preparing for the task ahead of them.
Point is, there is a definite relationship between time-saving and knowledge-saving. I would say that the smartest person is the one who realizes this and uses it to their advantage. You don’t want to undershoot your knowledge, but you don’t want to overshoot either. The person who understands when to, and when not to cut-corners will come out ahead.
Eddie: Well said. You’re right about the relationship: there is a direct relationship between shortcuts and knowledge. And I think you have an important point—it really depends on the use case, a person’s overall goal.
If the goal is to have drinks with friends, then the means to getting to that end will require shortcuts, whether it’s at the expense of knowledge or not. It the goal is about learning, explicitly by taking a course or implicitly by improving your professional skill set during the workday. then learning becomes the goal, even at the expense of time with friends or other personal activities.
Either way, I like that you’ve brought up goals (this isn’t to discount Beth’s point because I think focusing on the means is important too). I tend to be the one who overshoots, as you say, which may explain my near-vigilant reaction to the Dummies books. But event those, as you point out, may have a place.
Glad you agree Liz.
Heh, personally, I overshoot like crazy! I spend as much on books as I do on rent (ok, not quite).
I also hate Dummies books… from the glossed over topics, to their shotty materials, to the yellow-black. And you’re right, they seem to have one for every topic now. It’s always frustrated me that bookstores stock so many of those at the expense of “real” books. In fact, I’m now wondering how well they sell, since that frustration helps keep me out of bookstores. Guess the fact that they’re on the shelves answers that. (Making your post all the more relevant.)
As an aside, I skimmed you bio and see you own a cello. Do you play? I’m suddenly feeling guilty for not “overshooting” my practice time!
“Do you play?”
I do, and use the Suzuki books, which are not nearly the same as the Dummy books. In some ways, it would be easier if they were. Then again, the point of the whole thread here.
You’re the Anti-Steve Krug: “Make me think”.
I’m seriously turned off by “Dummies” books because of the title alone: I find the idea that a person should think of themselves as a dummy pretty offensive and socially irresponsible. American culture, perhaps unique in the world, actually cultivates pride in individual ignorance and stupidity. People who fall behind will find plenty of cultural and social reasons to feel perfectly fine about it, even proud. They even got one of their own elected President.
That said, if I were to suddenly decide I needed a crash course in something I knew *nothing* about, and didn’t care to embark on a lifelong learning process, I wouldn’t rule out a Dummy book. Of course, there is the competing/knockoff Demystified series, whose name at least isn’t nearly as intellectually masochistic.
Chris: I agree with you that for some, ignorance is a point of pride. But I also think that for Americans in particular (or maybe this is just the New Yorker in me), it’s more about ignorance in the spirit of efficiency. It sounds like that is fueling your potential consideration of a Dummy if the situation merited it.