The resistance to being deskilled

Post Reply New Topic

In my experience as a software designer people are resistant to change. As a person with a high intelligence and two degrees I am a threat. This is because I would normally be contracted to look for patterns in a human process in order to computerize them.

Not surprisingly people do not want to lose their jobs or learn new skills just to stand still. As a result they can become sabateurs to any initiative. They can be cruel and hateful. They can overly complicate an organisation so that a computer model becomes difficult. When this resistance becomes too stressful for us we may seek help from a doctor. He too fears all this tech being implemented. So much so that he has a name for your problem. Aspergers syndrome. He has pills to deaden your skills and may appease you with disability benefits.

This resistance to automation starts at school and is a concerted bullying process due to a resistance to gifted technologists. A doctor is a people person and has to deal with all the people whose jobs you get a computer to do. Not surprisingly he wants to say you are ill as the minority. However other countries who respect our sort do get the tech jobs done and make huge profits as a result.

What I advise is to not appear like a technologist. Read some books on politics and philosophy. Try to sound a bit arty as camouflage. Anything to avoid getting worked over by the technophobe mob of which medicine is a part. You were born as your dad was effective at technology in all likelihood. It is just that with the internet technology is getting so powerful no profession is safe. If he divided labour between people you are probably dividing it between software objects and classes. This is a deep threat to humans and they will not go quietly.

Your best defense is to appear a technophobic moron yourself offline. Also gain requirements from the boss only as he is the only one who wants the technology to work!

Peace geeks!

I can't say I buy into this. The last two doctors I talked to didn't fit the technophobe model at all. One was a neurosurgeon, and described a seriously cool system he has on his operating microscope: He can take an MRI of a person's head with markers attached to it, and overlay the 3D model of the inside of the person's head on his microscope display. This lets him do brain surgery with a 3D roadmap so he knows where not to cut. Yep, it's new. Yep, he seriously wanted to adapt to it. And yep, he's constantly on the search for other new technologies that will make his job easier, safer, and more successful.

The other doctor was describing the chemistry of how oxygen, water, and sodium are transported through capillary walls into and out of the brain. Again, he was showing me the various tests they could do, and the changes the hospital had made to their equipment to make taking vitals easier and to simplify the safe administration of high concentrations of sodium into someone who was in a sodium imbalance seizure. Again, the doctor really appreciated the changes new technologies made possible. And again, he, too, said he spends time looking for new technologies that can be incorporated into patient care.

To move on to another point you made, I don't think the Internet is a direct threat to all professions, as you stated. It would be extremely expensive, for example, to build a robot that would take the place of a foundry worker. (I hope you don't think foundry workers are so far below notice that they aren't important at all. Hold onto that thought the next time you drive over a manhole cover.) I agree that some jobs can be automated. Others really can't. Not in a way that is cost-effective.

And that's what drives most automation efforts: cost. Employees are typically the most expensive asset a company has. If it costs half a million dollars to automate a process that cuts three mid-level jobs, the typical payout is two years. Most companies would go for it. If it costs half a million dollars to automate a process that cuts a part time minimum wage position, the payout is so ridiculously long that most companies would say no.

Almost every industry I've worked in has gone the automation route to some degree. I've run into the occasional curmudgeon, but nothing like what you describe. Most have just loved getting the new toys. In some cases the automation we did resulted in higher productivity rather than reduction in headcount. In those cases the response was largely a case of, "Well I'm glad I don't have to do THAT task any more!" In other cases the automation we did resulted in a loss of headcount. It feels crummy to do that, but it's the nature of the beast. And yeah, in one case my job was eliminated after a reorganization because the new system could do the same work with fewer people. I moved on. At my next job I was part of an automation project. Go figure.

In most cases automation will get rid of the lower skilled tasks within an industry (although sometimes the very low skill tasks may remain and medium skill tasks may go).

Sometimes it does result in major changes within industries with major staff cuts (one example is the development of automated telephone exchanges resulting in the loss of most telephone operator jobs).

If the automation results in increased productivity then, assuming the same demand for the product/service, less staff will be required and some jobs may be lost.

Not all staff will be able to fit into the post-automation work environment. The skills required to do the job may change radically from before. The work pattern may also change (a back room job may suddenly become customer facing).



A good doctor will embrace the advance of technology, as it can increase the amount of time it allows them to spend with their patients, make more informed diagnosis and reduce some of the less interesting tasks.

Instead of having paper notes my GP has these computerised, apart from the notes not getting lost as often they are more upto date, easier to read (the stereotype regarding doctors' handwriting seems to be true). A repeat prescription can be printed at the touch of a button, with less chance of error.

The more diagnostic tools avaliable, the more accurately a doctor can diagnose a condition. Automation can reduce the cost of these tools, allowing more patients to use them (there may be a reduction of some of the lower level lab based jobs.

Turns out that's a pretty big assumption. In most of the cases where I've been at a place that's automating parts of its business, what it's done is open up new lines of business or reduce costs of existing ones. Here's a recent example: One of the facilities I work at had much of its operation automated. During this process we also installed additional monitoring and remote control for many of the existing systems. This makes system failures easier to troubleshoot and remedy, often remotely. We didn't reduce headcount as a result. What we did was open up more of the troubleshooters' time to preventative maintenance, making the system more robust. This reduced down time. Automation gave us the leeway to move from a reactive to a proactive approach to maintenance. The additional time we gain during the day gives us time to do R&D on other systems we support. This change in our business model has made us more competitive.