TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Computer engineers,and technicians are not qualified to conceptualize or design systems that emulate individual human behavior.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in engineering or computer programming education that prepares for accurate emulation of human cognition, behavior, human-computer interface, or human to human interface.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 24 2013: You said, “If you are saying that these employees need additional training by psychologist, that's fine with me.” That’s not what I am suggesting at all. I am saying that the selection, promotion, training, and management must be considered from more than the technical system to be operated and that those who may be totally familiar with the power plant technical systems, the computer programmers, engineers, and systems analysts do not have the necessary education and experience to develop and deliver economic and effective human resources development programs suitable to such a complex technical operation. They do not have the experience or education to understand the interface between the system and the human or the concepts of an operational team. In addition to the technical systems, the training and testing may also include challenges demanding, for instance, improving interpersonal effectiveness, attention to detail, improvement in the ability to synthesize, to better employ logic, value judgment, improved perception, and etc. Such things are not included in the “User’s Guide” for the systems. While the training may be best served by a subject matter expert, the training development must be a joint effort between the SME and a human performance specialist. The SME trainer must themselves be trained in the human performance part of safe and effective operation.
    Since you mentioned the Japanese nuclear plant disaster, I will mention Three Mile Island #2 reactor that was a human performance disaster because after success with the start up and operation of TMI#1`the engineering management decided that they didn’t really need all of the training to support start up and operation of TMI#2. An exact duplicate of the event happened in an Ohio Nuclear plant with a well trained staff and disaster was avoided.
    • Jun 25 2013: OK, we really don't have more disagreement. When I said more human resources development , including psychologists, is fine with me, then of course it's OK on other training advisers too.
      By the way, I have never been a computer engineer or a system programmer. I have a master's degree in Statistics and a PhD in Bio-statistics. I had a couple of courses in Statistical Decision Theory, so I understand the decision-making strategy based on risks of errors. I argue for the computer engineers because of your harsh criticism of them, not because of my opposition to the needs for additional training.
      Cheers.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.