I Wish to Make a Complaint!

You didn't define a geek, at least a far as how it relates to human/geek interaction so I will give mine:

• Geek: A person that thinks like a computer, at least as far as verbs, structure, logical rules and emotions go.

If I am going to do define geek, I guess I should define human too:

• Human: A person who mostly thinks and solves problems using comparisons and emotions instead of logic and structure.

I have no problem with what you said (in a rather geekie syntax) in fact I agree with you. But I think you missed a couple of very basic human traits that cause many "human to geek" and "geek to human" communication problems. These traits first appeared in early childhood and seldom does the child grow out of them--geek child or human child:

I want that!

I want it now. I want it the way I want it and not the way you want to give it to me. (An adult example would be Free Software addicts.)

You didn't understand me!

So I must scream what I want at you and call you stupid--so you can for sure hear it and will work harder at understanding it. (Best example of this is North American adults when talking to a person who does not speak English.)

Mine!

It's my ball we play the game my way and at a time of my choosing. (The best visual depiction of "mine" is the sea gulls at the end of the movie "Happy Feet".)

I Believe!

I believe (verified or not makes no difference) and you disagree, therefore you must be lying. (Best example of this is any fanatical religion, Open Source included.)

These traits all make information transfer between people difficult, and adding the topics below really makes geek/human interaction very difficult.

Life's Rules:

• If you don't do it yourself--you don't get it done your way.

• If you don't pay to have it done--you don't get it done your way. (Most of the time that doesn't work either. If you don't believe me go out and buy some Microsoft software.)

What Humans and Geeks Didn't Learn While Growing Up.

• Free doesn't mean you get what you want--just what is free.

• Other people care about what they want--not what you want.

• People who give things away for free--always want something in return. In the case of geeks it appears that they want the recipient to:

1. Praise them for what they did--which I think is only fair
2. Learn their language, syntax and its logical structure--more work than most people "want" to go to (ignoring the fact that that would turn them into a geek, which probably is the geeks ultimate goal).
3. Learn to do things their way without any documentation--which I think is totally unreasonable.

Things I Think Geeks Don't Understand About Communication With Humans:

Magic and Incantations

Communicating with a computer is very similar to practicing magic. When using classical magic you must know the exact "True Name" of something before your magic will work on it. With a computer, if you don't know the command name or capitalize it properly--the command won't work.

When speaking magical incantations you must say them perfectly, exactly and in the correct sequence and intonation or bad things happen (ask Micky Mouse about that). With a computer, if you don't use the correct commands, arguments and syntax--bad things happen. Yes English has syntax and logic... but humans just "use it" (sorta) and don't think about it or try to control it very often.

I have found that comparing computer commands with magic incantations helps humans realize how obsessively exact they must be when using computers. In real life you are never obsessively exact in your communication and most humans don't realize that with computers you have to be.

The effect of the concept of nesting on explaining things to humans

The only usage of the word "nesting" in English, that is similar to the way it is used by geeks, is in "nesting boxes" inside of each other which typically, is poorly understood by most humans. If you tell someone to "nest" those boxes over there, the usual response is "Huh?". Programmers needed a word to describe the type of multi-level decision logic commonly used in programs--so they choose nesting. They used a name that humans understand poorly (but did have a generic definition, i.e. nesting birds) to describe a decision logic structure. OK given that humans; 1) Don't understand logic 2) And in everyday life don't use multi-level decision structures at all (or at least they don't notice they are using them) using the computer definition of nesting or its structure in explaining things to humans does not work. Humans understand, step 1, step 2, step 3, etc. but they are not very good at following them so using the concepts of "steps" instead of nesting doesn't always work either and is usually technically incorrect.

But the real problem is not the word choice but the fact that geeks tend to describe "how to use computer software" with the concept of nesting. That is the closest match to the real structure of computer software but it is a logic which humans CAN NOT RELATE TO without training or at least exposure to and practice with. Which usually means there is no transfer of understanding between geeks and humans--only words. When I describe a "decision tree" (a phrase which humans relate to better than "nested choices" or "nested commands") to a human I always draw the structure on a piece of paper and use that chart to describe what happens.

Talking to Computers vs Humans

Geeks think that when you send a sentence to a human that they are supposed to react just like a computer does when you press enter. They are similar but not the same. A human response of "Huh?" is the same as "Error: 29.5" in a computer, the only difference is that with a human; 1) It usually doesn't cause other bad things to happen 2) it is a lot easier and faster to find out what the problem is than it is to find out what a computer "Error" message really means--even if there is documentation. So when you hear a "Huh?" expect to have to do a bit of work to figure out what the "Error" is that is confusing the human the same as you do with computer error messages.

Geeks do realize (at least some of them) that many of the words and concepts they use are totally alien to humans. What they don't realize is that a one sentence definition (usually containing other alien geekie words) is not enough to give the human the comprehension needed to understand what the geek is talking about. This is not a geek problem, it is a common problem when totally new concepts are fed to a person. For example, you want to tell someone who has never seen a cigar or cigarette, nor seen one smoked, how to smoke one. So you tell them to put it in their mouth, and they do. Why are you surprised that they stick the whole thing inside their mouth? So you finally get it positioned in their lips correctly and tell them to light it. Why are you surprised that they try to light the whole thing instead of just the outer end of it? etc., etc.....

Who learns, Who fixes, Who cares.

Many geeks think that humans should have to learn all this computer stuff. These same geeks have tried to teach humans about computers and failed, but still think you can teach everyone computerese--that even I don't understand.

Many humans think that; 1) Things should "just work" (with no more standards than we have now, no software is going to work in every machine), 2) The commands should be simpler and work the way I want in the first place (obviously they never tried to teach a newbie how to smoke or they would realize the extent of the problem), 3) I shouldn't have to "fix" (make things work my way) any software. (Historical note: Until the 1940s everyone customized the handles on their store bought hand tools. After the 1940s that habit went away and apparently so did the concept that if you want something customized for you personally--you have to do it yourself.), etc., etc...

The world and computers are very "messy" and they are both changing constantly. Changes are usually "New and Improved Messes". Sometimes they make things better, sometimes worse--but most of the time they do both. Learn to live with it!

Three important problems that have to be solved before ease of computer usage will improve dramatically:

1. Geeks don't like writing documentation.

2. Programmers don't like to watch a newbie use their software and they don't pay attention to why the newbie doesn't understand--they only pay attention to the questions the newbie asks and how to answer it.

3. Standards have to be made and used by EVERYONE that is building hardware and writing software.

My opinions about the above:

1. Geeks shouldn't write software. As a general rule it would take too much re-training in communication skills and would probably ruin them as programmers. You need another person that stands between the programmer and the user and uses input from both to write the documentation. The best documentation written by a geek (In my opinion anyway) is "Advanced Bash-Scripting Guide" - Mendel Cooper. I think most others should model their documentation after his.

2. Programmers should be forced to test their software with newbies and instead of just writing down their questions, try to understand what the underlying issues are that are confusing the newbie and then change those in their software.

3. Assuming that anyone is going to create and follow standards is probably impossible--given human history.

Famous Quotes:

"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote
programs, then the first woodpecker that came along
would destroy civilization."

"The Psychology of Computer Programming"
  -- Gerald Weinberg

(Why? Lack of standards IMO.)

--------------

"Insanity in individuals is something rare,
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs,
it is the rule."

  -- Friedrich Nietzsche ( 1844-1900 )

(This does not bode well for all those computer organizations, associations and other groups trying to control and organize the computer world out there.)

--
No I am not a geek (or human)... I am beyond all that, just ask my relatives, whom I am trying to get neutered.

I blame it on being a webmaster for several years....

Here too.. Outside of one major install problem with a poorly burned ISO, video has never been a problem. If it needs tweaking, it gets tweaked, problem solved. Usually, everything just works.