Stop Using “Technology” as a Synonym for Computer Science

I have been called “technoguy”, “technologist”, “techie”, and especially “geek” and “nerd.” I love all of these names. People who get degrees in engineering or computer and information science do tend to have a better grasp on digital technologies than the average person who has not studied in these fields. Familiarity and fluency with technology comes with the territory.

Knowledge of technology is partly an artifact of the history and practice of engineering. Engineers create cool stuff that makes our lives safer and better — that is the goal. However, this familiarity is also found in most other fields outside of engineering: game designers know a lot about hardware platforms for games, sound designers know the physics and technologies of audio, and humanists know a lot about technologies of media.

But there is a downside to these labels if we dive a little deeper. Would we call:

• astronomers: telescopists?
• humanists: word geeks ?
• artists: entertainers ?
• biologists: scope nerds ?

Let’s return to computer science. There seems to be a general confusion about computer and information scientists unless you are one of them. For the most part, they are not technologists. Some of this confusion is our own fault. Digital technologies have taken over the planet, and so with this success, comes a natural tendency to stereotype who computer scientists are and what they do for a living. Who do they think they are? Ask one.

A brief history of computer science. Computer science was born from discrete mathematics, and this subject is at the core of the field. All computer science majors take this course. The majority of computer scientists view themselves as scientists or applied mathematicians. Technology is something you find — after formal learning in school — in industry, start up companies, the Amazon storefront, Best Buy, and Adafruit. I love Adafruit because of its engineering education, philosophy, and its technology.

The distinction of professional identity is important if people who are not technical want to talk with more technically-minded, but scientifically-grounded, people. Computer science becomes equally mathematical, but more applied, when the term engineering is used. For instance, someone is a software engineer or a computer engineer. But even in these two professions, the engineers are theoretically grounded, and the technology is emergent — not a foundation — for what defines them. Engineers are not technologists.

At the heart of this discussion is the need for each of us to understand the other. I feel we do a horrible job at this. We tend to stereotype people and put them in boxes that, upon closer inspection, are completely wrong.

Technologist is an overused stereotype. It easy to think of the computer scientist as “the techie” or the humanist as “the entertainer.” There is some truth to both labels: computer scientists will likely have a decent familiarity with digital technologies, and what comes out of arts and humanists for the most part is entertainment: books we love to read, videos we love to watch, and games we love to play.

Let’s take the time to listen. To hear what other people think about themselves rather than to put them in meaningless, overgeneralized, stereotypical boxes.

It can be a game. The Identity Game.

Get N people, who know each other at some level, in a room. Then get them to write what they think of the other person’s identity. Maybe each person can see who he/she thinks of 3 other people in the room. How do you think Joseph or Mary thinks of themselves? Have you ever asked them? The game could be frustrating, but also enlightening.

We don’t get each other. But we need desperately to try. There is nothing like the question and the act of listening rather than spilling ego everywhere.

Upon reflection, it turns out that everyone is a technologist. Here is to you — you techno-wizard.