On the latest episode we talked about Doug Engelbart’s Augmenting Human Intellect. This is a massive work. It offers a lot to think about, but also a lot of complications. While incredibly innovative, Engelbart’s work was grounded in many of the ideas of his time; the neo-wharfian hypothesis, the emphasis on logic and argumentation. What lessons can we learn from it? What things did it get wrong? I think reading the paper critically does pay dividends, but definitely be ready to spend a lot of time to gain these insights.

You seem to have stumbled over the author's use of the word "man." I believe the author was using the gender neutral "man" and not the masculine "man." This is something that shows up frequently in older writing. For example, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man "an individual human" "especially : an adult male human" It has fallen out of use in the last few decades, so someone who has only read recent works might be used to the word "man" only being used in the masculine sense, and thus misinterpreting the older writing.

I’m definitely familiar with it gender neutral “man”. I have definitely read older works. But I think that the usage is a bit more complicated than merely neutral. And further given our current situation and history, we should do more to use explicitly inclusive language. https://sites.unimi.it/zucchi/NuoviFile/The%20myth%20of%20the%20neutral%20man-Janice%20Moulton.pdf

I wasn't arguing about whether one ought to use the gender neutral "man" or not. I'm aware of that debate and it is irrelevant to my point. I was pointing out that when you claim that an author, especially an older one, expects their systems to be used by men and not by women because they called the user a "man," you are probably misinterpreting the author. If you wish to understand an author, you need to use the author's definitions and not your own. As a tortured and unnecessary example, but one that I find amusing, if a Python program fails to compile with gcc, it is neither the fault of the author nor of gcc. One can argue that the program really should have been written in C, and one may have entirely valid reasons for making that argument, but if you wish to understand the author's intent then you need to interpret the program as a Python program.

I don't think I claimed anything of the sort :)

I have this paper open on a tab! I might end up reading it before I listen to the podcast, just because of how my life is arranged lately..

I stand corrected. I just relistened to that section of the podcast and I realize that you made your negative feelings clear without explicitly stating that you were criticizing the use of the gender neutral "man." Assuming that was your intent, then I was mistaken when I thought you were criticizing the author for assuming that only men and not women would use the systems discussed. If your strong negative judgment was a reaction to him using the gender neutral "man," and not to the belief that he thought his systems would not be used by women, then it seems harsh to judge someone so negatively for merely failing to anticipate cultural and linguistic changes that would happen decades in the future. However, I acknowledge that this is a matter of opinion.

Honestly not sure why we are having this discussion. I don't think I'd characterize my reaction as a strong negative judgment. I have no negative feelings towards Engelbart for using the vernacular of his time. I was just was remarking that today we'd probably be better served to use different words. And since we are discussing it today, where linguistic convention has changed, I figured I'd remark on that fact. There are many ways we can exclude others, even if not intending to. I believe it is good to try to avoid doing that.

Now that you've straightened me out on the facts, I reckon this discussion is mostly over. As for why it happened, I would say that was because you were vague about what you were criticizing and I was careless about jumping to a conclusion about what you were criticizing. Thanks for drawing more attention to this wonderful paper!