Explaining roles in technology is generally hard.
Made several mistakes of not providing my folks with data about the niche we occupy in the eco-system spawned by internet and the technology.
We’re forever evolving socially.
The beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and thus is where the question of general conformity in what Emerson would define in his essay-Manners; arises.
Compound this fact with the expectations of the social nature and the relatively-decided measures of personal success; we have a disdain for the very nature of search.
Prevailing economic circumstances aside, the need to assert ourselves to tackle the problems of an overly influenced society and their collective mutual inducements: leaves just enough bandwidth to gather a few pieces of code for the day.
When faced with the market-data used to match our role-continuity with potential employers,
one faces the issue of their own success quotient in the social sphere for no other purpose
than acceptance within this sphere;
which at this point strangely remains an unseen familial undercurrent during information exchange with folks back home.
In order to pre-empt future disparities in personal value, it seems, one has to consider these environmental factors too as being decisive in creating a truly successful acceptance over time regardless of the expertise curve that one goes through their respective professions.
Granted, we are on a different timeline and from the mainstream in terms of ideas and world views (not necessarily ahead or back in time)
Being technologists of
bearing and understanding.
The matter of acceptance may be of a trivial complexity when compared with the many problems that one is trained to solve.
These techniques that has served the people in the past needs to be widely made accessible without turning oneself into the fictitious Barney.
Yes, I know the significance of
“Esse quam videri”.
Thing is: it is not working in my current state of transition in career.