[HN Gopher] It's time to abandon the cargo cult metaphor
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       It's time to abandon the cargo cult metaphor
        
       Author : zdw
       Score  : 33 points
       Date   : 2025-01-12 17:14 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.righto.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.righto.com)
        
       | kens wrote:
       | Author here. This is a change from my usual reverse engineering
       | articles, but hopefully you'll find it interesting...
        
         | derektank wrote:
         | I found your history very interesting (I was familiar with much
         | of it but I don't think I've seen so much collected in one
         | place) but I had some issues with your conclusion, mostly
         | because I don't really see the phrase "cargo cult" or the
         | verbed form "cargo culting" to be inherently pejorative. I
         | think the concept of someone going through the motions without
         | a necessary understanding of their purpose to achieve the
         | desired effects is very useful one, especially given the ever
         | increasing layers of abstraction that exist in our society.
         | 
         | Have you thought about an alternative concept or word that
         | describes this phenomenon that could be used instead?
        
           | woodruffw wrote:
           | > Have you thought about an alternative concept or word that
           | describes this phenomenon that could be used instead?
           | 
           | I think "magical thinking" would be an appropriate term for
           | what Feynman characterizes.
           | 
           | However, one of the post's important points is that we're not
           | even using Feynman's mischaracterized explanation of cargo
           | cults: it's become a generic negative descriptor for anything
           | the user considers insufficiently justified, even if the
           | underlying rationale is not "magical."
        
         | sitkack wrote:
         | I always found the use of the phrase mildly racist and an easy
         | low effort way to take someone down.
         | 
         | Thank you for the amazing thoroughness in your research. I just
         | read aloud the entire article with my kid. So many tributaries
         | of history and science to explore later.
         | 
         | Things that I referenced in our discussion about this article.
         | 
         | Memetics and how ideas spread as contagion
         | https://richarddawkins.net/2014/02/whats-in-a-meme/
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania
         | 
         | How slang, and low fluency spread from person to person can
         | create divergent dialects.
         | 
         | The apocryphal story of cutting the pot roast to fit the pan.
         | How things start true but get transformed through transcription
         | errors. The main theme and the message _may_ be retained, but
         | the specifics get jumbled up.
         | 
         | Great Sunday read!
        
         | fargle wrote:
         | well written and interesting. although i really do love the
         | technical deep dives.
         | 
         | i am fond of using the cargo-cult analogy, and invariably many
         | people have not heard of it so the story is told and retold.
         | i'm fairly happy that my usual descriptions of the phenomenon
         | were much less inaccurate or exaggerated than they could have
         | been; generally closer to the John Frum reality than the "pop-
         | culture" one. not at all like mondo cane (which i was unaware
         | of). for example, i've said something like "to this day, there
         | is a cult in which members paint themselves USA 'uniforms' and
         | march in military style with 'guns' made of sticks'" (which
         | appears accurate). i completely missed, however, the pre-ww-ii
         | "cargo cult" beliefs which add quite a different perspective.
         | 
         | unfortunately, i don't know if i quite agree with abandoning
         | the metaphor. the literal Feynman quote is about science. we in
         | engineering have co-opted the term and use it (when imho done
         | correctly) in a Feynman sense. i describe it as an Feynman
         | anecdote. but it is one with significant grains of historical
         | truth.
         | 
         | i find the curated list of HN examples illuminating because it
         | appears that 1/2 or more of them are using the analogy poorly,
         | missing the point, or simply as a kind of slur. meta-cargo-cult
         | if you will. it is as said: "is simply a lazy, meaningless
         | attack". i agree that it is heavily misused.
         | 
         | but in the conclusion, this leads to an argument that i see as
         | a bit of a false dichotomy. i don't agree that Feynman's
         | central point was either "doing something that has no chance of
         | working" or we (mis)use it as "works but isn't understood".
         | when Feynman said "but it doesn't work" i think meant _within_
         | the analogy it didn 't work: the planes did not show up. i
         | don't think that when _applied_ to science or engineering it
         | only applies to something that  "doesn't work". i think it's
         | very much more about the central fallacy at play:
         | misunderstanding processes that are built to support the
         | science as being the science itself. misunderstanding effects
         | for causes. misunderstanding and generalizing specific
         | observations where they don't apply.
         | 
         | i think Feynman's anecdote is close enough to the
         | anthropological one and not really detailed enough to be
         | considered _wrong_. it 's factually true that john frum
         | cultists do what they do. the _reasons_ they do it aren 't
         | quite right in our stories, but clarifying all the
         | anthropological history doesn't kill the analogy, it might even
         | strengthen it.
         | 
         | to me, used correctly use the analogy is describing a
         | _religious_ or _cultish_ adherence to principles that are not
         | understood, in the hopes of some desired affect happening. it
         | 's similar to affirming the consequent. the fact that real
         | cargo cults developed prior to ww-ii in places affects the
         | story telling, not that its a cult. the fact that it's
         | dangerous and harmful to the adherents is a good point for the
         | analogy. the fact that the cults developed partially as a
         | result of decades colonial oppression and mistreatment is a
         | better framing than "look at the dumb thing those ignorant
         | savages did". the fact that the cult members are expending
         | energy which harms them for reasons they do not understand is
         | still the truth. i've certainly never been as glib as "US
         | soldiers show up with their cargo and planes, the indigenous
         | residents amusingly misunderstand the situation, and everyone
         | carries on."
         | 
         | the points about it being insensitive are well taken, however.
         | no doubt.
         | 
         | - certainly there's a large amount of misuse of the analogy.
         | and these uses are misused whether it be relative to
         | pedantically accurate anthropology, Feynman, or pop-culture
         | variations. but people using an analogy wrong does not make the
         | analogy wrong.
         | 
         | - i think it's fine to use an anecdote and an analogy to
         | communicate an idea about a harmful phenomenon. the anecdote
         | does not even need to be true at all. but in this case it isn't
         | too far off, depending on the story telling. Feynman's short
         | description doesn't seem as extreme as what is described as the
         | "pop-culture" definition.
         | 
         | - it can certainly be told in a way that is very culturally
         | insensitive. i think this could also be done in a more neutral
         | manner, but it's something to be careful of for sure.
         | certainly, sticking closer to the history would probably
         | improve things, however this may be the achilles heel. (in
         | other words, out of all the reasons for abandonment given, i'm
         | most convinced by this one)
         | 
         | - the biggest issue, for me, left is this: what do you
         | recommend replacing this with if we avoid it altogether? the
         | imagery of religious behavior is a big part of what that
         | analogy covers. and the ideas of observing something and then
         | copying those behaviors to achieve a result without any real
         | understanding.
         | 
         | anyhow, thank you for a very thought provoking article. i'm
         | clearly not as good of a communicator as you are (or Feynman).
        
       | j4coh wrote:
       | Can we keep "tilting at windmills" then?
        
         | readthenotes1 wrote:
         | Only if you're Spanish
        
       | wileydragonfly wrote:
       | It's not stupid if it works
        
         | ordu wrote:
         | Yeah, I'm a fan of pragmatism also. An original version of it
         | from Charles Peirce[1], not the version that James Williams and
         | others promoted. "It can be beneficial to believe in God in a
         | religious society, therefore the belief is true". Doesn't it
         | sounds silly to you? So we are coming to a question: how would
         | you define "it works"? If management full of cargo-cultists can
         | achieve no technical goals but they still get their salaries,
         | does "it work" or not?
         | 
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce
         | 
         | edit: typo
        
       | woodruffw wrote:
       | Great post, with two important observations: Feynman's
       | characterization of cargo cults is inaccurate and insensitive,
       | _and_ our _contemporary use_ of  "cargo cult" in an engineering
       | context is an even more absurd distortion of Feynman's.
        
       | kazinator wrote:
       | This article claims that anthropologists, who are the natural and
       | proper authorities charged with gatekeeping in this issue, have a
       | different definition of cargo cults from the one of the popular
       | imagination.
       | 
       | But their their definition is just academically abstracted,
       | that's all, so that it applies to as many cargo cults as
       | possible. The "cargo" ingredient in it, still refers to man-made
       | goods coming from somewhere outside the island!
       | 
       | The specific examples of cargo cults given in the article pretty
       | much exactly fit the the popular understanding, and nicely
       | support the cargo cult metaphor.
       | 
       | Cargo culting refers to magical thinking in regard to some man-
       | made artifacts. In computing it refers to the idea that people
       | use processes, or artifacts like code, without understanding
       | them, hoping for some good outcome, or at least the avoidance of
       | a bad outcome. Personality worship is also implicated in cargo
       | culting. Some great programmers decades ago did something this
       | way in a famous system that was successful so we shall do it that
       | way, and be rewarded with a replication of their success.
       | 
       | Those cargo cults which long proceeded WWII and do not revolve
       | around airplanes and white man's goods, still support the
       | metaphor.
       | 
       | And anyway, no one ever said that the metaphor is based on
       | absolutely all cargo cults, or that it has to be. It is inspired
       | by a few specific instances and their specific events.
       | 
       | Maybe anthropologists should use "cargo cult" more specifically
       | and use a different word for cultural phenomenon resembling cargo
       | cults in which some key ingredients are missing. Perhaps a people
       | who only believe that they will be rewarded with cargo in the
       | afterlife, but otherwise don't worship foreign human beings who
       | wants visited the island as gods, and do not try to make
       | imitation cargo for use as props in rituals intended to attract
       | their second coming, should perhaps not be understood as
       | practicing a "cargo cult". Or perhaps a "weak cargo cult".
       | 
       | The power of a word or term rests in its ability to discern. The
       | more meanings you cram into a word, the less it discerns. Say
       | that we agree that everything is a cargo cult. Then what's the
       | point of using those two words instead of just the word
       | "everything"?
       | 
       | There's also the question of origin. Okay so anthropologists have
       | a definition of cargo cult, under which cargo cults can be
       | identified going back hundreds of years. But might it not be that
       | the popular cargo cult came first, and then the academics try to
       | hijack the word for their own use? What's the story here?
       | 
       | People understood fruits and vegetables before science told them
       | that a tomato is a true fruit, whereas an apple isn't. Therefore,
       | science should have used different words for its categorization,
       | rather than coopting farm-to-kitchen terminology.
        
         | kens wrote:
         | No, I'm not claiming that anthropologists are the "natural and
         | proper authorities charged with gatekeeping"; that's nonsense.
         | What I'm claiming is that the description of cargo cults that
         | everyone knows is fiction.
        
           | kazinator wrote:
           | You mean it never happened, or not all in one single cargo
           | cult?
        
             | kens wrote:
             | The popular cargo cult story is a mixture of stuff that
             | happened, stuff that was made up, and focusing on the wrong
             | stuff. It's basically an urban legend at this point of
             | people copying from other people.
             | 
             | It's a bit like saying that Christianity involves handling
             | rattlesnakes and putting nails through your hands in the
             | belief that God will turn your fillings to gold. That kind
             | of misses the point.
        
       | Aurornis wrote:
       | The history was a good read, but the conclusion feels like a
       | strawman argument
       | 
       | > The cargo cult metaphor should be avoided for three reasons.
       | First, the metaphor is essentially meaningless and heavily
       | overused.
       | 
       | > Note that the metaphor in cargo-cult programming is the
       | opposite of the metaphor in cargo-cult science: Feyman's cargo-
       | cult science has no chance of working, while cargo-cult
       | programming works but isn't understood.
       | 
       | This isn't how I've seen the phrase used most often. People
       | generally complain about cargo culting when management forces
       | practices on a team that don't work, nor are they understood. The
       | "cargo cult" element describes the root cause of these
       | ineffective practices as coming from imitating something they saw
       | or heard about, but don't understand. Using imitation as a
       | substitute for experience.
       | 
       | For that, the phrase is uniquely effective at communicating
       | what's happening. People understand the situation without needed
       | a long explanation.
       | 
       | I don't see a need to retire the phrase, nor do I think this
       | article accurately captures how it's used.
        
         | exe34 wrote:
         | cargo culting programming approaches don't just not work, they
         | saddle with both all the costs of doing things in a certain way
         | and having to still deliver the outputs somehow. e.g. hiding
         | work until you know what needs doing before pretending to come
         | up with the information during bikeshedding sessions.
        
       | ikesau wrote:
       | I appreciated this article. The irony of "cargo cult" being the
       | misunderstood phrase that people here like to use is not lost on
       | me.
       | 
       | It's good to interrogate the wallpaper of colonialism, to
       | discover what's hiding behind our euphemisms and cliches.
       | 
       | The phrase "cargo cult" as I had come to understand it before
       | reading this article, definitely centered the cult's naivete ("oh
       | those silly cargo cultists, worshipping shipping containers!"
       | 
       | But reading this passage:
       | 
       | > Other natives believed that God lived in Heaven, which was in
       | the clouds and reachable by ladder from Sydney, Australia. God,
       | along with the ancestors, created cargo in Heaven--"tinned meat,
       | bags of rice, steel tools, cotton cloth, tinned tobacco, and a
       | machine for making electric light"--which would be flown from
       | Sydney and delivered to the natives, who thus needed to clear an
       | airstrip
       | 
       | clarifies that this "naivete" was cultivated, by settlers with
       | ulterior motives.
       | 
       | Using the idiom uncritically elides this dynamic, laundering the
       | practices of missionaries that I'm sure most people here would
       | loathe to be on the receiving end of.
       | 
       | Knowing this enriches the analogy when using it to describe aws
       | lambda or whatever people use it for ("Who is producing the
       | cargo? What are their motives? Why does one group have power over
       | another?") but I think, in general, it would be good for people
       | to find additional ways of talking about dynamics where people
       | are making choices out of ignorance.
       | 
       | Because even if you don't agree with my social justice bent, I
       | think Orwell was on the right track to say "never use a metaphor,
       | simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in
       | print."
        
       | EA-3167 wrote:
       | It was an interesting read, and I enjoyed learning more about the
       | history of the term as it was used once upon a time. That's the
       | thing though, "once upon a time"... we're not colonial powers
       | justifying our rule, we're just people adapting existing language
       | and metaphors to modern problems.
       | 
       | That's the bottom line for me: language is a tool, it's
       | descriptive and not prescriptive. I accept that the term "cargo
       | cult" has a negative history, but it doesn't have a negative
       | present, and the current use isn't in any way aimed at belittling
       | distant tribes.
       | 
       | tl;dr We get to decide what words and phrases mean, and what
       | utility they have, we don't have to be bound by the history of
       | the thing.
        
       | glitchc wrote:
       | ..and replace it with dogma.
        
       | imgabe wrote:
       | Nope, we're not doing this in 2025. It succinctly expresses an
       | important concept. We're not catering to imaginary offenses
       | somebody hallucinates on behalf of some supposedly marginalized
       | people anymore.
        
         | this_weekend wrote:
         | Possibly the one good thing that will come from all the Tech
         | CEOs schmoozing Trump, is that they'll stop pandering to this
         | sort of pointless virtue signalling.
        
       | architango wrote:
       | Similarly, I've had to privately advise coworkers not to use the
       | term "let a thousand flowers bloom" as an idiom meaning "let's
       | get ideas from lots of people." It sounds great until you
       | understand the horrible historical context in which it was
       | originally said.
        
       | zug_zug wrote:
       | This blog piece perfectly encapsulates an interesting discussion
       | we are having as a society - "Do we need to care if a word has a
       | hurtful etymology (if nobody using it nowadays knows that
       | history)?"
       | 
       | Taking it out of the superheated culture-war lens, let's examine
       | a more chill example: There's a popular meme with a girl crying
       | and pointing and a cat sitting at a table. After some number of
       | years somebody online pointed out that the panel on the left is
       | some reality-tv personality going through a genuinely terrible
       | life experience. They were sort of implying that everybody on the
       | internet should stop using the meme for this reason.
       | 
       | Most of the arguments in either direction have thus-far been
       | name-calling (due to culture-war nature). I'd be curious to see a
       | well-reasoned from-first-principles argument in either direction,
       | though curiously never have.
        
       | baggy_trough wrote:
       | Bookmarking to read after I fix this bug on my master branch.
        
       | talkingtab wrote:
       | Cargo cult is, to me a tag for a particular kind of action. Where
       | someone does something without an understanding of the mechanism
       | they are using. My best example is agile development. Many (most)
       | people implement agile without really understanding what how it
       | is supposed to work. This is common, and it is a real thing, and
       | a real problem we have. We have. One could give this some other
       | name. Perhaps recipe-ism. Where you follow a recipe instead of
       | understanding the process. But, personally, cargo cult sort of
       | captures the essence of the thing. I never saw it as about
       | Feynman, colonialism, racism or such. It is just about human
       | nature. To me.
       | 
       | Speaking of recipes, the article very much reminded me of
       | internet recipes, the ones that try to cram in as many ads as
       | possible. So the recipe is preceded by the writer's life history,
       | the history of the recipe, whether the name of the product is
       | politically correct and then (200 ads later) three lines of the
       | stuff you were really looking for. And in the worst circumstances
       | you find that the core thing was not really all that informative.
       | Sigh.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-01-12 23:00 UTC)