This article is about intro psych courses, but it highlights a common problem across many fields at universities, including tech-related.

[chrissanders88@infosec.exchange]

This article is about intro psych courses, but it highlights a common problem across many fields at universities, including tech-related. Introductory courses are designed to prepare students for further study in a field, yet in reality, may be their only exposure to it.

[chrissanders88@infosec.exchange]

A course that prepares someone to see through a field's lens will look fundamentally different than a course that prepares someone to be a practitioner within that field. Applied Field 101 vs. Field 101 for Practitioners.

[chrissanders88@infosec.exchange]

Most people don't need to understand the full history of psych or computing, or the nuances of field ontology. However, most WILL benefit from understanding field epistemology, limitations, and interactions that meet the world they experience daily.

[tindrasgrove@infosec.exchange]

@chrissanders88 this was a a lot of the challenge of my current role as I’m working in cyber insurance.

Underwriters and brokers aren’t cyber experts, they’re insurance experts.

They don’t need to understand how to configure a router; they need to understand why I flip out every time I see SNMP exposed to the Internet. They need to understand cyber risk.

Turns out there’s not a whole lot of training or educational material that’s written for people who need to learn the risk of tech, not how to work the tech.

Which means I end up writing a lot of that myself (when I can squeeze it around the rest of my job)