I learned the AV wire skills through my brother's example and fooling around with computers and AV stuff. Also, living with a AV nerd for a couple years helped (unfortunately, I'm forgetting his Internet alias) get up to snuff on the AV technology.
In my opinion, the concept is easy enough for most consumer AV stuff, this wire goes here, this wire goes there, etc. etc. But an increasing amount of wires (and other factors) means an increasing amount of complexity, which each person has a certain capability and malleability to handle. There's probably also a level of tech confidence that comes into the equation, too.
As for the speak/thinking in active voice (non-absolute) vs speaking/thinking in passive voice, I believe and understand that the active voice (non-absolute) approach provides a psychologically healthier cognitive approach to life. In other words, someone who thinks in absolutes probably has more aptitude for depression (over-logical) or megalomania (over-ideological).
Is "non-absolute" a technical term, or are you just hedging your bet?
In general I don't think I use the passive voice, per se, in the sense of "it was broken" vs "I broke it" -- instead I might say "I might've broken that" (if there was any doubt-- it's a desire for strict accuracy, not just dodging blame)
Ack! Connection sucking.
From you bit about reluctance of speaking in absolutes, I bisociated with some rational emotive therapy ideas, one of them being to try thinking in the active voice instead of the passive voice.
The passive voice or state of being sentences create something of an absolute state that doesn't change. Without change, you can believe that you're in a permanent rut.
The active voice almost has to assume that things change, so even if you're in a rut, it can suck but you can get out of it.
Not really anything technical about the term "non-absolute," unless I just made up a technical term.
I see the parallels but it still feels different to me... the passive-voice is kind of a learned helplessness thing, it's about what one can or cant' do. My hemming and hawing is more based on the possibility of not correctly perceiving a situation, and of accepting other viewpoints, it's about what one can or can't see clearly.
As a stance it has its plus and minuses; I appreciate that isn't always sure of itself, but recognize it comes from some sort of perverse desire to Never Be Wrong, to not say something that might be incorrect in case someone (or maybe my own ego) calls me on it.
Sounds like you approach making statements like approaching an academic paper or a bureaucratic report or something, kind of like you're trying to be disinterested (at least on some kind of habitual level) about everyday things. . .you know what, though, I do the same thing, especially at work, answering phones and such.
Well, it's something I do instinctively, I don't have to think about it. And it's not disinterested! I just hate being vulnerable to being wrong, even about trivial things.
Maybe you should look into being a lawyer. =d