Well, it's not [rocket science]!?!

Working toward human change isn’t rocket science - it’s often much harder. 

I mean no disrespect, but how did rocket science become the standard for difficult jobs? Consider the structural advantages of rocket science: it involves a knowable number of variables (e.g., weight, wind direction, humidity, gravity) that can be measured precisely. Right answers can be found through math, and tests can be run on subsystems in ways that increase confidence in the final outcome. Most importantly, the constructed rocket has no independent motivation, values or perspective influencing its engagement or decisions.   

Parenting, teaching, helping people experiencing homelessness—or any other job working towards human improvement—involves no such structural clarity. Efforts like these involve not just a vast number of variables, but the influence of the variables on the final outcome evolve over time - meaning that there is no unambiguous right answer, much less one accessible by math. Most importantly, working toward human change is intrinsically tied to the engagement of the human(s) themselves - so the outcome is dependent on an entirely independent set of motivations, values and perspectives that influence the engagement and decisions.