3 ms·
This is all fine and dandy, but it's based on a very optimistic view of human cognitive abilities. It only makes sense as a personal philosophy if you only atte
by mwfunk 11y ago
This is all fine and dandy, but it's based on a very optimistic view of human cognitive abilities. It only makes sense as a personal philosophy if you only attempt to apply it to your own behavior, and never ever use it as a way to explain away people who disagree with you. "Truth" is straight-up unattainable, and if you ever think you've found it the only thing you can be sure of is that you are wrong. It's like something you asymptotically approach by learning stuff and thinking really hard all the time, but you still never actually get there.
Even in supposedly cut-and-dried things like engineering decisions, there is very little capital-T Truth. People think their technical preferences are based on objective criteria but more often than not they are just as subjective as anything else. The only difference is that they can articulate an argument that on the surface sounds like it's about cold hard facts rather than personal preferences.
It's uncanny how often people who fail to get other people to do things their way feel like they lost that battle because their "truth" couldn't overcome someone else's "ego" (scare quotes intentional). It's also uncanny how often people who resent other people for trying to tell them how things should be done will perceive that as someone else's "ego" trying to steamroll their "truth".
So, I do try very hard to apply those ideals of objectivity/rationality/egolessness to my own life, but even then it's on a best effort basis because the human mind's ability to delude itself into thinking things like "I am right because of logic and they are wrong because of feelings" is utterly staggering, and that is just as true of myself (if not moreso) than it is of other people. By trying really really hard to overcome this common cognitive bias, I may actually do better than some or most other people in this regard. Or maybe not. All we can do is try, and also try very hard to not fall into the trap of thinking that other people aren't also trying (perhaps in their own way that doesn't completely make sense to us).
- partycoder 11y agoThere are objective and subjective things. Philosophically speaking, you can say that the definition of a kilogram is not 100% accurate, if you want to argue for the sake of arguing. But for practical purposes we can agree what a kilogram is, and we can agree on other things as well. We agree that fork is fork, and spoon is spoon, and that a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog... despite the fact every person have a different brain and synaptic plasticity and life experiences and motivations and ways of learning, and things that make them different... Our entire civilization is based on this. There are many KPIs that can be extracted from engineering processes. Cyclomatic complexity, statement length, function length, number of arguments, when seen as cost, can help you compare code that does the same thing and have a rational discussion beyond "that's your opinion". Budget is not always an opinion, cost is not always an opinion, especially if each participant have well established rates. The Lion King, an animation film, has dozens of frames per second, each one hand drawn by multiple people. But it is consistent, and that consistency holds the film together. We can also say that if that consistency didn't exit, the film would probably not be as successful. If animators and illustrators, people considered creative/artists can be consistent, then why can't an engineer, someone with an engineering background not have the same level of consistency and attention to detail. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.