3 ms·

In my experience, the problem is rarely "truth", which has a disproportionate load of philosophical baggage for one little word. The problem is typically bound

In my experience, the problem is rarely "truth", which has a disproportionate load of philosophical baggage for one little word. The problem is typically bound up in "value", and recognizing that perceptions of "truth" are bound up in differing "values" and therefore differing ideas of what's "best". That is a huge step forward in being able to understand other people's arguments and work towards commonality or compromise.

rustynails 11y ago
This is an excellent comment. Mind you, this article and the comments are all excellent, but this one distills that truth isn't important to most people. The dynamics of conflict are very complex. For example, consider rationalising with ISIS or a discussion around religion. Sometimes, there is no compromise in a discussion. Here are two contradictory examples of extreme conflict. 1/ Don't pay the Danegeld. 2/ Don't say no to the Mongols. Both were equivalent situations, but totally different outcomes. One guaranteed annihilation (as an example). I would suggest the methods suggested work on small scale but not on a large scale (eg. Religion, Nations). Great comment. Values, not truths.
partycoder 11y ago
Well, if your values are not in the best interest of the company or project, then my views are: I don't care about your views. Companies define their values and if they're not defined you can ask a manager or stakeholder. If some anarchist dude shows up not wanting to unit test their code because of some hippie ideals I cannot care less.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  That's a great viewpoint if your target is monoculture. Which is sometimes the goal, such as your example of testing. It's a terrible viewpoint if your target is persuasion or compromise.
  - partycoder 11y ago
    Ideally you want an evolutive monoculture. Have everyone on the same page, while collecting the best of everyone's feedback. You will need of course to establish "values" as previously mentioned. Those values will differ depending on what your goal is... a proof of concept, a functional prototype, a stable product, a bulletproof platform...
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      So then, thought experiment time. Given that you have at best blatantly ignored and at worst openly ridiculed everyone's approach to testing that did not fit the company line... How exactly do you expect to be collecting all this valuable feedback on how better testing would look? The problem with developing monocultures is that when you need something else, it's pretty hard to find.
      - partycoder 11y ago
        To have an established way of doing things doesn't mean to outright ignore everything else immediately. You can reject an approach, but the key is HOW: if you are rejecting an idea it needs to be the result of a serious dialog, comparing ideas side to side and being open to accept that the dominant approach can be replaced or improved. Now even if the idea is better, the gains need to be significant enough to compensate for the cost of changing the way of doing things and getting people on the same page.
        jdmichal 11y ago
        Well that's certainly a more nuanced position compared to your response a few posts up. I know I called you on it (though hopefully politely) and am glad to read this response now.

rustynails 11y ago

This is an excellent comment. Mind you, this article and the comments are all excellent, but this one distills that truth isn't important to most people. The dynamics of conflict are very complex. For example, consider rationalising with ISIS or a discussion around religion. Sometimes, there is no compromise in a discussion. Here are two contradictory examples of extreme conflict. 1/ Don't pay the Danegeld. 2/ Don't say no to the Mongols. Both were equivalent situations, but totally different outcomes. One guaranteed annihilation (as an example). I would suggest the methods suggested work on small scale but not on a large scale (eg. Religion, Nations). Great comment. Values, not truths.

partycoder 11y ago

Well, if your values are not in the best interest of the company or project, then my views are: I don't care about your views. Companies define their values and if they're not defined you can ask a manager or stakeholder. If some anarchist dude shows up not wanting to unit test their code because of some hippie ideals I cannot care less.

jdmichal 11y ago
That's a great viewpoint if your target is monoculture. Which is sometimes the goal, such as your example of testing. It's a terrible viewpoint if your target is persuasion or compromise.
- partycoder 11y ago
  Ideally you want an evolutive monoculture. Have everyone on the same page, while collecting the best of everyone's feedback. You will need of course to establish "values" as previously mentioned. Those values will differ depending on what your goal is... a proof of concept, a functional prototype, a stable product, a bulletproof platform...
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    So then, thought experiment time. Given that you have at best blatantly ignored and at worst openly ridiculed everyone's approach to testing that did not fit the company line... How exactly do you expect to be collecting all this valuable feedback on how better testing would look? The problem with developing monocultures is that when you need something else, it's pretty hard to find.
    - partycoder 11y ago
      To have an established way of doing things doesn't mean to outright ignore everything else immediately. You can reject an approach, but the key is HOW: if you are rejecting an idea it needs to be the result of a serious dialog, comparing ideas side to side and being open to accept that the dominant approach can be replaced or improved. Now even if the idea is better, the gains need to be significant enough to compensate for the cost of changing the way of doing things and getting people on the same page.
      - jdmichal 11y ago
        Well that's certainly a more nuanced position compared to your response a few posts up. I know I called you on it (though hopefully politely) and am glad to read this response now.