4 ms·

There is a profound difference between magical thinking and science. Once you build scientific frameworks (such as EP is part of), you can move much faster in i

by PieterH 10y ago

There is a profound difference between magical thinking and science. Once you build scientific frameworks (such as EP is part of), you can move much faster in interesting and useful directions that may seem unrelated and yet all connect together. For example I've used a lot of psychology (based on EP, not Freud) in constructing communities that build open source software. And we are using this thing called the "Internet" that lets total strangers converse, at no cost. And largely built on free and open source. Amazing, huh? If you believe that science does "nothing to aid in our understanding," and yet you are quick to profit from the fruits of the rational world that science built, that would make you rather a hypocrite.

rdtsc 10y ago
> I've used a lot of psychology (based on EP, not Freud) in constructing communities that build open source software. Very interesting. If it is not a secret, can you share a list of guidelines or tips?
- PieterH 10y ago
  Sure, I've written a book "Social Architecture" on this, and many articles. You can read the book freely at https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture/details https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture/de.... It's also in print and Kindle from Amazon. The psychology of collaboration is (in my model, which is of course wrong, just accurate enough to be more useful than ignorance) based on emotions that we've evolved to work together. Most of what I tested and documented over the last decade came from study of failure (most projects fail and you can learn a lot by looking into why), and experience of how to make communities that could survive the kinds of conflict we see. Actually getting a full model for the emotions took a lot longer, finished that a year or so ago. You can see the results in e.g. the C4 process, our RFC for working together in the ZeroMQ community: http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/ http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/ My articles are on http://hintjens.com http://hintjens.com, starting in 2010 or so.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Thanks writing and sharing those. Very good insights there. Also sorry, didn't recognize your name at first as Pieter Hintjens (I wouldn't have asked as already had the link to the book in my bookmarks). I periodically refer to "The Toolbox" when discussing development practices at work. In professions which are considered more rational and intellectual like programming, there is a danger of discounting the effect of emotions. Emotions are always there under the surface guiding and controlling things. The more rational the person thinks they are the more they will rationalize their decisions. So when someone proposes using say Protobufs as a serialization mechanism, instead of Thrift, for example, might be doing it because the person who likes Thrift in the group offended them somehow. But that will never come up in the official reason, there will be some benchmark or list of point why Protobufs might be better. Or maybe they had a fight with their family and they come to work and start shutting down a project and shuffling developers around to feel empowered, and there will always be a seemingly rational reason for it. Thanks againg for writing that book and sharing your experience. There is just not enough of that, especially focused on open source projects. Some projects naturally converge and discover some of those principles from the toolbox, but having them written down from someone with experience is priceless.
    - pm90 10y ago
      This is a good observation. I've seen this happen in work situations multiple times, and I've felt those feelings as well. Which is why one of my life goals is to learn the skill of objective judgement without being influenced by emotions unrelated to the technical merits of a decision. I believe the correct name for that personality attribute might be 'mature'.
    - PieterH 10y ago
      Yes, we tend to discount emotions, our own and others'. It is amazing in retrospect given how important these are in driving us. What I learned with groups was to explicitly ask people, "how do you feel?" and then to insist until I get answers that match what people are showing, rather than saying or claiming. Especially, "how do you feel about what person X is doing?" It's not a gender thing or even a nerd thing, really. It's the same with musicians, for instance (I used to jam a lot), they can be really reticent about saying what they actually feel about other people. Basically our fear of being rejected by the group, and shame at having feelings that no-one else is expressing make us unable to speak up. Since few people can debug their own emotional stacks, the fear and shame dominate, and stop the (e.g.) anger at an asshat messing up the project from coming forwards. So actually asking people the specific question can change a lot. Mostly, I'll start with "are you enjoying this (the way things are going)?" knowing they'll admit "no" and then we can work it out from there.
Avshalom 10y ago
narrator is implying that in fact no EP is part of magical thinking, not science. A view that any quick googling will back up as being not terribly controversial actually.
- PieterH 10y ago
  Many people dislike EP intensely (and have attacked its developers, such as Steven Pinker) because they are passionate (I'd say fanatical) believers that culture is what defines us, not biology. So yes, you can find a lot of hate for EP. That doesn't mean much. If you have studied EP or even human nature at all, then you realize quite rapidly that the blank slate proponents (who claim we're born with nothing in our minds, waiting for culture to define us) are delusional in some profound way. It is clear, and Pinker makes this argument well in his book The Blank Slate, that we're the product of biology (EP) tuned and shaped by our environment. To claim that this, decades of careful documented research and reproducible results, is magical thinking and not science is... hallucinatory.
  - olantonan 10y ago
    > decades of careful documented research and reproducible results, is magical thinking and not science is... hallucinatory. Right, the same careful research that helps me characterize personality disorders in my day job. You really should stop doing hobbyist research, because The Psychopath Code proves how badly it can end.
    - toasterlovin 10y ago
      Can you tell us what's wrong with The Psycopath Code and/or the parent's arguments? I can't tell based on your comment.
    - PieterH 10y ago
      It would be really useful to have an actual concrete argument of how and why, rather than vague "your amateurish book proves how bad your book is" statements. Edit: ah, checked your comment history, you've been trolling for a while HN. Enjoy yourself, it's a weird hobby but hey. Some people like to cook and make music, and other people... they troll. http://archive.is/5DbNQ http://archive.is/5DbNQ

by PieterH 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago

> I've used a lot of psychology (based on EP, not Freud) in constructing communities that build open source software. Very interesting. If it is not a secret, can you share a list of guidelines or tips?

PieterH 10y ago
Sure, I've written a book "Social Architecture" on this, and many articles. You can read the book freely at https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture/details https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture/de.... It's also in print and Kindle from Amazon. The psychology of collaboration is (in my model, which is of course wrong, just accurate enough to be more useful than ignorance) based on emotions that we've evolved to work together. Most of what I tested and documented over the last decade came from study of failure (most projects fail and you can learn a lot by looking into why), and experience of how to make communities that could survive the kinds of conflict we see. Actually getting a full model for the emotions took a lot longer, finished that a year or so ago. You can see the results in e.g. the C4 process, our RFC for working together in the ZeroMQ community: http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/ http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/ My articles are on http://hintjens.com http://hintjens.com, starting in 2010 or so.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Thanks writing and sharing those. Very good insights there. Also sorry, didn't recognize your name at first as Pieter Hintjens (I wouldn't have asked as already had the link to the book in my bookmarks). I periodically refer to "The Toolbox" when discussing development practices at work. In professions which are considered more rational and intellectual like programming, there is a danger of discounting the effect of emotions. Emotions are always there under the surface guiding and controlling things. The more rational the person thinks they are the more they will rationalize their decisions. So when someone proposes using say Protobufs as a serialization mechanism, instead of Thrift, for example, might be doing it because the person who likes Thrift in the group offended them somehow. But that will never come up in the official reason, there will be some benchmark or list of point why Protobufs might be better. Or maybe they had a fight with their family and they come to work and start shutting down a project and shuffling developers around to feel empowered, and there will always be a seemingly rational reason for it. Thanks againg for writing that book and sharing your experience. There is just not enough of that, especially focused on open source projects. Some projects naturally converge and discover some of those principles from the toolbox, but having them written down from someone with experience is priceless.
  - pm90 10y ago
    This is a good observation. I've seen this happen in work situations multiple times, and I've felt those feelings as well. Which is why one of my life goals is to learn the skill of objective judgement without being influenced by emotions unrelated to the technical merits of a decision. I believe the correct name for that personality attribute might be 'mature'.
  - PieterH 10y ago
    Yes, we tend to discount emotions, our own and others'. It is amazing in retrospect given how important these are in driving us. What I learned with groups was to explicitly ask people, "how do you feel?" and then to insist until I get answers that match what people are showing, rather than saying or claiming. Especially, "how do you feel about what person X is doing?" It's not a gender thing or even a nerd thing, really. It's the same with musicians, for instance (I used to jam a lot), they can be really reticent about saying what they actually feel about other people. Basically our fear of being rejected by the group, and shame at having feelings that no-one else is expressing make us unable to speak up. Since few people can debug their own emotional stacks, the fear and shame dominate, and stop the (e.g.) anger at an asshat messing up the project from coming forwards. So actually asking people the specific question can change a lot. Mostly, I'll start with "are you enjoying this (the way things are going)?" knowing they'll admit "no" and then we can work it out from there.

Avshalom 10y ago

narrator is implying that in fact no EP is part of magical thinking, not science. A view that any quick googling will back up as being not terribly controversial actually.

PieterH 10y ago
Many people dislike EP intensely (and have attacked its developers, such as Steven Pinker) because they are passionate (I'd say fanatical) believers that culture is what defines us, not biology. So yes, you can find a lot of hate for EP. That doesn't mean much. If you have studied EP or even human nature at all, then you realize quite rapidly that the blank slate proponents (who claim we're born with nothing in our minds, waiting for culture to define us) are delusional in some profound way. It is clear, and Pinker makes this argument well in his book The Blank Slate, that we're the product of biology (EP) tuned and shaped by our environment. To claim that this, decades of careful documented research and reproducible results, is magical thinking and not science is... hallucinatory.
- olantonan 10y ago
  > decades of careful documented research and reproducible results, is magical thinking and not science is... hallucinatory. Right, the same careful research that helps me characterize personality disorders in my day job. You really should stop doing hobbyist research, because The Psychopath Code proves how badly it can end.
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    Can you tell us what's wrong with The Psycopath Code and/or the parent's arguments? I can't tell based on your comment.
  - PieterH 10y ago
    It would be really useful to have an actual concrete argument of how and why, rather than vague "your amateurish book proves how bad your book is" statements. Edit: ah, checked your comment history, you've been trolling for a while HN. Enjoy yourself, it's a weird hobby but hey. Some people like to cook and make music, and other people... they troll. http://archive.is/5DbNQ http://archive.is/5DbNQ