3 ms·
Not quite, it’s not about the forcefulness it’s about the assertion. It’s also not about the size of information required to overturn. It’s more about the humil
by chewbacha 9y ago
Not quite, it’s not about the forcefulness it’s about the assertion. It’s also not about the size of information required to overturn. It’s more about the humility of accepting your previous opinion was wrong.
For example, we might have the opinion at our company that REST is the way to build communications over a stateless connection. If a team presents a reason to build RPC and makes a case, it’s allowed to do it.
Another example might be style conventions. Strong opinions here lead to consistently written code. But in some cases a new style will work better and we can change direction. Or a different style fits this file better than all others.
We don’t want to be so hemmed in by our opinions so as to be inflexible to different approaches to the same problem. But that doesn’t mean having no opinion.
- logicallee 9y agoThank you for giving two examples (REST, and style conventions). I was hoping to get examples from you but didn't ask. I think actually both examples you gave show that the opinion was not "weakly" held: for REST, you mention "if a team presents a reason... and makes a case". For style conventions, likewise, "we can change direction" but the whole point of a uniform style guide is that the style convention itself has huge momentum and can be changed only if there is a very specific case where it "fits better" (your words). So it seems what we're really saying is something like "we know what we think, but we think about what we 'know'." (I tried to be pithy but came up a bit short.) Is that a fair summary? That it's about both assertively knowing something, but also being ready to rethink it (if there is a case)?
- chewbacha 9y agoAbsolutely, I like the way you put it.