5 ms·

Resist the urge to comment here with stories of the time everyone around you was illogical and inconsistent, and you were the sole voice of reason (or so you th

by untog 8y ago

Resist the urge to comment here with stories of the time everyone around you was illogical and inconsistent, and you were the sole voice of reason (or so you think). Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself.

matwood 8y ago
> Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself. Agreed. This is something I think about a lot. I like consistency and am always trying to reconcile my personal beliefs with each other. It can be quite hard because it leads to questioning other beliefs that may be deeply held. The classic example is logic/reasoning and religion. A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.
- richk449 8y ago
  > A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit. Isn't this an example of you being the sole reasonable one? Exactly the thing the parent post was suggesting we avoid writing about?
  - matwood 8y ago
    I'm not trying to change anyone else's opinion on alcohol. I'm just trying to make my own internal opinions consistent. I viewed the parents post as to avoid "I'm the only smart one in the group, and everyone else is wrong." Which I agree is a good attitude to avoid. In a group setting, it is much too easy to let our ego get in the way of evidence.
  - Skrillex 8y ago
    The parent was not being rational, and noted that they were doing the same thing as other people. They later changed their behavior due to exposure to outside information. It seems explicit to me that the parent admits to being wrong here.
beat 8y ago
Something I say a lot, especially at work, is "I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." I think it's very, very important to constantly remind yourself that you're not always right, and you're (hopefully) not the smartest person in the room. (Another rule of thumb - if you're the smartest person in the room, you need to find a better room!) This also makes me think of the book Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. Best book I've read in years. In it, he details thought patterns common to all of us that mislead us and cause us to misunderstand or ignore even basic facts. He's not talking about "dumb people". He's talking about smart people, and how utterly wrong they are most of the time. It'll fundamentally change how you look at your own way of thinking.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  I've always felt that ability to accept that I'm wrong was essential to being any good at what I do ("write software") because of course the machine is (almost without exception) right and so almost always when I do something and it doesn't work that's because I got something wrong. I thought the variable was named something else, I thought the content type defaults to XML, I thought the input value is never zero, I thought that tiny change didn't need me to re-run the unit tests... I find that being constantly confronted by the fact that I'm wrong in what I do for a living (and a hobby) sets me up to handle the same elsewhere in a more healthy way. Example: I really like the intuitive explanation of what's actually going on with digital audio in Xiph's "Digital Show and Tell" and I often cite that when other people don't seem to understand - but this isn't because it was always obvious to me that's how it works. On the contrary, I find their explanation compelling because it directly confronts a common misunderstanding I had when I was younger. This misunderstanding was resolved by a friend & ex-colleague showing me more or less what Monty shows in the video (but with whatever gear he happened to have in his flat). Just like the video, he showed me that what I had believed was defied by the observable facts, and voilà my eyes were opened.
  - beat 8y ago
    I think you're hitting on part of the real pleasure of software development here. Software is the real world. You can't negotiate, you can't beg, you can't bully, you can't do any of those human interactions to make it work. If the code doesn't work, the problem is almost certainly between the keyboard and the chair. As such, it's very rewarding when we get it right. We're displaying mastery over our environment. The book Shop Class as Soulcraft, by Matthew B. Crawford, goes into this extensively. He's talking about more physical labor, but I find the substance applies to software as well. (And although I love the book, you can save a lot of time by googling his original essay, which is a much shorter and more concise read.) Crawford argues that labor against physical reality, as opposed to human interaction, drives both intellect and morality. It's a key to living an ethical life.

by untog 8y ago

matwood 8y ago

> Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself. Agreed. This is something I think about a lot. I like consistency and am always trying to reconcile my personal beliefs with each other. It can be quite hard because it leads to questioning other beliefs that may be deeply held. The classic example is logic/reasoning and religion. A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.

richk449 8y ago
> A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit. Isn't this an example of you being the sole reasonable one? Exactly the thing the parent post was suggesting we avoid writing about?
- matwood 8y ago
  I'm not trying to change anyone else's opinion on alcohol. I'm just trying to make my own internal opinions consistent. I viewed the parents post as to avoid "I'm the only smart one in the group, and everyone else is wrong." Which I agree is a good attitude to avoid. In a group setting, it is much too easy to let our ego get in the way of evidence.
- Skrillex 8y ago
  The parent was not being rational, and noted that they were doing the same thing as other people. They later changed their behavior due to exposure to outside information. It seems explicit to me that the parent admits to being wrong here.

beat 8y ago

Something I say a lot, especially at work, is "I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." I think it's very, very important to constantly remind yourself that you're not always right, and you're (hopefully) not the smartest person in the room. (Another rule of thumb - if you're the smartest person in the room, you need to find a better room!) This also makes me think of the book Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. Best book I've read in years. In it, he details thought patterns common to all of us that mislead us and cause us to misunderstand or ignore even basic facts. He's not talking about "dumb people". He's talking about smart people, and how utterly wrong they are most of the time. It'll fundamentally change how you look at your own way of thinking.

tialaramex 8y ago
I've always felt that ability to accept that I'm wrong was essential to being any good at what I do ("write software") because of course the machine is (almost without exception) right and so almost always when I do something and it doesn't work that's because I got something wrong. I thought the variable was named something else, I thought the content type defaults to XML, I thought the input value is never zero, I thought that tiny change didn't need me to re-run the unit tests... I find that being constantly confronted by the fact that I'm wrong in what I do for a living (and a hobby) sets me up to handle the same elsewhere in a more healthy way. Example: I really like the intuitive explanation of what's actually going on with digital audio in Xiph's "Digital Show and Tell" and I often cite that when other people don't seem to understand - but this isn't because it was always obvious to me that's how it works. On the contrary, I find their explanation compelling because it directly confronts a common misunderstanding I had when I was younger. This misunderstanding was resolved by a friend & ex-colleague showing me more or less what Monty shows in the video (but with whatever gear he happened to have in his flat). Just like the video, he showed me that what I had believed was defied by the observable facts, and voilà my eyes were opened.
- beat 8y ago
  I think you're hitting on part of the real pleasure of software development here. Software is the real world. You can't negotiate, you can't beg, you can't bully, you can't do any of those human interactions to make it work. If the code doesn't work, the problem is almost certainly between the keyboard and the chair. As such, it's very rewarding when we get it right. We're displaying mastery over our environment. The book Shop Class as Soulcraft, by Matthew B. Crawford, goes into this extensively. He's talking about more physical labor, but I find the substance applies to software as well. (And although I love the book, you can save a lot of time by googling his original essay, which is a much shorter and more concise read.) Crawford argues that labor against physical reality, as opposed to human interaction, drives both intellect and morality. It's a key to living an ethical life.