4 ms·

I've also struggled with finding the right coach. It's a tricky evaluation problem: The first meeting shouldn't feel perfectly comfortable, the whole point is t

by orzig 6y ago

I've also struggled with finding the right coach. It's a tricky evaluation problem: The first meeting shouldn't feel perfectly comfortable, the whole point is that they're going to bring in viewpoints that stress you out. But incorrect viewpoints also stress me out. I'd love to demand scientific evidence behind all of their assertions, but have (kicking and screaming) come to realize that many important things in life simply don't/can't have studies at my preferred level of rigor. An idea: Hire a coach with the expressed goal of finding another coach. Like an interim CEO who understands they are not being considered for the permanent position. I tried this once, with friend-of-a-friend coach, and she couldn't really break out of her reflexive attempts to fix me directly, but that's n=1 and a convenience sample at that, so I think there's still potential in the idea. Let me know if it works for you!

whimsicalism 6y ago
> I'd love to demand scientific evidence behind all of their assertions, but have (kicking and screaming) come to realize that many important things in life simply don't/can't have studies at my preferred level of rigor. Hm. I still haven't accepted this, perhaps it's why I think a lot of management "techniques" are bullshit or bullshit combined with obvious truisms.
- orzig 6y ago
  Both can be true! The fuzziness gives BS a lot of space to grow. But it's objectively true that some companies do better than others, with an effect size is so large and sustained that I (at least) have trouble believing that it's just chance
- titanomachy 6y ago
  Even if you don't accept "can't", "don't" is pretty reasonable IMO.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Well, I accept the "don't", but in those areas I wouldn't feel that breaking from what others are doing is unjustified. ie. If there isn't a strong justification in doing it, then there is no compelling reason for it to be done in that particular way.
wenc 6y ago
> I'd love to demand scientific evidence behind all of their assertions, but have (kicking and screaming) come to realize that many important things in life simply don't/can't have studies at my preferred level of rigor. I've had to unlearn this, and part of my awakening was watching the stagnation of rationalists (myself included) who think a lot and argue about things but rarely take action. So much of rationalism is based on assumptions (due to our inherent inability to capture everything in our models) and those assumptions can be wrong in real life. Rationalists also generally fear uncertainty unless they can describe or quantify it, but this is not always possible. I've learned to let go of hyperrationalism and instead, rely more on using intuitive reasoning and heuristics. If I hired a coach, I would want one who's more or less an empiricist who can push me to try new things and verify them for myself. Action, even if not perfectly rigorous, produces new information. A lot of stuff we cannot prove actually works in real life. (I still don't believe in crackpot theories but heuristics at least help me choose between reasonable options.)
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  I think there's a medium ground. Rationalism and empiricism in the historical sense are interesting philosophies, good to study. The "neo-rationalism" that you tend to find online (especially in HN & LW adjacent communities) falls much more into the criticisms you define, but I hardly really consider those communities actually "rational" at all. Heuristics are important, but what I find management often does is lie to themselves about what is an intuitive heursitic, (perhaps justified by a story of how it worked in another company) and what is something that is generally justified by empirics. Sometimes you need to make ad-hoc, intuitive decisions due to resource constraints, but you should be aware of when those times are and shouldn't act as if they are equivalent. I've seen this happen in some companies and it is not pretty: when you don't distinguish between the story and fact, then everyone just starts telling stories and it becomes very difficult to ascertain what is happening.

by orzig 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

> I'd love to demand scientific evidence behind all of their assertions, but have (kicking and screaming) come to realize that many important things in life simply don't/can't have studies at my preferred level of rigor. Hm. I still haven't accepted this, perhaps it's why I think a lot of management "techniques" are bullshit or bullshit combined with obvious truisms.

orzig 6y ago
Both can be true! The fuzziness gives BS a lot of space to grow. But it's objectively true that some companies do better than others, with an effect size is so large and sustained that I (at least) have trouble believing that it's just chance
titanomachy 6y ago
Even if you don't accept "can't", "don't" is pretty reasonable IMO.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Well, I accept the "don't", but in those areas I wouldn't feel that breaking from what others are doing is unjustified. ie. If there isn't a strong justification in doing it, then there is no compelling reason for it to be done in that particular way.

wenc 6y ago

> I'd love to demand scientific evidence behind all of their assertions, but have (kicking and screaming) come to realize that many important things in life simply don't/can't have studies at my preferred level of rigor. I've had to unlearn this, and part of my awakening was watching the stagnation of rationalists (myself included) who think a lot and argue about things but rarely take action. So much of rationalism is based on assumptions (due to our inherent inability to capture everything in our models) and those assumptions can be wrong in real life. Rationalists also generally fear uncertainty unless they can describe or quantify it, but this is not always possible. I've learned to let go of hyperrationalism and instead, rely more on using intuitive reasoning and heuristics. If I hired a coach, I would want one who's more or less an empiricist who can push me to try new things and verify them for myself. Action, even if not perfectly rigorous, produces new information. A lot of stuff we cannot prove actually works in real life. (I still don't believe in crackpot theories but heuristics at least help me choose between reasonable options.)

whimsicalism 6y ago
I think there's a medium ground. Rationalism and empiricism in the historical sense are interesting philosophies, good to study. The "neo-rationalism" that you tend to find online (especially in HN & LW adjacent communities) falls much more into the criticisms you define, but I hardly really consider those communities actually "rational" at all. Heuristics are important, but what I find management often does is lie to themselves about what is an intuitive heursitic, (perhaps justified by a story of how it worked in another company) and what is something that is generally justified by empirics. Sometimes you need to make ad-hoc, intuitive decisions due to resource constraints, but you should be aware of when those times are and shouldn't act as if they are equivalent. I've seen this happen in some companies and it is not pretty: when you don't distinguish between the story and fact, then everyone just starts telling stories and it becomes very difficult to ascertain what is happening.