5 ms·
> You emphatically don't need to share values with someone to get along with them or work with them or trust them. I guess it depends what "trust" means to you
by leetcrew 6y ago
> You emphatically don't need to share values with someone to get along with them or work with them or trust them.
I guess it depends what "trust" means to you. to me it often means something like "I can expect this person to make the same (or similar) decision I would in situation X, therefore I do not need to watch them as closely". some values can be irrelevant in certain contexts. if I'm a communist and my coworker is an ancap, it probably doesn't affect our ability to work together on a software project. but if I'm very risk averse (in an engineering sense) and my coworker has a "move fast and break things" mindset, I am going to have to pay a lot more attention to their code reviews.
- nitrogen 6y agoI think that's a fair point. In the case of a risk tolerance mismatch, you can work out shared criteria, scoped to the initial disagreement, for how to collaborate. I'd also suggest that one of the reasons we are encouraged to seek diversity is because we benefit from having people around us who wouldn't make the same decisions we would make in every situation. If I am reading between the lines correctly, it sounds like predictability is what you expect shared values to provide. I think a shared vision is more important than shared values in this case. You can still predict that with which you disagree, if you communicate mutual expectations for how to scope disagreement within collaboration.