>even after PG lists all the good reasons for replacing judgment with curiosity PG wants you to think that they're mutually exclusive. They're not, but he has

>even after PG lists all the good reasons for replacing judgment with curiosity PG wants you to think that they're mutually exclusive. They're not, but he has a product to hustle. The problem (for PG) is that curiosity is not uncritical. Curiosity poses more questions than those in the category "how well does this product work?" Anyone actually curious is going to wonder about the problem space, not just one proposed solution. Pretty obvious questions include: "how did software get us to the point we're exploring this as a design?" and "could the problem it seeks to solve be addressed in a way that eliminates assumptions about the solution space?", "What are peripheral ramifications of design decisions, and how much do I care?" "Would other approaches solve the same issues, have the same ramifications?" or "Are they synergies to leverage by trying multiple things in concert?"