5 ms·

Whenever I see this kind of persistence, it underscores how important path dependency is when trying to understand how things got to be the way they are. From

Whenever I see this kind of persistence, it underscores how important path dependency is when trying to understand how things got to be the way they are. From legacy software to political systems, when there's cruft or weird behavior there's almost always some environmental factor that shaped the decision to build it that way, even (especially) if the people who made the decision weren't conscious of why.

pstuart 4y ago
Brings to mind the 5 monkeys experiment: https://www.proserveit.com/blog/five-monkeys-experiment-lessons https://www.proserveit.com/blog/five-monkeys-experiment-less...
- b112 4y ago
  Sadly, all that will come from this article, is that a PHB who knows nothing about our field, will read a random tech ad (which is written as a blog/review/article), and proclaim that product X is perfect, whatdayamean it's not usable for us, it's not even helpful?!, just deploy it or you're fired, you stupid monkeys.
- philwelch 4y ago
  This experiment is one of my pet peeves, at least in terms of how it's usually used as a parable. Yes, in this particular situation, the monkeys are being irrational. But they are only being irrational because they are in a completely artificial environment that was deliberately constructed for the purpose of gaslighting them.
lordleft 4y ago
From Tristram Shandy: "Well, you may take my word, that nine parts in ten of a man’s sense or his nonsense, his successes and miscarriages in this world depend upon their motions and activity, and the different tracks and trains you put them into, so that when they are once set a-going, whether right or wrong, ’tis not a half-penny matter,—away they go cluttering like hey-go mad; and by treading the same steps over and over again, they presently make a road of it, as plain and as smooth as a garden-walk, which, when they are once used to, the Devil himself sometimes shall not be able to drive them off it."
rjbwork 4y ago
Chesterton's fence. I admit that when I was younger I was much more eager to just tear it all down and start anew...but with experience I have come to see things are never quite so easy. Things are the way they are for a reason, and it is important to know what those reasons are before attempting to modify the things.
- api 4y ago
  > it is important to know what those reasons are before attempting to modify the things. People misinterpret Chesterton's fence as an argument against changing things, but it's actually just about what I quoted above. It has no verdict on whether or not something should be changed. It just argues that you should make a strong effort to figure out why it is how it is before attempting to do so. I'd argue that if you don't at least do the exercise your attempts to change things will probably fail, since whatever you try to do will likely fail to capture something necessary in the old system. Keep in mind though that it doesn't always work. Sometimes the reason for the fence is forgotten. Sometimes the reason is deeply perverse and there never was a good reason. Sometimes the reason is obsolete.
  - Spellman 4y ago
    Yup. I've often seen Chesterson's Fence trotted out as an argument to never change anything. Or at least place onerous burden of proof on the new change to prove itself. However, some times the circumstances that gave rise to the fence are gone! You still need to do the work to show that this is true, or at least some best effort. But if after a cursory check there is no compelling reason, retorting "ah but there may still be some use, go search the wisdom of the ancients further" is a terrible response. That is how you calcify debt and become unable to adapt to changing circumstances. There is a balance between preserving out of an abundance of caution and tearing it all down because it was inconvenient or "new is better." We already have plenty of innate status quo bias. We don't need to heap more on top without good reason.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
derbOac 4y ago
One thing that's become very interesting to me is whether there's a way to formalize the presence of these kinds of path dependencies in models (sociological, psychological, epidemiological, system, whatever) so they don't become these kind of implicit ghost (butterfly?) effects that are mismodeled and misinterpreted. How do we avoid overlooking them? Seems like it's something that happens a lot.
- falling_ 4y ago
  Isn’t that the point of version control? Just make a list of (encountered problem) -> (enacted solution) mappings to keep track.
philosopher1234 4y ago
You’d love Freud

pstuart 4y ago

Brings to mind the 5 monkeys experiment: https://www.proserveit.com/blog/five-monkeys-experiment-lessons https://www.proserveit.com/blog/five-monkeys-experiment-less...

b112 4y ago
Sadly, all that will come from this article, is that a PHB who knows nothing about our field, will read a random tech ad (which is written as a blog/review/article), and proclaim that product X is perfect, whatdayamean it's not usable for us, it's not even helpful?!, just deploy it or you're fired, you stupid monkeys.
philwelch 4y ago
This experiment is one of my pet peeves, at least in terms of how it's usually used as a parable. Yes, in this particular situation, the monkeys are being irrational. But they are only being irrational because they are in a completely artificial environment that was deliberately constructed for the purpose of gaslighting them.

lordleft 4y ago

From Tristram Shandy: "Well, you may take my word, that nine parts in ten of a man’s sense or his nonsense, his successes and miscarriages in this world depend upon their motions and activity, and the different tracks and trains you put them into, so that when they are once set a-going, whether right or wrong, ’tis not a half-penny matter,—away they go cluttering like hey-go mad; and by treading the same steps over and over again, they presently make a road of it, as plain and as smooth as a garden-walk, which, when they are once used to, the Devil himself sometimes shall not be able to drive them off it."

rjbwork 4y ago

Chesterton's fence. I admit that when I was younger I was much more eager to just tear it all down and start anew...but with experience I have come to see things are never quite so easy. Things are the way they are for a reason, and it is important to know what those reasons are before attempting to modify the things.

api 4y ago
> it is important to know what those reasons are before attempting to modify the things. People misinterpret Chesterton's fence as an argument against changing things, but it's actually just about what I quoted above. It has no verdict on whether or not something should be changed. It just argues that you should make a strong effort to figure out why it is how it is before attempting to do so. I'd argue that if you don't at least do the exercise your attempts to change things will probably fail, since whatever you try to do will likely fail to capture something necessary in the old system. Keep in mind though that it doesn't always work. Sometimes the reason for the fence is forgotten. Sometimes the reason is deeply perverse and there never was a good reason. Sometimes the reason is obsolete.
- Spellman 4y ago
  Yup. I've often seen Chesterson's Fence trotted out as an argument to never change anything. Or at least place onerous burden of proof on the new change to prove itself. However, some times the circumstances that gave rise to the fence are gone! You still need to do the work to show that this is true, or at least some best effort. But if after a cursory check there is no compelling reason, retorting "ah but there may still be some use, go search the wisdom of the ancients further" is a terrible response. That is how you calcify debt and become unable to adapt to changing circumstances. There is a balance between preserving out of an abundance of caution and tearing it all down because it was inconvenient or "new is better." We already have plenty of innate status quo bias. We don't need to heap more on top without good reason.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

derbOac 4y ago

One thing that's become very interesting to me is whether there's a way to formalize the presence of these kinds of path dependencies in models (sociological, psychological, epidemiological, system, whatever) so they don't become these kind of implicit ghost (butterfly?) effects that are mismodeled and misinterpreted. How do we avoid overlooking them? Seems like it's something that happens a lot.

falling_ 4y ago
Isn’t that the point of version control? Just make a list of (encountered problem) -> (enacted solution) mappings to keep track.

philosopher1234 4y ago

You’d love Freud