5 ms·

I'm sure Strachey was a decent bloke in person but this bit gave me some unpleasant flashbacks to certain former colleagues: > Almost immediately, they had som

by philbo 4y ago

I'm sure Strachey was a decent bloke in person but this bit gave me some unpleasant flashbacks to certain former colleagues: > Almost immediately, they had some difficulty prioritizing, as David Barron noted of Strachey, “It was characteristic of him to insist on minor points of difference with the same force that he insisted on major points.”

vidanay 4y ago
It's amazing that some people never learn that "choose your battles" is more than just a cliche saying.
- ngcc_hk 4y ago
  Got whole Althusser who copied from mao which got china. United Front (which fund Confucius college) is still an approach. I hate them and communist in general, but please war of position or war based on position is key to the dark side winning. For the china example, Mao has instructed and except one disobedient general never fought the war against japan. And said thank you then of invading china afterward. Back to this I posted. I think that early pioneer many of these have issue of fighting all or select whatever he thought important. That is why they did this in the first place I think. Some ok some not. And you hope the idea or company spread around enough (mouse-windows to Steve) that someone did it and fight the right strategy war. Free source to open source is another example.
microsoftdoes 4y ago
It’s better to not be an asshole. But it’s mostly okay to be an asshole too. The world needs more than just ultra-agreeable people. I reckon grudge-holding is way more destructive to teams than abrasiveness. There’s lots to be said in favor of the asshole who moves past a conflict as soon as it’s over.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  Its unnecessary conflict. If everything is the same level of disagreement, what are you _actually_ arguing and what do you just _happen_ to be arguing? You give the other party no capacity to gauge your actual level of interest. It makes the entire process that much harder for everyone and wastes the "argument budget" on ultimately meaningless stuff. Its a very similar idea to being "penny wise, pound foolish".
  - microsoftdoes 4y ago
    People are a variety of ways. A healthy culture can accommodate that variety within reason. I reckon we’ve become a little too focused on agreeableness as a culture. Not that you should strive to be an asshole. But some people are just naturally blunt and abrasive. And that’s okay. A lot of the trouble is in people’s reactions to that, since thick skin seems to be on long-term decline too. I’m not sure we’re disagreeing about anything. What you wrote is good advice to someone who’s too argumentative.
    - JamesSwift 4y ago
      Right, but its basically hoping that human nature fundamentally changes rather than just not making big deals about things which dont matter. The article is a great example. The anecdote is that he argued aggressively against "IF, THEN, ELSE" because its _grammatically incorrect_ even though every other language used it. He suggests "IF, THEN, OR", which is _just as bad but also different_! So now we are wasting time/energy debating this thing and the suggestion isnt even good! So how am I supposed to interpret this as the "non arguer" in this scenario? That you put the quality of the product first, or that you just want to "win" the argument in _every single scenario_? I'm likely to interpret it as the latter and now we are in a worse spot as a team because, again, I can't assume you are not just arguing for the sake of arguing in the future.
- asveikau 4y ago
  > There’s lots to be said in favor of the asshole who moves past a conflict as soon as it’s over. I think I used to fit something like this description. I was very blunt about disagreements but I was always well intentioned and forgiving. Sometimes people took the bluntness too seriously and couldn't see that I was trying to help them. I've since softened up somewhat. In retrospect I think some of the bluntness was a symptom of externally imposed stress.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Ability to work and communicate with abrasive people is a valuable skill as well. I get to practice it here on HN sometimes. I try to ignore the tone and insults and reply as if nothing was happening. Easier to do through text than through voice or in person. It's smart to move any discussion to a written medium in order to reply calmly and create a paper trail.
e40 4y ago
> Almost immediately, they had some difficulty prioritizing I have worked with very smart people who had no ability to prioritize. It's always fascinated me and I wonder what is at the root of this problem.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  I think its largely a combination of "shiny things" syndrome, procrastination, and estimation being hard. You will have a tendency to want to do the shiny things first because they are new/interesting, you will tend to put off the nebulous/harder bits, and you will not realize certain things are much bigger than you thought. Procrastination is the biggest one for otherwise well-meaning/smart people in my opinion.
- MaulingMonkey 4y ago
  Lack of need and practice, I suspect. And they may be prioritizing, but simply by different unstated (and perhaps subconcious) criteria than mere importance. Someone struggling with an exam might first prioritize the questions they're confident in answering quickly to improve their grade. Someone who will ace the exam regardless of order can simply power through without needing to waste time "prioritizing" that could instead be spent on answering the questions. Someone who is smart/driven/competent enough to generally complete their projects in time and under budget has no need to prioritize features based on need - if they do prioritize, they may prioritize based on ease of overal implementation. That might mean prioritizing the "less important" / less defined items before the more important / more fleshed out aspects. Eliminating unknowns and variables up front in this way might lead to less time "wasted" on refactoring and redesigning.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jorgeleo 4y ago
Consider that maybe he had some form of Asperger's. The lack of ability to prioritize is because every single detail is consider important. Which is why he gain the reputation of writing perfect programs. Choosing your battles is good in the interpersonal relationships; but Mother nature does not choose battles when enforcing its laws, it doesn't say "well... right now we should suspend gravity because there are bigger fish to fry". From that perspective there are not major or minor points, there are only points. So, what might seem petulant for neurotypical people, for Asperger's people is much more black and white; which is a blessing and a curse. but you will thank me later.
- agalunar 4y ago
  Or obsessive-compusive personality disorder, which is what I have. I tend to either care entirely about something or not at all, and the only standard is "perfect" (there are no visible ways something can be improved) – "good enough" doesn't really make sense emotionally. And even though I'm completely self-aware and I recognize this as it's happening, it's difficult to control what I feel. It's very frustrating. I sometimes wonder at how much more I'd enjoy things and how much more progress I'd make at work and with my hobbies if there weren't these... unbidden demands that take time to satisfy, the stress that the demands cause, and the constant internal battle between what I want to do or know I ought to do and the arbitrary need for something to be a certain way.
- nmz 4y ago
  It's weird that this is a point to make in any form when it comes to C, which, as a language, is certainly very aloof and non-judgemental over what you want to do. (IE undefine behavior, non safety, nul terminated strings)
- zanderwohl 4y ago
  > Consider that maybe he had some form of Asperger's. Far be it from me to armchair diagnose someone, but the "Strachey had always displayed a talent for the sciences but rarely applied himself" is a story told over and over again for those with undiagnosed neurodivergence.

by philbo 4y ago

vidanay 4y ago

It's amazing that some people never learn that "choose your battles" is more than just a cliche saying.

ngcc_hk 4y ago
Got whole Althusser who copied from mao which got china. United Front (which fund Confucius college) is still an approach. I hate them and communist in general, but please war of position or war based on position is key to the dark side winning. For the china example, Mao has instructed and except one disobedient general never fought the war against japan. And said thank you then of invading china afterward. Back to this I posted. I think that early pioneer many of these have issue of fighting all or select whatever he thought important. That is why they did this in the first place I think. Some ok some not. And you hope the idea or company spread around enough (mouse-windows to Steve) that someone did it and fight the right strategy war. Free source to open source is another example.

microsoftdoes 4y ago

It’s better to not be an asshole. But it’s mostly okay to be an asshole too. The world needs more than just ultra-agreeable people. I reckon grudge-holding is way more destructive to teams than abrasiveness. There’s lots to be said in favor of the asshole who moves past a conflict as soon as it’s over.

JamesSwift 4y ago
Its unnecessary conflict. If everything is the same level of disagreement, what are you _actually_ arguing and what do you just _happen_ to be arguing? You give the other party no capacity to gauge your actual level of interest. It makes the entire process that much harder for everyone and wastes the "argument budget" on ultimately meaningless stuff. Its a very similar idea to being "penny wise, pound foolish".
- microsoftdoes 4y ago
  People are a variety of ways. A healthy culture can accommodate that variety within reason. I reckon we’ve become a little too focused on agreeableness as a culture. Not that you should strive to be an asshole. But some people are just naturally blunt and abrasive. And that’s okay. A lot of the trouble is in people’s reactions to that, since thick skin seems to be on long-term decline too. I’m not sure we’re disagreeing about anything. What you wrote is good advice to someone who’s too argumentative.
  - JamesSwift 4y ago
    Right, but its basically hoping that human nature fundamentally changes rather than just not making big deals about things which dont matter. The article is a great example. The anecdote is that he argued aggressively against "IF, THEN, ELSE" because its _grammatically incorrect_ even though every other language used it. He suggests "IF, THEN, OR", which is _just as bad but also different_! So now we are wasting time/energy debating this thing and the suggestion isnt even good! So how am I supposed to interpret this as the "non arguer" in this scenario? That you put the quality of the product first, or that you just want to "win" the argument in _every single scenario_? I'm likely to interpret it as the latter and now we are in a worse spot as a team because, again, I can't assume you are not just arguing for the sake of arguing in the future.
asveikau 4y ago
> There’s lots to be said in favor of the asshole who moves past a conflict as soon as it’s over. I think I used to fit something like this description. I was very blunt about disagreements but I was always well intentioned and forgiving. Sometimes people took the bluntness too seriously and couldn't see that I was trying to help them. I've since softened up somewhat. In retrospect I think some of the bluntness was a symptom of externally imposed stress.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Ability to work and communicate with abrasive people is a valuable skill as well. I get to practice it here on HN sometimes. I try to ignore the tone and insults and reply as if nothing was happening. Easier to do through text than through voice or in person. It's smart to move any discussion to a written medium in order to reply calmly and create a paper trail.

e40 4y ago

> Almost immediately, they had some difficulty prioritizing I have worked with very smart people who had no ability to prioritize. It's always fascinated me and I wonder what is at the root of this problem.

JamesSwift 4y ago
I think its largely a combination of "shiny things" syndrome, procrastination, and estimation being hard. You will have a tendency to want to do the shiny things first because they are new/interesting, you will tend to put off the nebulous/harder bits, and you will not realize certain things are much bigger than you thought. Procrastination is the biggest one for otherwise well-meaning/smart people in my opinion.
MaulingMonkey 4y ago
Lack of need and practice, I suspect. And they may be prioritizing, but simply by different unstated (and perhaps subconcious) criteria than mere importance. Someone struggling with an exam might first prioritize the questions they're confident in answering quickly to improve their grade. Someone who will ace the exam regardless of order can simply power through without needing to waste time "prioritizing" that could instead be spent on answering the questions. Someone who is smart/driven/competent enough to generally complete their projects in time and under budget has no need to prioritize features based on need - if they do prioritize, they may prioritize based on ease of overal implementation. That might mean prioritizing the "less important" / less defined items before the more important / more fleshed out aspects. Eliminating unknowns and variables up front in this way might lead to less time "wasted" on refactoring and redesigning.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jorgeleo 4y ago

Consider that maybe he had some form of Asperger's. The lack of ability to prioritize is because every single detail is consider important. Which is why he gain the reputation of writing perfect programs. Choosing your battles is good in the interpersonal relationships; but Mother nature does not choose battles when enforcing its laws, it doesn't say "well... right now we should suspend gravity because there are bigger fish to fry". From that perspective there are not major or minor points, there are only points. So, what might seem petulant for neurotypical people, for Asperger's people is much more black and white; which is a blessing and a curse. but you will thank me later.

agalunar 4y ago
Or obsessive-compusive personality disorder, which is what I have. I tend to either care entirely about something or not at all, and the only standard is "perfect" (there are no visible ways something can be improved) – "good enough" doesn't really make sense emotionally. And even though I'm completely self-aware and I recognize this as it's happening, it's difficult to control what I feel. It's very frustrating. I sometimes wonder at how much more I'd enjoy things and how much more progress I'd make at work and with my hobbies if there weren't these... unbidden demands that take time to satisfy, the stress that the demands cause, and the constant internal battle between what I want to do or know I ought to do and the arbitrary need for something to be a certain way.
nmz 4y ago
It's weird that this is a point to make in any form when it comes to C, which, as a language, is certainly very aloof and non-judgemental over what you want to do. (IE undefine behavior, non safety, nul terminated strings)
zanderwohl 4y ago
> Consider that maybe he had some form of Asperger's. Far be it from me to armchair diagnose someone, but the "Strachey had always displayed a talent for the sciences but rarely applied himself" is a story told over and over again for those with undiagnosed neurodivergence.