12 ms·

Uhm...I have to chime in here. "Anti-fragile attitude" when it comes to criticism is not built by tolerance. Quite the opposite actually. It is a common miscon

Uhm...I have to chime in here. "Anti-fragile attitude" when it comes to criticism is not built by tolerance. Quite the opposite actually. It is a common misconception. While making yourself numb against criticism IS a solution but not by far the best one. A high criticism tolerance is learned by understanding that ones self worth is not attached to output or delivery. (This is hard in our industry) It comes from self-acceptance and compassion. And these values are learned early on. You'll find that the people that break down at the slightest criticism the most are those that were criticised the most as children as well. Those that had no room for being anything other than perfect. Where value was obtained from performance. To take it even further...why see it as criticism at all? You are not your lines of code.

Dwolb 3y ago
Agreed. Another adjacent PoV is improvement, not complete, is the steady state. What I mean is, throughout our entire schooling career we did work and turned in assignments that got graded. They were done. The work was over. Our professions aren’t like that. There’s no done. There’s always improvement. Therefore every piece of criticism, critique, or feedback has some data in it (sometimes layered in poorly worded phrases that can feel mean) on how to get better. Your goal is to figure out what that data is and whether it’s valid, then act on it.
- matwood 3y ago
  > Therefore every piece of criticism, critique, or feedback has some data in it Extreme Ownership teaches a mind shift of looking at criticism and thinking of it as 'GOOD'. Criticism is an opportunity to improve.
  - lazide 3y ago
    It can be manipulated by bad actors however, keeping someone constantly 'doing' for the other parties benefit and not noticing they never seem to actually get paid for it. It tends to attract NPD folks in particular. Like anything, it's about balance. Sometimes, it really isn't anything you should be doing to fix (or anything you should change).
- reality_inspctr 3y ago
  it can be helpful, for some, to give up on the notion of retirement altogether. exist to exist the whole way through. do what you gotta do. many SV people have probably also seen anecdotal evidence the $B crowd has this mindset. it's the $M crowd sweatin the small stuff.
  - grugagag 3y ago
    > it can be helpful, for some, to give up on the notion of retirement altogether. Yeah, perfect and ready to be exploited with no end in sight. What are $B and $M crowds? Billionares and millionares? Do you have any personal insight into those or just read about it?
    - maerF0x0 3y ago
      $B crowd doesnt think about it because 1) they pay people to do the micro level things (and in a hierarchy of concerns down to the micro) and 2) the micro doesnt move the needle for them. To use an analogy if you're poor disputing a $2 charge is meaningful because it might double your disposable money. But if you're rich you could absorb 1000x $2 charges per day without even seeing a difference in your first 4 digits of your wealth. (eg 4522188456 squints to the same number as 4522180456)
simultsop 3y ago
Read this in Adam Grant voice.
katzgrau 3y ago
Getting stronger through stress is not the solution, but a common initial path to the larger solution. I think you're closest when you say "A high criticism tolerance is learned by understanding that ones self worth is not attached to output or delivery" The compassion part is unnecessary. Any criticism you take personally is ultimately a fictitious story you're choosing to accept about your identity. We are the ones choosing to take an event like a comment, apply a label of snarky, and allow it to set our emotions in the moment. The snarky comment itself has no objective meaning. It only takes on meaning when we decide to interpret it negatively. We could just as easily screen the comment for actual valuable feedback, and if there is, implement it. And now you have a win. How smart of you, you should feel good about that. The real approach is rising above and seeing things for what they really are, and seizing opportunities to look at things differently for an optimal outcome.
danesparza 3y ago
"You are not your lines of code." Agreed. And nobody's lines of code are perfect.
jebarker 3y ago
> You'll find that the people that break down at the slightest criticism the most are those that were criticised the most as children as well. Those that had no room for being anything other than perfect. Where value was obtained from performance. It took me a long time to realize this applied to me. I don't ever remember explicitly being criticised as a child but I reached adulthood with a wicked need for perfection and "achievement" and a subconscious aversion to criticism. I still find it hard to feel valid and valuable in the world other than through work. But all of these behaviors have undoubtedly held me back in work and relationships.
martypitt 3y ago
> A high criticism tolerance is learned by understanding that ones self worth is not attached to output or delivery. > You are not your lines of code. These statements are sage advice. And while I believe them both to be correct, I personally struggle with remembering these things when it matters most.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  The older I get, the more I'm convinced the secrets of life come in contradictory tuples, and the application of all elements at appropriate time and in appropriate ways. Zen koans were onto something. {"You are not your lines of code", "You should feel proud when your code is good and embarrassed when your code is bad"} Both of these things are true. To the matter at hand, how to take criticism constructively, the key for me is bifurcating my emotional response from my logical one. Emotional response is noted, thought about, but routed inward. Logical one is routed outward. E.g. "This is the dumbest application of a bad sorting algorithm I've ever seen." Emotional/inward: "That hurts. Am I a bad programmer? How did I not know this? Will I ever be a person who does know things like this? I respect the person who's telling me this: do they still respect me?" Logical/outward: "Fair. What algorithm would you have used in this application? If you have time, can you walk me through how you would have picked it?" People usually screw things up when they don't hold space for their own emotional response and commingle it with the logical one (e.g. manufacturing a logical justification for what is really an emotional feeling).
  - srveale 3y ago
    > the secrets of life come in contradictory tuples A great phrase for what I've been noticing about my life as well. {"You should be okay with who you are", "You should always strive to be better"}, or {"Desire is the root of suffering", "Being passionate about a goal is the only way to fulfillment"} Finding the nuances in these phrases and living in the bubbles where they are not actually contradictory has given me a lot of peace.
- jackcviers3 3y ago
  I disagree with the second slightly, because we have a very limited amount of time in which to produce things that matter, and we spend the majority of that time producing code as developers. It better be important to us, or we should be doing something else. Now, what we should realize about the code isn't the thing of value. It's what the code does and how it does it, that is the runtime output and the ability to express the intent to produce that output to a programmer who hasn't seen the output or the code before or in a long time. Criticism is the best opportunity to improve those aspects of the code you write. So it should be of equal value to you as the lines of code the criticism is addressing. Not all criticism is valid, even well-intentioned constructive criticism. Experience teaches you which critiques to accept and which to reject. The only way to gain that experience is to solicit criticism from others, and give it to others. No, we are not just our code, but our artifacts are a part of us, as we are a part of them. So we should be kind when giving criticism and gracious when receiving it. Because what we choose to do with our time matters.
lumb63 3y ago
I’ve heard similar statements from other people, and I have a disconnect that prevents me from understanding. Why would someone want to detach their self worth from what they do? If someone ought not feel a negative emotion in response to doing something “bad”, by what logic can they justify feeling something positive in response to doing something “good”? I cannot conceive of a world view that allows one to feel proud of their accomplishments but does not require their disappointment in their shortcomings. Furthermore, the idea of separating one’s self-worth from “what one does” does not make sense to me either. If someone’s worth is not tied to what they do, then the criminals, liars, frauds, cheaters, etc., of the world are every bit as valuable as our loved ones, idols, great contributors, etc. That view doesn’t make any sense to me; I wouldn’t be disappointed one ounce if all the criminals on the Earth vanished tomorrow, but I would be greatly disappointed if all my friends disappeared. The only difference between those people is “what they do/have done”.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  Because your self worth shouldn’t be tied to how successful you are, but how willing you are to learn and grow. Nobody’s perfect nor can they be, so it’s a bad target. But everyone can be better.
  - dougb5 3y ago
    It's even totally reasonable not to tie your self-worth to anything related to growth or learning or improvement or whatever. Plenty of people feel high self-worth by simply loving the people around them.
- lwhi 3y ago
  Fundamentally, because we are still worth something even when our achievements are completely removed. If you take the view that our achievements are necessarily integral to our self worth this logically isn't true.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    But this isn't the point. The previous commenter was replying to someone who said that what we do has zero to do with our self worth. They were saying, no, it does have quite a lot to do with it. Saying "well it's not all about what we do!" is not in keeping with the conversation.
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
Anecdotally, I had the opposite experience! > You'll find that the people that break down at the slightest criticism the most are those that were criticised the most as children as well. Those that had no room for being anything other than perfect. Where value was obtained from performance. My childhood fits this. > "Anti-fragile attitude" when it comes to criticism is not built by tolerance I DID learn these by tolerance! > self-acceptance and compassion. And these values are learned early on. I learned these LATE on, in college. I feel like it's typical for a kid, but I was insecure and very much afraid of failure. But when I encountered sustained failure despite my best efforts, it pushed my "attached to performance" ego to the breaking point. That ego broken, I was forced to decoupled my sense of self worth from my performance. I didn't do it consciously, either; it sort of just happened one day. And I literally mean on a day. I felt it the day it happened. It felt like a weight had been lifted, and I found myself unable to care as much, just all of a sudden. I wondered if it was depression, but I felt happier than I ever felt before. That nerfed my performance somewhat, since it's no longer driven by a frantic self-flagellatory imperative to prove my self-worth, but it also made my quality of life much higher, which I consider an easy trade. I still care about what I do, and I very much still try to do a good job. I'm just not terrorized when I don't. I feel bad when I don't, but not "I'M A PIECE OF SHIT" bad. It's a more impersonal bad. It also allows me to sincerely welcome criticism; there's no sting to it at all unless I did something colossally stupid and/or the criticism is, like, downright verbally abusive or something (which it's never been so far :p).
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  College is not late to learn this. Many people never learn at all.
- jayroh 3y ago
  I find this to be an incredibly well-balanced and mature measure of one's self. You should be proud that you were able to reach this level of self-reflection and clarity. Many people never get there, so kudos to you.
polygotdomain 3y ago
>"Anti-fragile attitude" when it comes to criticism is not built by tolerance. Quite the opposite actually. I agree with your overall statement, but I think the specific point above could be misinterpreted in a nonconstructive way. What it seems like you're trying to say is that we shouldn't just be learning how to deal with criticism by tuning it out or building up defense mechanisms against it. That I agree with. However, another interpretation that could be implied from your statement is that one should not be seeking out criticism, which is not good. What I think OP is getting at is that learning to process criticism comes by experiencing criticism over and over again. Some of the worst responses I've seen to criticism have come from those who constantly make concerted efforts to avoid it. Understanding that you are not the sum of your output is important, but it's really hard to remember that when you're right in the thick of it. Being able to control your emotions and thoughts within that moment come from having experiencing those moments over and over again. The point of criticism is to learn and improve, but in order for that to happen one has to be able to actually hear and process the criticism being offered. One needs to get past the emotional response to criticism in order for that to happen. The two big pieces of that are decoupling the value of what we're being criticized on from our inherent self worth, AND being able to control our emotions in the moment. The latter is really only done by having enough exposure to it, and that's the "anti-fragility" component.
- lazide 3y ago
  Exposure - but with appropriate processing in a productive way. Otherwise it just produces PTSD.
- syntheweave 3y ago
  I had a comment thread experience recently, not here but on Reddit, that made me think about criticism again and how we experience it. The opening was that comment A was saying something about how they did <programming subject> and comment B was asking probing questions. I recognized that B was leading A towards a certain framing she had in mind(a very Uncle Bob, OO patterns are the answer kind of answer), so I injected a flat "there's nowhere else that code needs to be except one of these two places, classes have nothing to do with it." B responded with "but surely they have to be in a manager class right?" And seeing the resistance to taking any other framing, I got more assertive and instructive in my reply, giving specific recommendations to try dispensing with OO and experiment with writing more primitive code. This was the offense, and it became an argument, which was basically a stomping because I was very prepared with sources and a rationale for why I am making that recommendation, and B fell into defenses from experience and authority, talking about numbers of lines of code and systems she had made and accusing me of speculating about her ability. And then I said, "that's nice, but I'm the comments section." Apologized for the offense, and pointed out that she started replying to A by speculating, and had admitted as much. Finished with encouraging words for B continue writing the code that she felt works best. She wasn't happy with this, and said I "hijacked" the thread and used a "condescending tone", but also allowed that I said interesting things. And it's like, was it worth getting into another "arguing with strangers on the Internet" cycle? Part of why I engaged in the way I did was because I was coming off a period of answering other people's questions, so it was, at first, just one more of those. But afterwards I realized that what I had disturbed was the belief system. The original thread was an attempt to confirm B's belief to herself: that's why it was done in a leading manner. A lot of comment threads proceed along those lines. When I just wander in and negate that, defensiveness is immediate. Saying "it can only be these two things" is only condescension if you're certain that your other way is already right. B wanted to brush it off. What I was doing was starting the "put on the glasses" fight scene in They Live. And I think part of why I've gotten better at navigating those threads and critique generally, even if I might be overbearing or "condescending" at times, is because I can recognize when a principled defense is taking place. Good technical discussions start from a place of philosophical credibility. They don't start from norms("this way is best") and then question-beg their way into justifications. They lay out the assumptions of what's true and what's being achieved, like "eliminating a form of error"(one of the goals I outlined in that thread, and the one which ultimately made B concede) and then find conclusions inductively, deductively or abductively. Once you get away from the philosophical goal and only aim for winning the argument, you start crafting harmful rhetoric. So the answer for me lies in philosophical training: you do have to intentionally "turn it on" to think in those terms, but it lets you be more effective around criticism, to "dance" with it and see it as a process, not a prelude to violence. And it is much harder to deal with open comments than any one specific critic, because those are subject to mob mentality. Offend a belief the mob holds in high regard, and regardless of the principles involved, you'll just get dehumanized right away. I try not to find myself involved with that stuff anymore, but it's like, yeah, of course I have beliefs.
layer8 3y ago
> You are not your lines of code. I think you actually are, in a very real sense. Someone else would have written different lines of codes. The lines of code are a function of yourself, an inherent part of you. Criticizing the lines of code criticizes that part of you. You can’t criticize a novel without implicitly criticizing its author. When we criticize an LLM’s output, we are typically criticizing the LLM. Perceiving criticism of one’s own work as something personal is only natural, and logical. Now, if the criticism is of a honest mistake, you can learn from that, and own the mistake – show responsibility for it by acknowledging it and correcting it. Of course, that presupposes that you agree that it was a mistake. Often things aren’t that clear-cut. There can be genuine differences of opinion and of judgement. Of course, one is biased towards one’s own work. It helps to be aware of that bias. It also helps to think in terms of picking your battles. If you don’t quite agree with a criticism, it can also help to give yourself a chance to change your mind a bit. Maybe later you’ll actually mostly agree with it. And that later changed you isn’t the former you that was criticized. Win-win!
- lexicality 3y ago
  > I think you actually are, in a very real sense. Someone else would have written different lines of codes. The lines of code are a function of yourself, an inherent part of you. Criticizing the lines of code criticizes that part of you. You can’t criticize a novel without implicitly criticizing its author. When we criticize an LMM’s output, we are typically criticizing the LLM. Perceiving criticism of one’s own work as something personal is only natural, and logical. I disagree on the strongest terms. You need to work with a mindset to your own growth an evolution. It was me who wrote these lines of code an hour ago, but I would not have known to write them a year ago and I will know better than to write them like this in another year's time. Possibly I wouldn't even write them like that now, having thought about them for an hour. I am not a perfect coder, some Omnipotent god. Everything I write is a tradeoff of my current set of knowledge and the pressures I'm under and is therefore inherently flawed. If someone criticise my code it's because they either know more than me, in which case I have learned why I shouldn't have done that and will adapt for the future, or it's because they know less than me and I haven't clearly explained the tradeoffs in which case I have learned that I need to express myself more clearly and will adapt that for the future. (Of course it might just be because they didn't bother to read my commit message but that's a different problem)
kukkeliskuu 3y ago
Good comment and I agree. I am in no way advocating becoming numb to criticism. The point is to create enough emotional distance to it so you are able to "swallow" it. I think it is parents job to introduce small disappointments for children. This way they learn to handle larger disappointments. I think we need to teach ourselves to handle criticism in the same way, in small doses. About not seeing it as criticism, I am not completely sure what you suggest. But I have analogy with improvisation theatre. There people celebrate mistakes, because fear of mistakes is what blocks you from improvising. So instead of changing the name (to something else from "mistake") to overcome the fear, the fear is met head-first by celebrating mistakes. Similarly, I think the name "criticism" is not important, and if you can overcome the negative connotation for the word for you personally, there is no reason to change the word.
gymbeaux 3y ago
My experience has been that people who say “you are not your code” use it as an excuse to be brash in PRs, and as someone who sees code as a sort of art, the adage is even less-appealing. Surely there is a way to be considerate enough in the code review process such that “you are not your code” need never be said at an organization.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Yes I agree. Some people are just rude or mean and they want to absolve themselves of behaving respectfully by claiming that it’s the other party at fault. But there are two people involved in any conversation and both are responsible for keeping it respectful.
chefandy 3y ago
A low self esteem from constant insults (aka non-constructive or overly harshly presented critique) or lack of encouragement will kill anybody's ability to accept useful feedback, and people can certainly become numb to that. However, that numbness is different than being unaccustomed to taking useful critique without getting defensive. Which is absolutely a learned skill– one of the most important you learn early in art school. Someone unaccustomed to any critique, or only used to complimentary feedback will bristle at any criticism. Someone used to constructive critique will still bristle at insults, intentional or not, so the EQ of the critic in delivering the message is also critical. The biggest enemy here are people who think that their criticism can be as rude, pedantic, or imperious as they want if the core point is valid. That might provide comparable results for the issue at hand, a) but human beings don't deserve to be treated like that, and b) it kills morale, which kills productivity, quality, retention, etc. It blows my mind how many fully-grown adults can't see that they're only quieting their own insecurities with unnecessary harshness, and that they're essentially stealing self-esteem from the team by indulging that urge. Having people on your team with poor enough mental hygiene that they need to position themselves above someone else to feel good is a serious problem. I think it's one of the things people really mean when they talk about overly macho bro types or neckbeards.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Agreed. The constructive vs insults is the important piece. My senior gives me useful feedback now a regular basis. I explicitly asked him to be as direct with me as he feels is necessary and it did open my eyes to the perception of my presentations among other things. To your point, I still bristle at a random unnecessary insult.
  - maerF0x0 3y ago
    Can you give an example of "insults"? I have to say this line of thinking really bewilders me... perhaps I've never worked in an environment with this kind of toxicity. Typically the sensitivity level of feedback in my experience has encroached into things like "Don't give 10 comments on a PR, its too many and people feel bad" (regardless of the number of faults in the code).
EGreg 3y ago
Right. Consider whether this really impacts you as a person. 1) Who will see it? What will be the consequences? If no one, then look past the delivery and consider just the content. 2) Use it as useful feedback and information that you otherwise might have never gotten. Consider how many people may have thought similar things but were too nice to say anything. Finally someone spoke up and told you what others were thinking. Then you will come to regard the (private) exposing of a flaw with appreciation! 3) Treat it as you would any focus group, it is just one data point. Sometimes the frustrating thing is when the criticism is wrong and is just a product of how things are done locally. If you are un a full-time job, just embrace how things are done. If your solution serves many other clients, you may have to file it among other priorities. When you start to focus on the work and the outcome, you don’t focus on criticism as a personal attack, even if it was meant as one you extract the actual usefulness from it.
samstave 3y ago
Just want to point out that being "numb" is NOT THE SAME as just not taking something personally. As I mentioned in my other post - I make things that I find enjoyable, and while I am not 'numb' to criticism, I just dont let criticism to affect my personal Mortar in the foundations of who I feel I am.
solarmist 3y ago
To add to this. Self-acceptance and compassion can only develop when you have a place where you feel physically, socially and emotionally safe as a base you can return to when you need to re-center. Safety gives you permission to take risks (financially, emotionally, physically, socially) by having a place to regroup.
- digging 3y ago
  > Self-acceptance and compassion can only develop when you have a place where you feel physically, socially and emotionally safe as a base you can return to when you need to re-center. This is something many teams misunderstand or are completely unaware of. Demonstrating understanding and compassion to one's colleague's will increase their abilities to communicate and work collaboratively.
  - rose-here 3y ago
    well said :3
- lazide 3y ago
  Agreed. Right now a lot of very unsafe behaviors are ramping up (predatory and at work and in many of our some of our personal lives), and recognizing when it's actually time to withdraw and when it may be because we're not actually safe is important. Additionally, physical health issues and pain can take away our feeling of safety, and sitting on our butts all day is REALLY not healthy. But it's hard to notice when it creeps up on us.
cnity 3y ago
I nearly 100% agree with you accept on one point. "You are not your lines of code." is putting your head in the sand, but there's a way you can frame PR feedback (and other feedback) which re-associates your identity with your output (because disassociating is a terrible idea) but brings joy back: these people are coaching you and giving you a gift. Your skill level is absolutely included in criticism, but only such that you may grow. This only works if you truly believe that you are accepted by your team at all stages of your development, and if the feedback is delivered with the intention of helping you grow.
AlwaysRock 3y ago
> To take it even further...why see it as criticism at all? You are not your lines of code. You are not your work. You can write incredibly crappy code and still be a fine person. You can write beautiful, elegant code and be a terrible person. Separating your work/code from your self-worth is hugely important.
singleshot_ 3y ago
The lines of code are not even your lines of code! They are lines of code until you reveal them to the world. Then they are part of the world. When someone else improves them (or tries to improve them) you must rejoice that the ideas you have given the world have attracted enough attention to be criticized and improved! Only by keeping the code private would the criticism be criticism against you. Once you distribute the code, the only truly negative thing someone can do, from your point of view, is to ignore the code. That’s my point of view anyway. Elsewhere in the thread someone commented positively on your self awareness and in parting I must echo them.
talonx 3y ago
Too much criticism destroys self-esteem. Coaching is a better alternative. Also, pushing children to be perfect is a recipe for disaster. Carol Dweck's Mindset comes to mind.
kazinator 3y ago
Make your code (or other engineering deliverables) beyond criticism. This state is achieved when every decision in the code is either due to a hard external requirement that we all agreed on (it has to be done that way) or else is made according to externally documented and referenced best practices. If someone disagrees with anything in the code, you can point them either to a requirement that would have to change if it were done differently, or else some documented best practice (whether in-house or some famous external one) would be violated. Have a reason for everything. Why is there a linear search in that function? Because the number of items is at most ten, and not expected to ever exceed around fifteen; moreover, the function is called only a dozen times, on first boot after a firmware upgrade. Also, be the most stern critic you can be, of your own code, criticize it yourself and fix everything, so you don't leave much for anyone else.

Dwolb 3y ago

Agreed. Another adjacent PoV is improvement, not complete, is the steady state. What I mean is, throughout our entire schooling career we did work and turned in assignments that got graded. They were done. The work was over. Our professions aren’t like that. There’s no done. There’s always improvement. Therefore every piece of criticism, critique, or feedback has some data in it (sometimes layered in poorly worded phrases that can feel mean) on how to get better. Your goal is to figure out what that data is and whether it’s valid, then act on it.

matwood 3y ago
> Therefore every piece of criticism, critique, or feedback has some data in it Extreme Ownership teaches a mind shift of looking at criticism and thinking of it as 'GOOD'. Criticism is an opportunity to improve.
- lazide 3y ago
  It can be manipulated by bad actors however, keeping someone constantly 'doing' for the other parties benefit and not noticing they never seem to actually get paid for it. It tends to attract NPD folks in particular. Like anything, it's about balance. Sometimes, it really isn't anything you should be doing to fix (or anything you should change).
reality_inspctr 3y ago
it can be helpful, for some, to give up on the notion of retirement altogether. exist to exist the whole way through. do what you gotta do. many SV people have probably also seen anecdotal evidence the $B crowd has this mindset. it's the $M crowd sweatin the small stuff.
- grugagag 3y ago
  > it can be helpful, for some, to give up on the notion of retirement altogether. Yeah, perfect and ready to be exploited with no end in sight. What are $B and $M crowds? Billionares and millionares? Do you have any personal insight into those or just read about it?
  - maerF0x0 3y ago
    $B crowd doesnt think about it because 1) they pay people to do the micro level things (and in a hierarchy of concerns down to the micro) and 2) the micro doesnt move the needle for them. To use an analogy if you're poor disputing a $2 charge is meaningful because it might double your disposable money. But if you're rich you could absorb 1000x $2 charges per day without even seeing a difference in your first 4 digits of your wealth. (eg 4522188456 squints to the same number as 4522180456)

simultsop 3y ago

Read this in Adam Grant voice.

katzgrau 3y ago

Getting stronger through stress is not the solution, but a common initial path to the larger solution. I think you're closest when you say "A high criticism tolerance is learned by understanding that ones self worth is not attached to output or delivery" The compassion part is unnecessary. Any criticism you take personally is ultimately a fictitious story you're choosing to accept about your identity. We are the ones choosing to take an event like a comment, apply a label of snarky, and allow it to set our emotions in the moment. The snarky comment itself has no objective meaning. It only takes on meaning when we decide to interpret it negatively. We could just as easily screen the comment for actual valuable feedback, and if there is, implement it. And now you have a win. How smart of you, you should feel good about that. The real approach is rising above and seeing things for what they really are, and seizing opportunities to look at things differently for an optimal outcome.

danesparza 3y ago

"You are not your lines of code." Agreed. And nobody's lines of code are perfect.

jebarker 3y ago

> You'll find that the people that break down at the slightest criticism the most are those that were criticised the most as children as well. Those that had no room for being anything other than perfect. Where value was obtained from performance. It took me a long time to realize this applied to me. I don't ever remember explicitly being criticised as a child but I reached adulthood with a wicked need for perfection and "achievement" and a subconscious aversion to criticism. I still find it hard to feel valid and valuable in the world other than through work. But all of these behaviors have undoubtedly held me back in work and relationships.

martypitt 3y ago

> A high criticism tolerance is learned by understanding that ones self worth is not attached to output or delivery. > You are not your lines of code. These statements are sage advice. And while I believe them both to be correct, I personally struggle with remembering these things when it matters most.

ethbr0 3y ago
The older I get, the more I'm convinced the secrets of life come in contradictory tuples, and the application of all elements at appropriate time and in appropriate ways. Zen koans were onto something. {"You are not your lines of code", "You should feel proud when your code is good and embarrassed when your code is bad"} Both of these things are true. To the matter at hand, how to take criticism constructively, the key for me is bifurcating my emotional response from my logical one. Emotional response is noted, thought about, but routed inward. Logical one is routed outward. E.g. "This is the dumbest application of a bad sorting algorithm I've ever seen." Emotional/inward: "That hurts. Am I a bad programmer? How did I not know this? Will I ever be a person who does know things like this? I respect the person who's telling me this: do they still respect me?" Logical/outward: "Fair. What algorithm would you have used in this application? If you have time, can you walk me through how you would have picked it?" People usually screw things up when they don't hold space for their own emotional response and commingle it with the logical one (e.g. manufacturing a logical justification for what is really an emotional feeling).
- srveale 3y ago
  > the secrets of life come in contradictory tuples A great phrase for what I've been noticing about my life as well. {"You should be okay with who you are", "You should always strive to be better"}, or {"Desire is the root of suffering", "Being passionate about a goal is the only way to fulfillment"} Finding the nuances in these phrases and living in the bubbles where they are not actually contradictory has given me a lot of peace.
jackcviers3 3y ago
I disagree with the second slightly, because we have a very limited amount of time in which to produce things that matter, and we spend the majority of that time producing code as developers. It better be important to us, or we should be doing something else. Now, what we should realize about the code isn't the thing of value. It's what the code does and how it does it, that is the runtime output and the ability to express the intent to produce that output to a programmer who hasn't seen the output or the code before or in a long time. Criticism is the best opportunity to improve those aspects of the code you write. So it should be of equal value to you as the lines of code the criticism is addressing. Not all criticism is valid, even well-intentioned constructive criticism. Experience teaches you which critiques to accept and which to reject. The only way to gain that experience is to solicit criticism from others, and give it to others. No, we are not just our code, but our artifacts are a part of us, as we are a part of them. So we should be kind when giving criticism and gracious when receiving it. Because what we choose to do with our time matters.

lumb63 3y ago

I’ve heard similar statements from other people, and I have a disconnect that prevents me from understanding. Why would someone want to detach their self worth from what they do? If someone ought not feel a negative emotion in response to doing something “bad”, by what logic can they justify feeling something positive in response to doing something “good”? I cannot conceive of a world view that allows one to feel proud of their accomplishments but does not require their disappointment in their shortcomings. Furthermore, the idea of separating one’s self-worth from “what one does” does not make sense to me either. If someone’s worth is not tied to what they do, then the criminals, liars, frauds, cheaters, etc., of the world are every bit as valuable as our loved ones, idols, great contributors, etc. That view doesn’t make any sense to me; I wouldn’t be disappointed one ounce if all the criminals on the Earth vanished tomorrow, but I would be greatly disappointed if all my friends disappeared. The only difference between those people is “what they do/have done”.

dclowd9901 3y ago
Because your self worth shouldn’t be tied to how successful you are, but how willing you are to learn and grow. Nobody’s perfect nor can they be, so it’s a bad target. But everyone can be better.
- dougb5 3y ago
  It's even totally reasonable not to tie your self-worth to anything related to growth or learning or improvement or whatever. Plenty of people feel high self-worth by simply loving the people around them.
lwhi 3y ago
Fundamentally, because we are still worth something even when our achievements are completely removed. If you take the view that our achievements are necessarily integral to our self worth this logically isn't true.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  But this isn't the point. The previous commenter was replying to someone who said that what we do has zero to do with our self worth. They were saying, no, it does have quite a lot to do with it. Saying "well it's not all about what we do!" is not in keeping with the conversation.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

Anecdotally, I had the opposite experience! > You'll find that the people that break down at the slightest criticism the most are those that were criticised the most as children as well. Those that had no room for being anything other than perfect. Where value was obtained from performance. My childhood fits this. > "Anti-fragile attitude" when it comes to criticism is not built by tolerance I DID learn these by tolerance! > self-acceptance and compassion. And these values are learned early on. I learned these LATE on, in college. I feel like it's typical for a kid, but I was insecure and very much afraid of failure. But when I encountered sustained failure despite my best efforts, it pushed my "attached to performance" ego to the breaking point. That ego broken, I was forced to decoupled my sense of self worth from my performance. I didn't do it consciously, either; it sort of just happened one day. And I literally mean on a day. I felt it the day it happened. It felt like a weight had been lifted, and I found myself unable to care as much, just all of a sudden. I wondered if it was depression, but I felt happier than I ever felt before. That nerfed my performance somewhat, since it's no longer driven by a frantic self-flagellatory imperative to prove my self-worth, but it also made my quality of life much higher, which I consider an easy trade. I still care about what I do, and I very much still try to do a good job. I'm just not terrorized when I don't. I feel bad when I don't, but not "I'M A PIECE OF SHIT" bad. It's a more impersonal bad. It also allows me to sincerely welcome criticism; there's no sting to it at all unless I did something colossally stupid and/or the criticism is, like, downright verbally abusive or something (which it's never been so far :p).

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
College is not late to learn this. Many people never learn at all.
jayroh 3y ago
I find this to be an incredibly well-balanced and mature measure of one's self. You should be proud that you were able to reach this level of self-reflection and clarity. Many people never get there, so kudos to you.

polygotdomain 3y ago

>"Anti-fragile attitude" when it comes to criticism is not built by tolerance. Quite the opposite actually. I agree with your overall statement, but I think the specific point above could be misinterpreted in a nonconstructive way. What it seems like you're trying to say is that we shouldn't just be learning how to deal with criticism by tuning it out or building up defense mechanisms against it. That I agree with. However, another interpretation that could be implied from your statement is that one should not be seeking out criticism, which is not good. What I think OP is getting at is that learning to process criticism comes by experiencing criticism over and over again. Some of the worst responses I've seen to criticism have come from those who constantly make concerted efforts to avoid it. Understanding that you are not the sum of your output is important, but it's really hard to remember that when you're right in the thick of it. Being able to control your emotions and thoughts within that moment come from having experiencing those moments over and over again. The point of criticism is to learn and improve, but in order for that to happen one has to be able to actually hear and process the criticism being offered. One needs to get past the emotional response to criticism in order for that to happen. The two big pieces of that are decoupling the value of what we're being criticized on from our inherent self worth, AND being able to control our emotions in the moment. The latter is really only done by having enough exposure to it, and that's the "anti-fragility" component.

lazide 3y ago
Exposure - but with appropriate processing in a productive way. Otherwise it just produces PTSD.
syntheweave 3y ago
I had a comment thread experience recently, not here but on Reddit, that made me think about criticism again and how we experience it. The opening was that comment A was saying something about how they did <programming subject> and comment B was asking probing questions. I recognized that B was leading A towards a certain framing she had in mind(a very Uncle Bob, OO patterns are the answer kind of answer), so I injected a flat "there's nowhere else that code needs to be except one of these two places, classes have nothing to do with it." B responded with "but surely they have to be in a manager class right?" And seeing the resistance to taking any other framing, I got more assertive and instructive in my reply, giving specific recommendations to try dispensing with OO and experiment with writing more primitive code. This was the offense, and it became an argument, which was basically a stomping because I was very prepared with sources and a rationale for why I am making that recommendation, and B fell into defenses from experience and authority, talking about numbers of lines of code and systems she had made and accusing me of speculating about her ability. And then I said, "that's nice, but I'm the comments section." Apologized for the offense, and pointed out that she started replying to A by speculating, and had admitted as much. Finished with encouraging words for B continue writing the code that she felt works best. She wasn't happy with this, and said I "hijacked" the thread and used a "condescending tone", but also allowed that I said interesting things. And it's like, was it worth getting into another "arguing with strangers on the Internet" cycle? Part of why I engaged in the way I did was because I was coming off a period of answering other people's questions, so it was, at first, just one more of those. But afterwards I realized that what I had disturbed was the belief system. The original thread was an attempt to confirm B's belief to herself: that's why it was done in a leading manner. A lot of comment threads proceed along those lines. When I just wander in and negate that, defensiveness is immediate. Saying "it can only be these two things" is only condescension if you're certain that your other way is already right. B wanted to brush it off. What I was doing was starting the "put on the glasses" fight scene in They Live. And I think part of why I've gotten better at navigating those threads and critique generally, even if I might be overbearing or "condescending" at times, is because I can recognize when a principled defense is taking place. Good technical discussions start from a place of philosophical credibility. They don't start from norms("this way is best") and then question-beg their way into justifications. They lay out the assumptions of what's true and what's being achieved, like "eliminating a form of error"(one of the goals I outlined in that thread, and the one which ultimately made B concede) and then find conclusions inductively, deductively or abductively. Once you get away from the philosophical goal and only aim for winning the argument, you start crafting harmful rhetoric. So the answer for me lies in philosophical training: you do have to intentionally "turn it on" to think in those terms, but it lets you be more effective around criticism, to "dance" with it and see it as a process, not a prelude to violence. And it is much harder to deal with open comments than any one specific critic, because those are subject to mob mentality. Offend a belief the mob holds in high regard, and regardless of the principles involved, you'll just get dehumanized right away. I try not to find myself involved with that stuff anymore, but it's like, yeah, of course I have beliefs.

layer8 3y ago

> You are not your lines of code. I think you actually are, in a very real sense. Someone else would have written different lines of codes. The lines of code are a function of yourself, an inherent part of you. Criticizing the lines of code criticizes that part of you. You can’t criticize a novel without implicitly criticizing its author. When we criticize an LLM’s output, we are typically criticizing the LLM. Perceiving criticism of one’s own work as something personal is only natural, and logical. Now, if the criticism is of a honest mistake, you can learn from that, and own the mistake – show responsibility for it by acknowledging it and correcting it. Of course, that presupposes that you agree that it was a mistake. Often things aren’t that clear-cut. There can be genuine differences of opinion and of judgement. Of course, one is biased towards one’s own work. It helps to be aware of that bias. It also helps to think in terms of picking your battles. If you don’t quite agree with a criticism, it can also help to give yourself a chance to change your mind a bit. Maybe later you’ll actually mostly agree with it. And that later changed you isn’t the former you that was criticized. Win-win!

lexicality 3y ago
> I think you actually are, in a very real sense. Someone else would have written different lines of codes. The lines of code are a function of yourself, an inherent part of you. Criticizing the lines of code criticizes that part of you. You can’t criticize a novel without implicitly criticizing its author. When we criticize an LMM’s output, we are typically criticizing the LLM. Perceiving criticism of one’s own work as something personal is only natural, and logical. I disagree on the strongest terms. You need to work with a mindset to your own growth an evolution. It was me who wrote these lines of code an hour ago, but I would not have known to write them a year ago and I will know better than to write them like this in another year's time. Possibly I wouldn't even write them like that now, having thought about them for an hour. I am not a perfect coder, some Omnipotent god. Everything I write is a tradeoff of my current set of knowledge and the pressures I'm under and is therefore inherently flawed. If someone criticise my code it's because they either know more than me, in which case I have learned why I shouldn't have done that and will adapt for the future, or it's because they know less than me and I haven't clearly explained the tradeoffs in which case I have learned that I need to express myself more clearly and will adapt that for the future. (Of course it might just be because they didn't bother to read my commit message but that's a different problem)

kukkeliskuu 3y ago

Good comment and I agree. I am in no way advocating becoming numb to criticism. The point is to create enough emotional distance to it so you are able to "swallow" it. I think it is parents job to introduce small disappointments for children. This way they learn to handle larger disappointments. I think we need to teach ourselves to handle criticism in the same way, in small doses. About not seeing it as criticism, I am not completely sure what you suggest. But I have analogy with improvisation theatre. There people celebrate mistakes, because fear of mistakes is what blocks you from improvising. So instead of changing the name (to something else from "mistake") to overcome the fear, the fear is met head-first by celebrating mistakes. Similarly, I think the name "criticism" is not important, and if you can overcome the negative connotation for the word for you personally, there is no reason to change the word.

gymbeaux 3y ago

My experience has been that people who say “you are not your code” use it as an excuse to be brash in PRs, and as someone who sees code as a sort of art, the adage is even less-appealing. Surely there is a way to be considerate enough in the code review process such that “you are not your code” need never be said at an organization.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Yes I agree. Some people are just rude or mean and they want to absolve themselves of behaving respectfully by claiming that it’s the other party at fault. But there are two people involved in any conversation and both are responsible for keeping it respectful.

chefandy 3y ago

A low self esteem from constant insults (aka non-constructive or overly harshly presented critique) or lack of encouragement will kill anybody's ability to accept useful feedback, and people can certainly become numb to that. However, that numbness is different than being unaccustomed to taking useful critique without getting defensive. Which is absolutely a learned skill– one of the most important you learn early in art school. Someone unaccustomed to any critique, or only used to complimentary feedback will bristle at any criticism. Someone used to constructive critique will still bristle at insults, intentional or not, so the EQ of the critic in delivering the message is also critical. The biggest enemy here are people who think that their criticism can be as rude, pedantic, or imperious as they want if the core point is valid. That might provide comparable results for the issue at hand, a) but human beings don't deserve to be treated like that, and b) it kills morale, which kills productivity, quality, retention, etc. It blows my mind how many fully-grown adults can't see that they're only quieting their own insecurities with unnecessary harshness, and that they're essentially stealing self-esteem from the team by indulging that urge. Having people on your team with poor enough mental hygiene that they need to position themselves above someone else to feel good is a serious problem. I think it's one of the things people really mean when they talk about overly macho bro types or neckbeards.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Agreed. The constructive vs insults is the important piece. My senior gives me useful feedback now a regular basis. I explicitly asked him to be as direct with me as he feels is necessary and it did open my eyes to the perception of my presentations among other things. To your point, I still bristle at a random unnecessary insult.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  Can you give an example of "insults"? I have to say this line of thinking really bewilders me... perhaps I've never worked in an environment with this kind of toxicity. Typically the sensitivity level of feedback in my experience has encroached into things like "Don't give 10 comments on a PR, its too many and people feel bad" (regardless of the number of faults in the code).

EGreg 3y ago

Right. Consider whether this really impacts you as a person. 1) Who will see it? What will be the consequences? If no one, then look past the delivery and consider just the content. 2) Use it as useful feedback and information that you otherwise might have never gotten. Consider how many people may have thought similar things but were too nice to say anything. Finally someone spoke up and told you what others were thinking. Then you will come to regard the (private) exposing of a flaw with appreciation! 3) Treat it as you would any focus group, it is just one data point. Sometimes the frustrating thing is when the criticism is wrong and is just a product of how things are done locally. If you are un a full-time job, just embrace how things are done. If your solution serves many other clients, you may have to file it among other priorities. When you start to focus on the work and the outcome, you don’t focus on criticism as a personal attack, even if it was meant as one you extract the actual usefulness from it.

samstave 3y ago

Just want to point out that being "numb" is NOT THE SAME as just not taking something personally. As I mentioned in my other post - I make things that I find enjoyable, and while I am not 'numb' to criticism, I just dont let criticism to affect my personal Mortar in the foundations of who I feel I am.

solarmist 3y ago

To add to this. Self-acceptance and compassion can only develop when you have a place where you feel physically, socially and emotionally safe as a base you can return to when you need to re-center. Safety gives you permission to take risks (financially, emotionally, physically, socially) by having a place to regroup.

digging 3y ago
> Self-acceptance and compassion can only develop when you have a place where you feel physically, socially and emotionally safe as a base you can return to when you need to re-center. This is something many teams misunderstand or are completely unaware of. Demonstrating understanding and compassion to one's colleague's will increase their abilities to communicate and work collaboratively.
- rose-here 3y ago
  well said :3
lazide 3y ago
Agreed. Right now a lot of very unsafe behaviors are ramping up (predatory and at work and in many of our some of our personal lives), and recognizing when it's actually time to withdraw and when it may be because we're not actually safe is important. Additionally, physical health issues and pain can take away our feeling of safety, and sitting on our butts all day is REALLY not healthy. But it's hard to notice when it creeps up on us.

cnity 3y ago

I nearly 100% agree with you accept on one point. "You are not your lines of code." is putting your head in the sand, but there's a way you can frame PR feedback (and other feedback) which re-associates your identity with your output (because disassociating is a terrible idea) but brings joy back: these people are coaching you and giving you a gift. Your skill level is absolutely included in criticism, but only such that you may grow. This only works if you truly believe that you are accepted by your team at all stages of your development, and if the feedback is delivered with the intention of helping you grow.

AlwaysRock 3y ago

> To take it even further...why see it as criticism at all? You are not your lines of code. You are not your work. You can write incredibly crappy code and still be a fine person. You can write beautiful, elegant code and be a terrible person. Separating your work/code from your self-worth is hugely important.

singleshot_ 3y ago

The lines of code are not even your lines of code! They are lines of code until you reveal them to the world. Then they are part of the world. When someone else improves them (or tries to improve them) you must rejoice that the ideas you have given the world have attracted enough attention to be criticized and improved! Only by keeping the code private would the criticism be criticism against you. Once you distribute the code, the only truly negative thing someone can do, from your point of view, is to ignore the code. That’s my point of view anyway. Elsewhere in the thread someone commented positively on your self awareness and in parting I must echo them.

talonx 3y ago

Too much criticism destroys self-esteem. Coaching is a better alternative. Also, pushing children to be perfect is a recipe for disaster. Carol Dweck's Mindset comes to mind.

kazinator 3y ago

Make your code (or other engineering deliverables) beyond criticism. This state is achieved when every decision in the code is either due to a hard external requirement that we all agreed on (it has to be done that way) or else is made according to externally documented and referenced best practices. If someone disagrees with anything in the code, you can point them either to a requirement that would have to change if it were done differently, or else some documented best practice (whether in-house or some famous external one) would be violated. Have a reason for everything. Why is there a linear search in that function? Because the number of items is at most ten, and not expected to ever exceed around fifteen; moreover, the function is called only a dozen times, on first boot after a firmware upgrade. Also, be the most stern critic you can be, of your own code, criticize it yourself and fix everything, so you don't leave much for anyone else.