3 ms·

Maybe he thinks his own disappointments could have been avoided by better communication, and thus his advice is to "learn to communicate well, not just to code"

by yobbo 3y ago

Maybe he thinks his own disappointments could have been avoided by better communication, and thus his advice is to "learn to communicate well, not just to code". It's not bad advice on its own, but I sense this is a naive view of communication and what problems communication can solve. Communication can not make people agree with ideas that are orthogonal to their world-views or philosophies if those serve as pillars/supports/moats for their security. Diffuse but I can't articulate it better now (... the irony).

brailsafe 3y ago
> Communication can not make people agree with ideas that are orthogonal to their world-views But... coding can?
- frankreyes 3y ago
  Not sure what Yobbo meant but my reading was that people, regarding jobs, have expectations that won't really work out. For example studying to become a philosopher or training for a professional football team. And then they better learn to code because there's more and better jobs on coding than philosophy or football.
- yobbo 3y ago
  Hm. I sense there is an expectation that "good ideas will win" if only we communicate them properly. But, when people are invested in <ideas that are orthogonal to your good ideas>, communication is not the right tool. Like trying to convince someone who believes they are the winner to take on the identity of the loser. The assumption is that "goodness" is universal/objective and the cause for disagreement is misunderstanding. One version of this is trying to convince someone to switch language/framework/platform/paradigm, because your suggestion is objectively better. On the receiving end, it sounds like "admit that your investment into <old thing> was a waste and instead become a novice in <new thing>". Another version is trying to convince someone to change business strategies. And so on. Many ideas are bets on the future, but people are stakeholders in different versions of the future. If your argument amounts to asking someone to freely give up their stake in the future, it will fail. The more clearly it is explained, the worse it sounds on the receiving end.

by yobbo 3y ago

brailsafe 3y ago

> Communication can not make people agree with ideas that are orthogonal to their world-views But... coding can?

frankreyes 3y ago
Not sure what Yobbo meant but my reading was that people, regarding jobs, have expectations that won't really work out. For example studying to become a philosopher or training for a professional football team. And then they better learn to code because there's more and better jobs on coding than philosophy or football.
yobbo 3y ago
Hm. I sense there is an expectation that "good ideas will win" if only we communicate them properly. But, when people are invested in <ideas that are orthogonal to your good ideas>, communication is not the right tool. Like trying to convince someone who believes they are the winner to take on the identity of the loser. The assumption is that "goodness" is universal/objective and the cause for disagreement is misunderstanding. One version of this is trying to convince someone to switch language/framework/platform/paradigm, because your suggestion is objectively better. On the receiving end, it sounds like "admit that your investment into <old thing> was a waste and instead become a novice in <new thing>". Another version is trying to convince someone to change business strategies. And so on. Many ideas are bets on the future, but people are stakeholders in different versions of the future. If your argument amounts to asking someone to freely give up their stake in the future, it will fail. The more clearly it is explained, the worse it sounds on the receiving end.