9 ms·

Look at yourself objectively

294 points by myle 14y ago

krat0sprakhar 14y ago
I've started loving this new series started by Aaron. Thanks a lot, Aaron. Keep 'em coming!
- cdjarrell 14y ago
  Agreed, I enjoyed "Believe You Can Change" when it was posted on HN and was happy to find out this article was next in line in his "Raw Nerve" series. Thanks and can't wait for the next one
- evmar 14y ago
  These posts have been reminding me of Malcom Gladwell, in the unfortunate way: an collection of interesting anecdotes that together would make an interesting story instead are blown up into a broader statement that doesn't seem to follow.
  - mej10 14y ago
    Let's see, the previous post is based on published psychological research, and this post points out a failing of humans that is, dare I say it, obvious to anyone that has critically observed any person, ever. He isn't exactly making controversial points here, but rather trying to raise the awareness of such ideas. He also isn't trying to sell you a pop-intellectual book.
  - barking 14y ago
    I agree. There is also a bit more to the Sammelweis story than simply doctors refusing to be self-critical. From the wikipedia article on Sammelweis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis): "It has been contended that Semmelweis could have had an even greater impact if he had managed to communicate his findings more effectively and avoid antagonising the medical establishment, even given the opposition from entrenched viewpoints."
    - HarryHirsch 14y ago
      > It has been contended that Semmelweis could have had an even greater impact if he had managed to communicate his findings more effectively This is the point. Anyone who is properly introspective is already following the good advice given here. But how about the total ramrods one has to deal with on occasion, those people who are crazy and deluded, whose self-confidence totally exceeds their grasp of the subject matter? Blessed is the man who can say to his line manager "I won't deal with N.N. any longer, he is incompetent and unaware of it." But sometimes the constraints of work do not permit not dealing with some people, or the boss is the crazy one. What to do in such situations?
  - opminion 14y ago
    And that's alright. Aaron is asking for feedback, not selling books and talks with this.
BCM43 14y ago
I think the biggest challenge of this is finding friends that will tell you when you are wrong. And no wonder, it's really hard. A friend of mine sent me a short story that they wrote not to long ago, and it was not very good. But I could not bring my self to say that, instead I made some little criticism and did not comment on the writing as a whole. Anyone have tips on how to do this better?
- dpkendal 14y ago
  The tricky aspect here is that most people believe that taste, and the 'quality' of artistic work, is mostly a subjective matter, but when they make criticism of art they treat their views as objective truth. Thus when you criticise a friend's work, or vice versa, the temptation is to think of it as "(Your|their) work sucks!" instead of "Oh well, (I|you) didn't like it, maybe someone else will." Semmelweiss, on the other hand, had no subjective matter. He had the statistics showing that as soon as doctors started washing their hands, infant mortality went way down. It was just the doctors' pride which made them think he was accusing them of regularly killing newborn babies. Of course there is bad art which everyone agrees is terrible, and telling people that truth is hard. In the end, though, it's better to be honest because it's probable that your friend would respond with a determination to do better next time. The trick is to be tactful.
  - finnw 14y ago
    It's easy to criticise a minor detail of a friend's work, but harder to say "you don't have the talent for this, give up."
    - ryanmolden 14y ago
      >It's easy to criticise a minor detail of a friend's work, but harder to say "you don't have the talent for this, give up." I would question whether most people honestly have the expertise to make a judgement like 'you don't have the talent for this, give up'. I think people routinely overestimate their own abilities and discernment. Taking a hasty/faulty analysis and then telling someone to 'give up' seems like a terrible idea.
lectrick 14y ago
This anecdote, holy crap.
jblz 14y ago
Really good stuff. I'll try to take it to heart. Thanks for sharing :) Small gripe: 30em-wide text is pretty tough (for me, at least) to read on a high-res display
- BryanB55 14y ago
  agreed. I hate when people have anything less than 14pt font now. Luckily I have a readability for chrome installed.
tubbo 14y ago
I really wish I could read this but the text is 0.1px big. ;-) Seriously though, great article.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I've always told people that many of the best conversations with folks have started out with "Chuck I think you are wrong and here's why ..." This is especially useful when you are "important" (like someone's boss) because getting honest feedback when you are the boss can be nearly impossible at times. Steve Bourne (yes that Bourne) told me once that you should try to cultivate people who could give you a different view on the world, That is helpful stuff but you do have to also get people to be honest. That is hard to do if they think you're 'hot headed' or likely to shoot the messenger.
iSnow 14y ago
While overall, I like this article, there is real danger in advice like this: >Look up, not down. [...] to do that you need to look at the people who are even better than you. While this is great for those who exaggerate their skills, I doubt those would even read this piece. For people with self-esteem problems and a tendency towards depression, however, this is about the worst advice you can give, because they tend to look at the top 1% already and therefore experience their life as a complete failure. >But people will feel more comfortable telling you the truth if you start by criticizing yourself, showing them that it’s OK. In theory this is fine, but if you start seriously criticizing yourself in front of others, you anchor this critique in the minds of your listeners.
- msluyter 14y ago
  Cordelia Fine, in "A Mind of Its Own," makes a similar point: Fine says, "that your unconscious is smarter than you, faster than you, and more powerful than you. It may even control you. You will never know all of its secrets." So what to do? Begin with self-awareness, Fine says, then manage the distortions as best one can. We owe it to ourselves "to lessen the harmful effects of the brain’s various shams," she adds, while admitting that applying this lesson to others is easier than to oneself. Ironically, one category of persons shows that it is possible to view life through a clearer lens. "Their self-perceptions are more balanced, they assign responsibility for success and failure more even-handedly, and their predictions for the future are more realistic. These people are living testimony to the dangers of self-knowledge," Fine asserts. "They are the clinically depressed."
  - bobwaycott 14y ago
    Is this merely a correlation, or are you (or Fine) attempting to posit causation here? That is to say, is this merely pointing out that viewing "life through a clearer lens" is seen in connection with higher frequency of clinical depression, or is the inference here that this clearer lens causes clinical depression? I find it a hard case to make the latter statement, and the former statement doesn't imply (to me) that one ought to eschew the clearer lens. I wonder if there is some analysis that digs into what mental processes, emotions, thoughts, etc. occur in the wake of viewing the world through the clearer lens that might lead to clinical depression? I feel like there could be some not-so-weak element of not having as balanced a view/method of how to respond to one's failures that would lead toward depressive thought patterns. I don't think self-esteem issues are caused by viewing oneself more objectively and rationally, but instead by placing unwarranted weight on the (potentially errant) conclusions one draws from a more objective view of oneself. That is, if one has a more balanced and nuanced objective view of the world, but has an equally unbalanced and un-nuanced view of oneself--say, that one's abilities or potential for improvement are strictly circumscribed and not easily changed--I would hedge my bets toward that person having a greater likelihood for depression than someone who does not draw such conclusions. I think I tend toward viewing myself and others fairly objectively, and actively work to do so. I also compare myself to others I subjectively and objectively find better in some ways. But then I respond by improving the parts of me that I have found to be weaker than those who are a level above my own. I don't experience depressive thoughts (that I am aware of). (shit, that's just anecdotal and can be dismissed. nevermind.) [edit: typo and calling out my own anecdotal evidence that is unhelpful]
Jun8 14y ago
This is a well-written and useful article. If a lot of people are against you you may be onto something big, or you may be just wrong. I wonder if Aaron will discuss the furor caused by his JSTOR activism (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-charged-with-data-theft/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-c... also see the many discussions on HN, e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2781615 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2781615). The case here is not as clear cut as, say, the case of Semmelweis. I am also undecided (hate the greedy closed magazines, don't quite approve the sneaking in part) on it. I would really know what his objective analysis of the situation is unless he's already done a post that I've missed or if he can't talk about a court case.
- hansef 14y ago
  I'm fairly sure that the federal case against Aaron is still being litigated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR), which means that he almost certainly can't discuss details publicly.
- Poiesis 14y ago
  Personally, I enjoy his writing and feel like it's none of my business how the JSTOR case is going. It does occur to me, though, that a post of his about legitimate self-critique might actually be somewhat related to regrettable past deeds such as you mention. Or, I could be wrong. Who knows?
di 14y ago
> Force students through an embarrassing initiation to take a class, and they’ll insist the class is much more interesting. Does anyone know which experiment he is referencing here?
- jeremyjh 14y ago
  There are so many studies like this it is hard to say which one specifically he may be referring to. There is a mountain of literature on the topic; as usual, Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
  - mistercow 14y ago
    It frustrates me a little when people conflate cognitive dissonance with effects caused by dissonance reduction, like in this article. Cognitive dissonance is simply the uncomfortable experience of believing two conflicting things. Dissonance reduction is the class of biases that we use to reduce that discomfort.
- theorique 14y ago
  It sounds like the bonding process for (e.g.) fraternity hazing, or the Marines. I don't have specific cites, but I do recall reading this in various psychology texts.
- ryanmolden 14y ago
  I seem to recall reading this in Thinking Fast and Slow[1], but I can't find an online citation and only have the book in dead-tree form at home. I suspect it falls into this general realm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification edit: Specifically I believe I recall this (from the linked Wikipedia page) in Thinking Fast and Slow: One of the first and most classic examples of effort justification is Aronson and Mills's study.[2] A group of young women who volunteered to join a discussion group on the topic "Psychology of Sex" were asked to do a small reading test to make sure they were not too embarrassed to talk about sexual-related topics with others. The mild-embarrassment condition subjects were asked to read aloud a list of sex-related words such as "prostitute" or "virgin". The severe-embarrassment condition subjects were asked to read aloud a list of highly sexual words (e.g. "fuck", "cock") and to read two vivid descriptions of sexual activity taken from contemporary novels. All subjects then listened to a recording of a discussion about "Sexual Behavior in Animals" which was dull and unappealing. When asked to rate the group and its members, control and mild-embarrassment groups did not differ, but the severe-embarrassment group's ratings were significantly higher. This group, whose initiation process was more difficult (embarrassment = effort), had to increase their subjective value of the discussion group to resolve the dissonance. The cited study is: Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959) The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology ,59, 177-181. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346094018&sr=8-1&keywords=Thinking+fast+and+slow http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
incision 14y ago
I'm always up for an Ignaz Semmelweis [1] reference. I read his story for the first time when my woman was taking a Microbiology course. Incredible stuff. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
tptacek 14y ago
Semmelweis is a favorite "management science" topic; there's even a pop-psych phenomenon called the "Semmelweis Reflex"; the Wikipedia article on it recapitulates much of what Aaron wrote here. The Gladwell formula of using Semmelweis' personal narrative to articulate a frailty of human reasoning was employed to great effect in Ayres _Super Crunchers_; the Semmelweis section is, for instance, noted prominently in the NYT book review. Aaron has oversimplified the Semmelweis story in some material ways: * Semmelweis didn't institute "handwashing" in Vienna hospitals. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, which suggests that doctors in the 1840s were sticking horse-manure-covered hands into the exposed wounds of patients, handwashing was apparently already a norm. What Semmelweis did differently was to use lime to wash hands. * Semmelweis' actual theory of the cause of childbed fever was wrong, and it was wrong in ways that made his recommendations hard to take seriously. Semmelweis' contention was that "cadaveric particles" were making their way into patients, and that those particles could only be removed by lime. But doctors observed cases in which no contact with either cadavers or injected or symptomatic patients lead to the same cluster of illnesses. It was thus difficult for Semmelweis to make a "scientific" case for why the lime worked; it obviously didn't help that he was wrong about why it did (his work predates the germ theory of disease, which would have taught him that rather than lime being effective at removing specific particles, it was instead effective at killing bacteria). * Aaron's story (and Ayre's) has a heroic Semmelweis pleading for doctors to simply wash their hands in a specific way to save lives. But that's not necessarily what Semmelweis was arguing. Instead, the case he could have been making, loudly, was for an actual, specific, incorrect cause of childbed fever. * Semmelweis himself was, apparently long before he lost his post, a notorious asshole. It did not help his cause that instead of carefully reasoning about the actual evidence, he instead seized on a single explanatory theory of childbed fever and then demanded (often by barging into hospital wards and berating the staff) that his peers adhere to it. The point is not that Semmelweis didn't make an important discovery, or that we shouldn't be mindful of warped-sounding new knowledge that contradicts our existing theories. Of course we should be objective when considering facts that threaten our existing theories. But there's a reason John Snow and Joseph Lister [and Pasteur] are better known in the development of the germ theory of disease, and there's more to learn from the Semmelweis story than how the audience to a new theory should behave.
- deleted 14y ago
limist 14y ago
A bit of observation, of self or others, will quickly show we all exhibit the Semmelweis Reflex at some time or another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex
Alex3917 14y ago
Just wanted to add that there is another interesting article here that links the Theory of Contagion to sympathetic magic: http://laphamsquarterly.org/essays/very-superstitious.php?page=all http://laphamsquarterly.org/essays/very-superstitious.php?pa... Apparently the idea that diseases can spread through contagion is a prime example of something that was previously considered to be magic that later came to be accepted by science.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Sympathetic magic was one of the first forays into actual science. It sought explanatory power for phenomena. That they did this ass-backwards and propagated through superstition and rumor is why it's not actually science, but when you start talking about controllable and manipulable mechanisms, you've taken the first important step. "Magical thinking" doesn't refer to this. It refers to an utter ignorance of the mechanism, leaping from observation to conclusion without isolating any variables experimentally.
MattSayar 14y ago
Semi OT, but I signed up for email alerts at the bottom of the previous article in this series, and haven't received an email since. Am I alone with this?
- joshmlewis 14y ago
  Maybe email him and let him know?
iandanforth 14y ago
While this, on its face, looks like good, morally sound advice, I worry about the practicality of it for a certain class of individuals. The people I see in leadership positions are far more likely to be narcissistic sociopaths than reflective mediators. If you're not in a position of power / individual freedom, this is excellent advice to make sure that you can, and are seen to, play nice with others. It will probably help your blood pressure and promotion prospects. I'm just not convinced that this strategy is one that leads to the top more often than brutal myopia and conceit.
- cin_ 14y ago
  The top of what?
- bstpierre 14y ago
  I don't think he meant "top" meaning (necessarily) leaders of a hierarchy. I think it meant more like look to people who are performing "better" than you -- for whatever thing you want to measure.
ilaksh 14y ago
The thing about new ideas being rejected (better/different hand washing) reminds me of how everyone thinks that a web page or web application UI must to be hand coded. I think that is very stupid and eventually we will use graphical tools to create the UIs for web pages and web applications and look back at the days when every single web page had to be hand coded in HTML and CSS and laugh.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Evgeny 14y ago
saying “You were right, I was wrong.” It didn’t destroy her reputation; it rescued it. [...] Wayne Hale took full responsibility: “The bottom line is that I failed to understand what I was being told…I am guilty of allowing Columbia to crash.” He was promoted. When JFK admitted the responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco was “mine, and mine alone,” his poll numbers soared I would guess that the survivorship bias is at play here. How many people we will never hear about took responsibility and were demoted, fired or prosecuted?
- pdonis 14y ago
  Not only that, but Aaron seems to be skating perilously close to the position that admitting that you screwed up is, in itself, sufficient reason for you to be promoted. It's not.
naner 14y ago
This is what we’re taught: make five compliments for every criticism, sandwich negative feedback with positive feedback on each side, the most important thing is to keep up someone’s self-esteem. But, as Semmelweis showed, this is a dangerous habit. Sure, it’s awful to hear you’re killing people—but it’s way worse to keep on killing people! Semmelweis did exactly what you're advocating and he was marginalized for it. Maybe he would have fared better if he was more conscientious of their feelings?
astrofinch 14y ago
Great post. Whenever I remember, I try to thank people who criticize me, so they'll be willing to do it again. They really are taking a risk.
ozim 14y ago
That was what I hated about my previous work. Damn management was so protective that you could feel good about yourself, so there was no negative feedback and there was no way you could improve. I think they wanted us to work for them for low wage and never get better job. But in the matter of facts we sucked badly at that job, I felt this, and I felt it when I was going to interviews, I got new job and we'll see how it will turn out.
etruong42 14y ago
>"people will feel more comfortable telling you the truth if you start by criticizing yourself, showing them that it’s OK." I disagree with this assertion. Some people criticize themselves in hopes that their listeners will contradict them. For these self-criticizers, affirming their critical statements greatly upset them. I have not found much correlation in my personal life between people who criticize themselves and their ability to listen to criticism. There are other attributes which I have found correlations, such as being easygoing and thoughtful. I still often try to gauge a person's willingness to listen to criticism by starting with very small criticisms and working my way up.

294 points by myle 14y ago

krat0sprakhar 14y ago

I've started loving this new series started by Aaron. Thanks a lot, Aaron. Keep 'em coming!

cdjarrell 14y ago
Agreed, I enjoyed "Believe You Can Change" when it was posted on HN and was happy to find out this article was next in line in his "Raw Nerve" series. Thanks and can't wait for the next one
evmar 14y ago
These posts have been reminding me of Malcom Gladwell, in the unfortunate way: an collection of interesting anecdotes that together would make an interesting story instead are blown up into a broader statement that doesn't seem to follow.
- mej10 14y ago
  Let's see, the previous post is based on published psychological research, and this post points out a failing of humans that is, dare I say it, obvious to anyone that has critically observed any person, ever. He isn't exactly making controversial points here, but rather trying to raise the awareness of such ideas. He also isn't trying to sell you a pop-intellectual book.
- barking 14y ago
  I agree. There is also a bit more to the Sammelweis story than simply doctors refusing to be self-critical. From the wikipedia article on Sammelweis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis): "It has been contended that Semmelweis could have had an even greater impact if he had managed to communicate his findings more effectively and avoid antagonising the medical establishment, even given the opposition from entrenched viewpoints."
  - HarryHirsch 14y ago
    > It has been contended that Semmelweis could have had an even greater impact if he had managed to communicate his findings more effectively This is the point. Anyone who is properly introspective is already following the good advice given here. But how about the total ramrods one has to deal with on occasion, those people who are crazy and deluded, whose self-confidence totally exceeds their grasp of the subject matter? Blessed is the man who can say to his line manager "I won't deal with N.N. any longer, he is incompetent and unaware of it." But sometimes the constraints of work do not permit not dealing with some people, or the boss is the crazy one. What to do in such situations?
- opminion 14y ago
  And that's alright. Aaron is asking for feedback, not selling books and talks with this.

BCM43 14y ago

I think the biggest challenge of this is finding friends that will tell you when you are wrong. And no wonder, it's really hard. A friend of mine sent me a short story that they wrote not to long ago, and it was not very good. But I could not bring my self to say that, instead I made some little criticism and did not comment on the writing as a whole. Anyone have tips on how to do this better?

dpkendal 14y ago
The tricky aspect here is that most people believe that taste, and the 'quality' of artistic work, is mostly a subjective matter, but when they make criticism of art they treat their views as objective truth. Thus when you criticise a friend's work, or vice versa, the temptation is to think of it as "(Your|their) work sucks!" instead of "Oh well, (I|you) didn't like it, maybe someone else will." Semmelweiss, on the other hand, had no subjective matter. He had the statistics showing that as soon as doctors started washing their hands, infant mortality went way down. It was just the doctors' pride which made them think he was accusing them of regularly killing newborn babies. Of course there is bad art which everyone agrees is terrible, and telling people that truth is hard. In the end, though, it's better to be honest because it's probable that your friend would respond with a determination to do better next time. The trick is to be tactful.
- finnw 14y ago
  It's easy to criticise a minor detail of a friend's work, but harder to say "you don't have the talent for this, give up."
  - ryanmolden 14y ago
    >It's easy to criticise a minor detail of a friend's work, but harder to say "you don't have the talent for this, give up." I would question whether most people honestly have the expertise to make a judgement like 'you don't have the talent for this, give up'. I think people routinely overestimate their own abilities and discernment. Taking a hasty/faulty analysis and then telling someone to 'give up' seems like a terrible idea.

lectrick 14y ago

This anecdote, holy crap.

jblz 14y ago

Really good stuff. I'll try to take it to heart. Thanks for sharing :) Small gripe: 30em-wide text is pretty tough (for me, at least) to read on a high-res display

BryanB55 14y ago
agreed. I hate when people have anything less than 14pt font now. Luckily I have a readability for chrome installed.

tubbo 14y ago

I really wish I could read this but the text is 0.1px big. ;-) Seriously though, great article.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I've always told people that many of the best conversations with folks have started out with "Chuck I think you are wrong and here's why ..." This is especially useful when you are "important" (like someone's boss) because getting honest feedback when you are the boss can be nearly impossible at times. Steve Bourne (yes that Bourne) told me once that you should try to cultivate people who could give you a different view on the world, That is helpful stuff but you do have to also get people to be honest. That is hard to do if they think you're 'hot headed' or likely to shoot the messenger.

iSnow 14y ago

While overall, I like this article, there is real danger in advice like this: >Look up, not down. [...] to do that you need to look at the people who are even better than you. While this is great for those who exaggerate their skills, I doubt those would even read this piece. For people with self-esteem problems and a tendency towards depression, however, this is about the worst advice you can give, because they tend to look at the top 1% already and therefore experience their life as a complete failure. >But people will feel more comfortable telling you the truth if you start by criticizing yourself, showing them that it’s OK. In theory this is fine, but if you start seriously criticizing yourself in front of others, you anchor this critique in the minds of your listeners.

msluyter 14y ago
Cordelia Fine, in "A Mind of Its Own," makes a similar point: Fine says, "that your unconscious is smarter than you, faster than you, and more powerful than you. It may even control you. You will never know all of its secrets." So what to do? Begin with self-awareness, Fine says, then manage the distortions as best one can. We owe it to ourselves "to lessen the harmful effects of the brain’s various shams," she adds, while admitting that applying this lesson to others is easier than to oneself. Ironically, one category of persons shows that it is possible to view life through a clearer lens. "Their self-perceptions are more balanced, they assign responsibility for success and failure more even-handedly, and their predictions for the future are more realistic. These people are living testimony to the dangers of self-knowledge," Fine asserts. "They are the clinically depressed."
- bobwaycott 14y ago
  Is this merely a correlation, or are you (or Fine) attempting to posit causation here? That is to say, is this merely pointing out that viewing "life through a clearer lens" is seen in connection with higher frequency of clinical depression, or is the inference here that this clearer lens causes clinical depression? I find it a hard case to make the latter statement, and the former statement doesn't imply (to me) that one ought to eschew the clearer lens. I wonder if there is some analysis that digs into what mental processes, emotions, thoughts, etc. occur in the wake of viewing the world through the clearer lens that might lead to clinical depression? I feel like there could be some not-so-weak element of not having as balanced a view/method of how to respond to one's failures that would lead toward depressive thought patterns. I don't think self-esteem issues are caused by viewing oneself more objectively and rationally, but instead by placing unwarranted weight on the (potentially errant) conclusions one draws from a more objective view of oneself. That is, if one has a more balanced and nuanced objective view of the world, but has an equally unbalanced and un-nuanced view of oneself--say, that one's abilities or potential for improvement are strictly circumscribed and not easily changed--I would hedge my bets toward that person having a greater likelihood for depression than someone who does not draw such conclusions. I think I tend toward viewing myself and others fairly objectively, and actively work to do so. I also compare myself to others I subjectively and objectively find better in some ways. But then I respond by improving the parts of me that I have found to be weaker than those who are a level above my own. I don't experience depressive thoughts (that I am aware of). (shit, that's just anecdotal and can be dismissed. nevermind.) [edit: typo and calling out my own anecdotal evidence that is unhelpful]

Jun8 14y ago

This is a well-written and useful article. If a lot of people are against you you may be onto something big, or you may be just wrong. I wonder if Aaron will discuss the furor caused by his JSTOR activism (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-charged-with-data-theft/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-c... also see the many discussions on HN, e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2781615 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2781615). The case here is not as clear cut as, say, the case of Semmelweis. I am also undecided (hate the greedy closed magazines, don't quite approve the sneaking in part) on it. I would really know what his objective analysis of the situation is unless he's already done a post that I've missed or if he can't talk about a court case.

hansef 14y ago
I'm fairly sure that the federal case against Aaron is still being litigated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR), which means that he almost certainly can't discuss details publicly.
Poiesis 14y ago
Personally, I enjoy his writing and feel like it's none of my business how the JSTOR case is going. It does occur to me, though, that a post of his about legitimate self-critique might actually be somewhat related to regrettable past deeds such as you mention. Or, I could be wrong. Who knows?

di 14y ago

> Force students through an embarrassing initiation to take a class, and they’ll insist the class is much more interesting. Does anyone know which experiment he is referencing here?

jeremyjh 14y ago
There are so many studies like this it is hard to say which one specifically he may be referring to. There is a mountain of literature on the topic; as usual, Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
- mistercow 14y ago
  It frustrates me a little when people conflate cognitive dissonance with effects caused by dissonance reduction, like in this article. Cognitive dissonance is simply the uncomfortable experience of believing two conflicting things. Dissonance reduction is the class of biases that we use to reduce that discomfort.
theorique 14y ago
It sounds like the bonding process for (e.g.) fraternity hazing, or the Marines. I don't have specific cites, but I do recall reading this in various psychology texts.
ryanmolden 14y ago
I seem to recall reading this in Thinking Fast and Slow[1], but I can't find an online citation and only have the book in dead-tree form at home. I suspect it falls into this general realm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification edit: Specifically I believe I recall this (from the linked Wikipedia page) in Thinking Fast and Slow: One of the first and most classic examples of effort justification is Aronson and Mills's study.[2] A group of young women who volunteered to join a discussion group on the topic "Psychology of Sex" were asked to do a small reading test to make sure they were not too embarrassed to talk about sexual-related topics with others. The mild-embarrassment condition subjects were asked to read aloud a list of sex-related words such as "prostitute" or "virgin". The severe-embarrassment condition subjects were asked to read aloud a list of highly sexual words (e.g. "fuck", "cock") and to read two vivid descriptions of sexual activity taken from contemporary novels. All subjects then listened to a recording of a discussion about "Sexual Behavior in Animals" which was dull and unappealing. When asked to rate the group and its members, control and mild-embarrassment groups did not differ, but the severe-embarrassment group's ratings were significantly higher. This group, whose initiation process was more difficult (embarrassment = effort), had to increase their subjective value of the discussion group to resolve the dissonance. The cited study is: Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959) The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology ,59, 177-181. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346094018&sr=8-1&keywords=Thinking+fast+and+slow http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

incision 14y ago

I'm always up for an Ignaz Semmelweis [1] reference. I read his story for the first time when my woman was taking a Microbiology course. Incredible stuff. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

tptacek 14y ago

Semmelweis is a favorite "management science" topic; there's even a pop-psych phenomenon called the "Semmelweis Reflex"; the Wikipedia article on it recapitulates much of what Aaron wrote here. The Gladwell formula of using Semmelweis' personal narrative to articulate a frailty of human reasoning was employed to great effect in Ayres _Super Crunchers_; the Semmelweis section is, for instance, noted prominently in the NYT book review. Aaron has oversimplified the Semmelweis story in some material ways: * Semmelweis didn't institute "handwashing" in Vienna hospitals. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, which suggests that doctors in the 1840s were sticking horse-manure-covered hands into the exposed wounds of patients, handwashing was apparently already a norm. What Semmelweis did differently was to use lime to wash hands. * Semmelweis' actual theory of the cause of childbed fever was wrong, and it was wrong in ways that made his recommendations hard to take seriously. Semmelweis' contention was that "cadaveric particles" were making their way into patients, and that those particles could only be removed by lime. But doctors observed cases in which no contact with either cadavers or injected or symptomatic patients lead to the same cluster of illnesses. It was thus difficult for Semmelweis to make a "scientific" case for why the lime worked; it obviously didn't help that he was wrong about why it did (his work predates the germ theory of disease, which would have taught him that rather than lime being effective at removing specific particles, it was instead effective at killing bacteria). * Aaron's story (and Ayre's) has a heroic Semmelweis pleading for doctors to simply wash their hands in a specific way to save lives. But that's not necessarily what Semmelweis was arguing. Instead, the case he could have been making, loudly, was for an actual, specific, incorrect cause of childbed fever. * Semmelweis himself was, apparently long before he lost his post, a notorious asshole. It did not help his cause that instead of carefully reasoning about the actual evidence, he instead seized on a single explanatory theory of childbed fever and then demanded (often by barging into hospital wards and berating the staff) that his peers adhere to it. The point is not that Semmelweis didn't make an important discovery, or that we shouldn't be mindful of warped-sounding new knowledge that contradicts our existing theories. Of course we should be objective when considering facts that threaten our existing theories. But there's a reason John Snow and Joseph Lister [and Pasteur] are better known in the development of the germ theory of disease, and there's more to learn from the Semmelweis story than how the audience to a new theory should behave.

deleted 14y ago

limist 14y ago

A bit of observation, of self or others, will quickly show we all exhibit the Semmelweis Reflex at some time or another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex

Alex3917 14y ago

Just wanted to add that there is another interesting article here that links the Theory of Contagion to sympathetic magic: http://laphamsquarterly.org/essays/very-superstitious.php?page=all http://laphamsquarterly.org/essays/very-superstitious.php?pa... Apparently the idea that diseases can spread through contagion is a prime example of something that was previously considered to be magic that later came to be accepted by science.

saraid216 14y ago
Sympathetic magic was one of the first forays into actual science. It sought explanatory power for phenomena. That they did this ass-backwards and propagated through superstition and rumor is why it's not actually science, but when you start talking about controllable and manipulable mechanisms, you've taken the first important step. "Magical thinking" doesn't refer to this. It refers to an utter ignorance of the mechanism, leaping from observation to conclusion without isolating any variables experimentally.

MattSayar 14y ago

Semi OT, but I signed up for email alerts at the bottom of the previous article in this series, and haven't received an email since. Am I alone with this?

joshmlewis 14y ago
Maybe email him and let him know?

iandanforth 14y ago

While this, on its face, looks like good, morally sound advice, I worry about the practicality of it for a certain class of individuals. The people I see in leadership positions are far more likely to be narcissistic sociopaths than reflective mediators. If you're not in a position of power / individual freedom, this is excellent advice to make sure that you can, and are seen to, play nice with others. It will probably help your blood pressure and promotion prospects. I'm just not convinced that this strategy is one that leads to the top more often than brutal myopia and conceit.

cin_ 14y ago
The top of what?
bstpierre 14y ago
I don't think he meant "top" meaning (necessarily) leaders of a hierarchy. I think it meant more like look to people who are performing "better" than you -- for whatever thing you want to measure.

ilaksh 14y ago

The thing about new ideas being rejected (better/different hand washing) reminds me of how everyone thinks that a web page or web application UI must to be hand coded. I think that is very stupid and eventually we will use graphical tools to create the UIs for web pages and web applications and look back at the days when every single web page had to be hand coded in HTML and CSS and laugh.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Evgeny 14y ago

saying “You were right, I was wrong.” It didn’t destroy her reputation; it rescued it. [...] Wayne Hale took full responsibility: “The bottom line is that I failed to understand what I was being told…I am guilty of allowing Columbia to crash.” He was promoted. When JFK admitted the responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco was “mine, and mine alone,” his poll numbers soared I would guess that the survivorship bias is at play here. How many people we will never hear about took responsibility and were demoted, fired or prosecuted?

pdonis 14y ago
Not only that, but Aaron seems to be skating perilously close to the position that admitting that you screwed up is, in itself, sufficient reason for you to be promoted. It's not.

naner 14y ago

This is what we’re taught: make five compliments for every criticism, sandwich negative feedback with positive feedback on each side, the most important thing is to keep up someone’s self-esteem. But, as Semmelweis showed, this is a dangerous habit. Sure, it’s awful to hear you’re killing people—but it’s way worse to keep on killing people! Semmelweis did exactly what you're advocating and he was marginalized for it. Maybe he would have fared better if he was more conscientious of their feelings?

astrofinch 14y ago

Great post. Whenever I remember, I try to thank people who criticize me, so they'll be willing to do it again. They really are taking a risk.

ozim 14y ago

That was what I hated about my previous work. Damn management was so protective that you could feel good about yourself, so there was no negative feedback and there was no way you could improve. I think they wanted us to work for them for low wage and never get better job. But in the matter of facts we sucked badly at that job, I felt this, and I felt it when I was going to interviews, I got new job and we'll see how it will turn out.

etruong42 14y ago

>"people will feel more comfortable telling you the truth if you start by criticizing yourself, showing them that it’s OK." I disagree with this assertion. Some people criticize themselves in hopes that their listeners will contradict them. For these self-criticizers, affirming their critical statements greatly upset them. I have not found much correlation in my personal life between people who criticize themselves and their ability to listen to criticism. There are other attributes which I have found correlations, such as being easygoing and thoughtful. I still often try to gauge a person's willingness to listen to criticism by starting with very small criticisms and working my way up.