5 ms·

This analogy is fundamentally flawed, both literally and metaphorically: A surgeon isn’t a manager, they do the actual work! But their skills and time are

This analogy is fundamentally flawed, both literally and metaphorically: A surgeon isn’t a manager, they do the actual work! But their skills and time are highly leveraged with a support team that handles prep, secondary tasks, admin. The surgeon focuses on the important stuff they are uniquely good at. First, the literal. Surgeons are managers of the operations they perform and heavily rely on the surgical team with which they work. If the author had any clue about surgeries, they would understand that the most important person in a major surgery is the anaesthesiologist, not the surgeon(s). Second, the metaphorical. The author goes to great lengths to identify "grunt work" as being "not the most intellectually fulfilling or creative part of the work." What they do not do is understand that there is no such thing as "grunt work" if, for any definition of work, it is valued without judgement. But if a person identifies with being "the surgeon", with everyone else being "a support team that handles prep, secondary tasks, admin", then the post makes sense from an egocentric perspective.

simonw 1y ago
What makes the anaesthesiologist more important? > But if a person identifies with being "the surgeon", with everyone else being "a support team that handles prep, secondary tasks, admin", then the post makes sense from an egocentric perspective. They're not talking about other people being the support team. They're calling the AI tooling the support team.
- seanhunter 1y ago
  The anesthetist is the person who is primarily responsible for the patient remaining alive. You can decide for yourself whether that's more or less important than what the surgeon's doing. As someone who has had to have 3 surgeries in the last few years I'm very grateful that both the surgeon and anesthetist in each case did a fantastic job and didn't do anything like the author of TFA is suggesting. FWIW I don't think the analogy in the article survives knowledge of what surgeons actually do.
  - croes 1y ago
    The analogy should give you a hint of your kind of responsibility and work. It may be flawed but most people get the point especially compared to vibe coders who just wait outside the operating room
chrismorgan 1y ago
> the most important person in a major surgery is the anaesthesiologist, not the surgeon(s) Could you explain more? It seems to me that, as sans surgeon there is no surgery, the surgeon is inevitably the most important person. Anæsthetic in its current form is a comparatively recent invention; historically major surgery was done without it, and in emergencies can still be done without it (at the cost of excruciating pain and far higher risk of negative outcomes, of course).
- rkomorn 1y ago
  I learned about this recently, myself, and was surprised and ended up looking into it. I read that the anesthesiologist is the person responsible for the patient during the surgery. Apparently their role is: - Provide continual medical assessment of the patient - Monitor and control the patient’s vital life functions, including heart rate and rhythm, breathing, blood pressure, body temperature and body fluid balance - Control the patient’s pain and level of consciousness to make conditions ideal for a safe and successful surgery The gist I got from the other things I've read is that the anesthesiologist also has the most go/no-go responsibility before and during surgery. Source: https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/anesthesiology/patient-information/role-of-the-anesthesiologist/ https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/anesthesiology/patient-i... Edit: I recommend reading more about the anesthesiologist's role. I found it interesting even as an entirely casual observer.
  - chrismorgan 1y ago
    I do know all that, but it still doesn’t really seem enough to qualify them as the most important person. Sure, they have the biggest power of veto, but without the surgeon, there is no surgery at all. Remove the anæsthetist, and procedure forbids you from continuing. Remove the surgeon, and it’s impossible to continue. … Or remove the patient. I guess the patient is the most important person there after all! (Actually, that does a pretty good job of showing how the entire notion of “most important” may not make sense.)
    - hdjfjkremmr 1y ago
Vedor 1y ago
I find that a lot of similar analogies are flawed. On the landing page of one of the frameworks (I don't remember which one, unfortunately) there was a description comparing a programmer to a woodworker. It was written that this woodworker, as a reliable and skilled craftsman, makes meticulously each piece of furniture with the same care, which isn't really true. For example, quite often the back panels remained unfinished, with traces of aggressive planing. So the whole premise that "this framework will help you craft software as meticolously as woodworker crafts furniture" doesn't check out.
- simonw 1y ago
  If an analogy isn't flawed it's not an analogy, it's a description.
jumploops 1y ago
I assume you haven't read The Mythical Man-Month[0]? The author is referencing an existing analogy from Fred Brooks, and building upon it. Sure, today the anesthesiologist might be the most "important" person in the room, but that's not the idea behind the analogy. Your emphasis that surgeons "heavily rely on the surgical team" is just as important to Brooks' beliefs, in that the "Chief Programmer" is only able to do what they do via the support of the team. The "grunt work" (noted by the author) seems solely focused on tasks given to the "Co-pilots" (or assistant programmers), notably with no specific mention to the other supporting roles (admin, editor, secretaries, clerk, toolsmith, tester, and "language lawyer"), many of which have been replaced by SaaS tooling (Github, Jira, Notion, Docusaurus, etc.) or filled by other roles (PMs, SDET, etc.). Furthermore, the author even states: > I hate the idea of giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team. Yes, junior members will often have more grunt work, but they should also be given many interesting tasks to help them grow. The author clearly sees less experienced programmers as mentees, rather than just some grunts whose work is beneath them. The analogy may not be perfect, but their message about "AI coding tools" should be valued without judgement (and without accusations of egocentric thinking). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  > I assume you haven't read The Mythical Man-Month[0]? Actually, I have read Brooks' seminal work. > Your emphasis that surgeons "heavily rely on the surgical team" is just as important to Brooks' beliefs, in that the "Chief Programmer" is only able to do what they do via the support of the team. What Brooks described as "Chief Programmer" would now be called an "Architect" or "Principal Engineer", amongst other similar titles. Programmers at that time defined and verified their solutions before submitting them to be "encoded." This task was typically performed by "coders," being the people who transcribed programs into punch cards (or equivalent) for execution. The role of "coder" has long since been eliminated by the ability of programmers to encode their solutions themselves. >> I hate the idea of giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team. Yes, junior members will often have more grunt work, but they should also be given many interesting tasks to help them grow. > The author clearly sees less experienced programmers as mentees, rather than just some grunts whose work is beneath them. This is not clear to me at all. How does "giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team" convey a mentor/mentee relationship and not exactly what the author states? To be exact, the author explicitly identifies a class of team members as being "lower-status." > The analogy may not be perfect, but their message about "AI coding tools" should be valued without judgement (and without accusations of egocentric thinking). Anytime someone equates "junior members" to "lower-status members" and uses self-aggrandizement to describe their role in an effort, I am going to call that out using the most charitable description I can - a purely egocentric perspective.
croes 1y ago
Does the analogy say the surgeon is the most important person? The surgeon does the work. You can even do an operation without the most important person but hardly without someone taking the position of the surgeon. Ask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov

simonw 1y ago

What makes the anaesthesiologist more important? > But if a person identifies with being "the surgeon", with everyone else being "a support team that handles prep, secondary tasks, admin", then the post makes sense from an egocentric perspective. They're not talking about other people being the support team. They're calling the AI tooling the support team.

seanhunter 1y ago
The anesthetist is the person who is primarily responsible for the patient remaining alive. You can decide for yourself whether that's more or less important than what the surgeon's doing. As someone who has had to have 3 surgeries in the last few years I'm very grateful that both the surgeon and anesthetist in each case did a fantastic job and didn't do anything like the author of TFA is suggesting. FWIW I don't think the analogy in the article survives knowledge of what surgeons actually do.
- croes 1y ago
  The analogy should give you a hint of your kind of responsibility and work. It may be flawed but most people get the point especially compared to vibe coders who just wait outside the operating room

chrismorgan 1y ago

> the most important person in a major surgery is the anaesthesiologist, not the surgeon(s) Could you explain more? It seems to me that, as sans surgeon there is no surgery, the surgeon is inevitably the most important person. Anæsthetic in its current form is a comparatively recent invention; historically major surgery was done without it, and in emergencies can still be done without it (at the cost of excruciating pain and far higher risk of negative outcomes, of course).

rkomorn 1y ago
I learned about this recently, myself, and was surprised and ended up looking into it. I read that the anesthesiologist is the person responsible for the patient during the surgery. Apparently their role is: - Provide continual medical assessment of the patient - Monitor and control the patient’s vital life functions, including heart rate and rhythm, breathing, blood pressure, body temperature and body fluid balance - Control the patient’s pain and level of consciousness to make conditions ideal for a safe and successful surgery The gist I got from the other things I've read is that the anesthesiologist also has the most go/no-go responsibility before and during surgery. Source: https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/anesthesiology/patient-information/role-of-the-anesthesiologist/ https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/anesthesiology/patient-i... Edit: I recommend reading more about the anesthesiologist's role. I found it interesting even as an entirely casual observer.
- chrismorgan 1y ago
  I do know all that, but it still doesn’t really seem enough to qualify them as the most important person. Sure, they have the biggest power of veto, but without the surgeon, there is no surgery at all. Remove the anæsthetist, and procedure forbids you from continuing. Remove the surgeon, and it’s impossible to continue. … Or remove the patient. I guess the patient is the most important person there after all! (Actually, that does a pretty good job of showing how the entire notion of “most important” may not make sense.)
  - hdjfjkremmr 1y ago

Vedor 1y ago

I find that a lot of similar analogies are flawed. On the landing page of one of the frameworks (I don't remember which one, unfortunately) there was a description comparing a programmer to a woodworker. It was written that this woodworker, as a reliable and skilled craftsman, makes meticulously each piece of furniture with the same care, which isn't really true. For example, quite often the back panels remained unfinished, with traces of aggressive planing. So the whole premise that "this framework will help you craft software as meticolously as woodworker crafts furniture" doesn't check out.

simonw 1y ago
If an analogy isn't flawed it's not an analogy, it's a description.

jumploops 1y ago

I assume you haven't read The Mythical Man-Month[0]? The author is referencing an existing analogy from Fred Brooks, and building upon it. Sure, today the anesthesiologist might be the most "important" person in the room, but that's not the idea behind the analogy. Your emphasis that surgeons "heavily rely on the surgical team" is just as important to Brooks' beliefs, in that the "Chief Programmer" is only able to do what they do via the support of the team. The "grunt work" (noted by the author) seems solely focused on tasks given to the "Co-pilots" (or assistant programmers), notably with no specific mention to the other supporting roles (admin, editor, secretaries, clerk, toolsmith, tester, and "language lawyer"), many of which have been replaced by SaaS tooling (Github, Jira, Notion, Docusaurus, etc.) or filled by other roles (PMs, SDET, etc.). Furthermore, the author even states: > I hate the idea of giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team. Yes, junior members will often have more grunt work, but they should also be given many interesting tasks to help them grow. The author clearly sees less experienced programmers as mentees, rather than just some grunts whose work is beneath them. The analogy may not be perfect, but their message about "AI coding tools" should be valued without judgement (and without accusations of egocentric thinking). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> I assume you haven't read The Mythical Man-Month[0]? Actually, I have read Brooks' seminal work. > Your emphasis that surgeons "heavily rely on the surgical team" is just as important to Brooks' beliefs, in that the "Chief Programmer" is only able to do what they do via the support of the team. What Brooks described as "Chief Programmer" would now be called an "Architect" or "Principal Engineer", amongst other similar titles. Programmers at that time defined and verified their solutions before submitting them to be "encoded." This task was typically performed by "coders," being the people who transcribed programs into punch cards (or equivalent) for execution. The role of "coder" has long since been eliminated by the ability of programmers to encode their solutions themselves. >> I hate the idea of giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team. Yes, junior members will often have more grunt work, but they should also be given many interesting tasks to help them grow. > The author clearly sees less experienced programmers as mentees, rather than just some grunts whose work is beneath them. This is not clear to me at all. How does "giving all the grunt work to some lower-status members of the team" convey a mentor/mentee relationship and not exactly what the author states? To be exact, the author explicitly identifies a class of team members as being "lower-status." > The analogy may not be perfect, but their message about "AI coding tools" should be valued without judgement (and without accusations of egocentric thinking). Anytime someone equates "junior members" to "lower-status members" and uses self-aggrandizement to describe their role in an effort, I am going to call that out using the most charitable description I can - a purely egocentric perspective.

croes 1y ago

Does the analogy say the surgeon is the most important person? The surgeon does the work. You can even do an operation without the most important person but hardly without someone taking the position of the surgeon. Ask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov