4 ms·

This goes both ways. I've tried to be a helpful force in a few coder's lives, but something prevents them from taking the advice to heart, and instead of getti

This goes both ways. I've tried to be a helpful force in a few coder's lives, but something prevents them from taking the advice to heart, and instead of getting better, they just stop coming to me. I then only run into their code during code reviews, and when I point out the issues, they take it as me saying, "you're no good", and never fix the issues, preferring to slink away into the night. What's a guy supposed to do? I can't accept the code they write, and if/when I point out why I can't, they won't bother updating the code, and prefer to instead just disengage entirely from the process to go work on something else.

jnbiche 12y ago
>I've tried to be a helpful force in a few coder's lives, but something prevents them from taking the advice to heart, and instead of getting better, they just stop coming to me. Why do you think that is? (Sincere question)
- Kalium 12y ago
  There's a surprisingly large number of coders who believe themselves much better than they are. Giving them useful feedback, no matter how supportive or positive, is extremely difficult.
  - pekk 12y ago
    How did you determine that you are not one of the coders who believe themselves better than they are? Because if you are misled about your own ability, you might also be misled about which feedback is useful. Is it possible that there is a surprisingly large number of coders who believe their feedback more useful than it is? If coder feedback tends to be useful, then isn't it likely that meta-feedback on the usefulness of feedback is useful?
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Then suddenly it becomes impossible to offer any feedback. Or discuss offering feedback. Or discuss even the possibility of feedback. ----- How do you feel about goldfish?
- DenisM 12y ago
  Most people ignore the advice they are given, that's just how people are. They have to come to a conclusion under their own power, or else it just won't stick. There are exceptions that should be studied to understand the phenomenon. One thing I know there are people who will diligently take and address feedback, but only of one particular kind. For example, where I worked at Microsoft code review feedback was sacred - you never complained about it unless it was demonstrably, factually wrong, and you did as you were told. There probably were people who didn't follow these rules, but if so they did not last very long. Another example is master/apprentice relationship, where apprentice relegates his creative autonomy to the master for certain duration. This is largely imaginary at this point, as I've never seen this happen myself, but it's worth looking into. Yet another example is people's reliance on authority status - when an authority says something, many people are inclined to believe it just because. You will note these are all exceptions to the rule however. Outside of these narrowly defined areas, people largely ignore any advice they are given. It is for that reason many people who have something to say keep it to themselves - they don't want to waste their time. Sometimes I bump into someone misguided and I just look at them smiling politely without saying much. Sometimes I also see people smiling politely at me, when that happens I try to unwind last few minutes of my words to see what could have gone wrong...
peterwwillis 12y ago
This might seem like a strange comparison, but this reminds me of how positive reinforcement is related to training animals and small children. When you use positive reinforcement as a learning tool, the individual is more predisposed to behave properly and will want to follow your cues more. It could be the reason they're no longer coming to you is you're not giving them enough encouragement and positive feedback. You can also try to engage more, like go to them and offer to help explain what is is you'd like them to do, or answer questions. (It could also be the opposite and you may need to back off from engaging... people are complex)
- pekk 12y ago
  It's a great comparison, and related to the folk wisdom of "you catch more flies with honey." Using punishment on animals often causes avoidance and aggression, which isn't usually the overt objective. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised when punishing coworkers causes avoidance and aggression (especially when we are not being genuinely constructive or don't have solid reasoning). And maybe we should recognize that this isn't usually what we want for an institution primarily oriented toward building useful products. Then a big question is why people keep repeating abusive cycles even when they manifestly doesn't work. Maybe they think these things work despite abundant disconfirming evidence. But I think a more common answer is that making things work in that sense isn't a real objective. The real objective is to exercise their own aggression and show dominance because that's what works for them. The bad dog owner doesn't really kick the dog for pooping on the carpet to make it stop, but because it's gratifying to kick the dog and have it be afraid. If the poop is not an undesired outcome, but only a sign of insufficient submission, then it is a sufficient correction to convincingly reassert dominance (and no dog wants to be kicked). If our response to punishment-induced avoidance, as in much of this HN thread, is then to tear the avoiders down socially for not heeding our manifestly expert criticisms, I think what's going on is probably more about entitlement to aggression and reinforcement of dominance than productivity of the relationship. We might believe or state that we are offering helpful but unpleasant medicine, but if our response to the patient not taking it is some kind of social aggression rather than anything effective, that suggests our unstated emotional reasons are not as we would have others believe. This attitude fits with the tech idea that the social structure, the company, etc. are actually meritocracies. Actual meritocracy sounds fine, but the ideology that we are IN a meritocracy has other uses. If I am in a position to abuse you, I will naturally tend to believe that this is because I am actually better than you and I am entitled to abuse you. In turn, I may accept this system because eventually seniority will allow me to become the abuser. Like dedovshchina and institutions at many boys' schools and fraternities, and exactly like tech hiring as well.

jnbiche 12y ago

>I've tried to be a helpful force in a few coder's lives, but something prevents them from taking the advice to heart, and instead of getting better, they just stop coming to me. Why do you think that is? (Sincere question)

Kalium 12y ago
There's a surprisingly large number of coders who believe themselves much better than they are. Giving them useful feedback, no matter how supportive or positive, is extremely difficult.
- pekk 12y ago
  How did you determine that you are not one of the coders who believe themselves better than they are? Because if you are misled about your own ability, you might also be misled about which feedback is useful. Is it possible that there is a surprisingly large number of coders who believe their feedback more useful than it is? If coder feedback tends to be useful, then isn't it likely that meta-feedback on the usefulness of feedback is useful?
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Then suddenly it becomes impossible to offer any feedback. Or discuss offering feedback. Or discuss even the possibility of feedback. ----- How do you feel about goldfish?
DenisM 12y ago
Most people ignore the advice they are given, that's just how people are. They have to come to a conclusion under their own power, or else it just won't stick. There are exceptions that should be studied to understand the phenomenon. One thing I know there are people who will diligently take and address feedback, but only of one particular kind. For example, where I worked at Microsoft code review feedback was sacred - you never complained about it unless it was demonstrably, factually wrong, and you did as you were told. There probably were people who didn't follow these rules, but if so they did not last very long. Another example is master/apprentice relationship, where apprentice relegates his creative autonomy to the master for certain duration. This is largely imaginary at this point, as I've never seen this happen myself, but it's worth looking into. Yet another example is people's reliance on authority status - when an authority says something, many people are inclined to believe it just because. You will note these are all exceptions to the rule however. Outside of these narrowly defined areas, people largely ignore any advice they are given. It is for that reason many people who have something to say keep it to themselves - they don't want to waste their time. Sometimes I bump into someone misguided and I just look at them smiling politely without saying much. Sometimes I also see people smiling politely at me, when that happens I try to unwind last few minutes of my words to see what could have gone wrong...

peterwwillis 12y ago

This might seem like a strange comparison, but this reminds me of how positive reinforcement is related to training animals and small children. When you use positive reinforcement as a learning tool, the individual is more predisposed to behave properly and will want to follow your cues more. It could be the reason they're no longer coming to you is you're not giving them enough encouragement and positive feedback. You can also try to engage more, like go to them and offer to help explain what is is you'd like them to do, or answer questions. (It could also be the opposite and you may need to back off from engaging... people are complex)

pekk 12y ago
It's a great comparison, and related to the folk wisdom of "you catch more flies with honey." Using punishment on animals often causes avoidance and aggression, which isn't usually the overt objective. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised when punishing coworkers causes avoidance and aggression (especially when we are not being genuinely constructive or don't have solid reasoning). And maybe we should recognize that this isn't usually what we want for an institution primarily oriented toward building useful products. Then a big question is why people keep repeating abusive cycles even when they manifestly doesn't work. Maybe they think these things work despite abundant disconfirming evidence. But I think a more common answer is that making things work in that sense isn't a real objective. The real objective is to exercise their own aggression and show dominance because that's what works for them. The bad dog owner doesn't really kick the dog for pooping on the carpet to make it stop, but because it's gratifying to kick the dog and have it be afraid. If the poop is not an undesired outcome, but only a sign of insufficient submission, then it is a sufficient correction to convincingly reassert dominance (and no dog wants to be kicked). If our response to punishment-induced avoidance, as in much of this HN thread, is then to tear the avoiders down socially for not heeding our manifestly expert criticisms, I think what's going on is probably more about entitlement to aggression and reinforcement of dominance than productivity of the relationship. We might believe or state that we are offering helpful but unpleasant medicine, but if our response to the patient not taking it is some kind of social aggression rather than anything effective, that suggests our unstated emotional reasons are not as we would have others believe. This attitude fits with the tech idea that the social structure, the company, etc. are actually meritocracies. Actual meritocracy sounds fine, but the ideology that we are IN a meritocracy has other uses. If I am in a position to abuse you, I will naturally tend to believe that this is because I am actually better than you and I am entitled to abuse you. In turn, I may accept this system because eventually seniority will allow me to become the abuser. Like dedovshchina and institutions at many boys' schools and fraternities, and exactly like tech hiring as well.