Software Executive Decries 'Toxic Certainty Syndrome' (glowforge.com) 217
Michael Natkin is the VP of software engineering at the 3D printer company Glowforge. In a recent post on the company blog, he argues that the tech industry has "glorified overconfidence" with its philosophy of "strong opinions, loosely held":
The idea of strong opinions, loosely held is that you can make bombastic statements, and everyone should implicitly assume that you'll happily change your mind in a heartbeat if new data suggests you are wrong. It is supposed to lead to a collegial, competitive environment in which ideas get a vigorous defense, the best of them survive, and no one gets their feelings hurt in the process. On a certain kind of team, where everyone shares that ethos, and there is very little power differential, this can work well. I've had the pleasure of working on teams like that, and it is all kinds of fun...
Unfortunately, that ideal is seldom achieved. What really happens? The loudest, most bombastic engineer states their case with certainty, and that shuts down discussion. Other people either assume the loudmouth knows best, or don't want to stick out their neck and risk criticism and shame. This is especially true if the loudmouth is senior, or there is any other power differential... Even if someone does have the courage to push back, in practice the original speaker isn't likely to be holding their opinion as loosely as they think. Having stated their case, they are anchored to it and will look for evidence that confirms it and reject anything contradictory. It is a natural tendency to want to win the argument and be the smartest person in the room.
As a fix, he suggests adding a degree of uncertainty to statements -- which makes it easier for you to adjust them later while also explicitly encouraging feedback.
For example, in announcing the blog post on Twitter, Natkin wrote that "I'm about 60% sure it's useful."
Unfortunately, that ideal is seldom achieved. What really happens? The loudest, most bombastic engineer states their case with certainty, and that shuts down discussion. Other people either assume the loudmouth knows best, or don't want to stick out their neck and risk criticism and shame. This is especially true if the loudmouth is senior, or there is any other power differential... Even if someone does have the courage to push back, in practice the original speaker isn't likely to be holding their opinion as loosely as they think. Having stated their case, they are anchored to it and will look for evidence that confirms it and reject anything contradictory. It is a natural tendency to want to win the argument and be the smartest person in the room.
As a fix, he suggests adding a degree of uncertainty to statements -- which makes it easier for you to adjust them later while also explicitly encouraging feedback.
For example, in announcing the blog post on Twitter, Natkin wrote that "I'm about 60% sure it's useful."
Confidence itself is toxic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but meetings would be even longer.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it's going to depend upon what your standard is. Are you developing a new fidget spinner, or are you making some mission critical tool to be used during brain surgery. What does your risk chart look like? Do you need it to work 100% of the time, or is 90% good enough? If it's 100, then it doesn't matter how damn long your meetings are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bombast is the way these days. A quiet thoughtful person who looks at all angles and brings up possible problems is considered "defeatist" or "negative" or some thing else. And it's rampant in technology and is spreading to other areas because it works. It's in politics now - *cough*Trump*cough*.
And someone with a lot of charisma can develop a following where they will shut down any disagreement or actual statement of facts for said charismatic person - *cough*Elon Musk fan boys*cough*.
"We will be profit
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention his idiotic proclamations about Mars colonies, AI, and Hyperloop and autonomous driving. Yet his cult loves him and people line up to throw money for him. Because, after all, he can "land a rocket". The amazing thing is that "landing a rocket" was demonstrated over 40 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA had reusable rockets years before spaceX was a twinkle in Elon's eye.
Exploding reusable rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to criticize him without disparaging his obvious accomplishments.
Re: Confidence itself is toxic (Score:2)
Defeatism is when you propose problems but refuse to help consider solutions.
I like to poke holes in things, but then I also bring the answer, or a way to find the answer, to the table. I very much dislike when people are focused on, "OMG we can't do this, there's no way," instead of, "we have problems A, B, and C, which arise from L, M, and N, and our options for tackling them are X, Y, Z."
All of those are subject to adding additional problems, sources, and options, otherwise the problem-solving process si
Re: Confidence itself is toxic (Score:2)
Let's also be clear: when I don't have an answer for something or it's out of my competency, I say that. I say the words, "I don't know the answer to that, but I can look into it."
If I didn't know how to admit when I don't know the answer, my other utterances would carry much less weight. Knowing when to open your mouth and when to say "no," or "I don't know," is a critical skill.
I frequently also give confidence estimates in what I'm saying, from, "I'm talking out my ass and you need to fact-check my educa
Re: (Score:2)
We apparently share this approach, to see the vulnerabilities. Sadly, with some business partners and especially their managers, they won't allow me to provide the published solution I already have for the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, confidence is absolutely essential in a modern office environment, but at the same time it is poisoning the atmosphere.
The problem is that confidence is seen as a quality itself - it is something that especially mediocre management is looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically a Darwinian process, except that for engineers promotion takes the place of sex.
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically a Darwinian process, except that for engineers promotion takes the place of sex.
Truer even than I believe you intend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confidence itself is toxic (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been giving certainty scores ("I'm 80% certain this is so") since I started work long ago. About 2 years in, a moderately senior person who was attending a meeting with my boss took me aside and told me that my job was not only to make recommendations, but to make my boss feel comfortable about taking those recommendations.
By hedging, I was doing the company harm, because bosses would naturally take a worse unqualified recommendation over my qualified recommendation. After all, what sales pitch tells you the chance of failure up front. My responsibility to the company was selling a recommendation I felt was the best, and qualifying my recommendation harmed that sales pitch.
He finally added "if you don't learn how to sell instead of assuming logic wins out, 30 years from now, you'll still be a programmer".
It was valuable advice and I took it to heart. Because of that advice, nearly 40 years later I'm happily a programmer instead of being miserable as a manager.
Re: (Score:3)
Every nudge, like this above, toward fostering a cultural habit of probablistic thinking is a step forward...
But shades and probabilities are the first data to be collapsed into tl;dr black and white by people confronted with too much information to process as it is.
The natural, evolution-honed instinct to shrug off the weight of suspended judgement and store information in its least expensive form is too easy to obey, even for those who are aware of its influence and actively try to keep it in check.
Our br
Re: (Score:2)
> Effective communicators intuitively understand that their primary service is, essentially, the curation of a highly (and necessarily) lossy compressed stream of reality.
I love this line!
Thank you so much for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is quite a bit of emphasis on speaking "with confidence" in almost all professional training.
If you want to get your way in business, in life, you need to learn to present yourself confidently. Whether you are actually confident, or not.
Note that this guy's solution (adding a degree of uncertainty to statements) doesn't work, because people who want to come across as confident will inflate their degree of certainty. Those who are smart about it will inflate it not beyond the edge of plausibility, but more than the other guy, so they get their way.
Re: (Score:2)
And then how do you explain yourself when you end up being wrong, and costing your boss a ton of money? Anyone who tells me that they're certain is usually a fool. Don't suffer fools.
Re: (Score:2)
And then how do you explain yourself when you end up being wrong, and costing your boss a ton of money?
There are dozens of ways to handle this. Watch Donald Trump for a less sophisticated approach, but ultimately if your boss made the decision, it's his fault for losing the money, not yours.
A more sophisticated approach is to be confident when you are selling them on it, then later on talk with them and say, "Hey I just want to make sure you understand the risks involved here" and present them with a page of fine-print, which you help them understand. If you start with the risks, you may never get a chanc
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's technique will only work if you're the boss. He'd have been fired long ago if he was working for anyone else.
For your more nuanced approach, I hope your risk presentation is coming prior to the boss making his/her decision. Otherwise, your confidence is only going to buy you one or two failures.
Re: (Score:2)
If I talk to you, I am happy to give you an answer in terms of probabilities of success. When I talk to most people, they don't understand statistics, so I talk to them in language they understand.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also useful in job interviews, where it can come across as "confidence" or as "knowing your field well".
> It makes these voices, which are arguably more likely to be right, seem less likely to be right.
I'm afraid that this sentence is why a confident but wrong answer is likely to be listened to. It is "arguably more likely to be right" for even ludicrously false claims. It is feasible, and possible for other arguments to be right. It may, for some subjects, even be _likely_ to be right depending. B
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When someone speaks "with confidence", mentally add "hold my beer" and you'll get closer to the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Warranted suspicion until they dump the sloppy thinking.
The problem is those who DO know best. Thanks Mari (Score:2)
> An alternative is to just not hire, or to properly tackle toxic team members who think they know best, but don't, and drown everyone else out in the process.
Loud mouths who don't actually know what they are talking about are easy enough to deal with. It's the people who are highly qualified that are more difficult. If you and I were discussing the Linux storage stack and Neil Brown were in the room, Neil would be right 95% of the time. I could think one thing, bit hearing Neil Brown say the opposite
Re: (Score:2)
Loud mouths who don't actually know what they are talking about are easy enough to deal with ... have you seen the current crop of politicians?
The thing is, obnoxious loudmouths are so sure they're right, they're prepared to make up any old shit, because hey they're right so what does it matter, as long as the right thing gets done. It's much easier to make stuff up than it is to convincingly rebut it because the made up stuff is often a nice story about (in engineering) being faster, cheaper and better wit
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what TFA is getting at. There's a world of difference, even for a very senior engineer saying "we should try tabulating the flibbertigibbit" and "tabulating the flibbertigibbit is absolutely the only way to go". The first implies that the results will need to be measured and compared, the second implies that has already been done. Perhaps more to the point, the first implies there is room for alternative suggestions, the latter says sit down, shut up, and do it even if that's not what the speaker
Pretty much what I was saying (Score:2)
That's pretty much what I was saying, though I was taking it a bit further. I think the article even takes it a step further ...
> There's a world of difference, even for a very senior engineer saying "we should try tabulating the flibbertigibbit" and "tabulating the flibbertigibbit is absolutely the only way to go"
And then there is "do you think tabulating the flibbertigibbit might be sufficient?", or even as the article suggests "I figure tabulating the flibbertigibbit might have a 70% chance of working
Ps cot caught, bot bought, kat (Score:2)
Immediately after I wrote that, I had occasion to address this issue with my daughter. She's very smart, and sometimes corrects her friends or other people. Anyway, that reminded me of another tactic I learned.
If she spells "I cot the ball", or "I bot a toy at the store", I've learned to point out that her answer is perfectly reasonable. In fact, B-O-T is a correctly spelled word. It just so happens that in this case, we need to spelling c-a-u-gh-t.
I've learned to do the same at work, though I often forget.
Re: (Score:2)
By saying we should try, I imply less than complete certainty while not myself becoming the ignored party in an environment of toxic certainty. Sometimes small steps are necessary.
More measures are needed/useful. What those are depends on one's position within the group.
A very direct one is "I'm open to suggestions".
Re: (Score:2)
The hole in the plot is that 5% when Neil is wrong but nobody is willing to call him on it because there's a culture of "Neil is usually right."
That's the kind of thing that requires a good manager. You don't want to ditch Neil because he's really good (especially if the culture build up out of true respect rather than Neil just being a jerk whenever he gets challenged.) But at the same time you have to be able to empower your junior developers to speak up when they think it's necessary without risking ex
Which is why I talk to Neil, Ted T'So, Vint Cerf (Score:2)
Exactly. If I'm the senior dev, I'm *more likely* to have the best plan, but certainly I don't *always* have the best plan. That's the challenge for the whole team - manager, senior, and junior.
The senior needs to develop both humility and skills in communicating in ways that invite discussion (the proper amount of discussion). The manager / team lead needs to develop skills and processes, such as early of conducting meetings. The juniors need both humility and courage in order to say what's on their mind
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I've been blessed with senior directors to whom I can say in private things like "why on earth would somebody use this solution?", "bad shit will happen" and "I wouldn't do this, X is better". Not all management is like that.
Re: (Score:2)
How to do work that is complex (Score:2)
2. Work on what is needed within the resources and time.
3. Find something that works.
4. Get ready for the next work related task.
5. A company/brand/project/mil/gov/NGO/charity goes from success to success.
Re:How to do work that is complex (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Ensure everyone in the room is hired on merit and has the skills to work.
That is precisely what this article is about.
A Dunning-Kruger poster child who loudly shouts down people isn't meritorious regardless of his[*] other skills. Someone like that is a liability because actual professionals have better things to do with their lives than continually wade though his shit. If management don't kick that guy's arse out, then the actual professionals will either find a different project to work on or leave.
[*]Why yes, I'm actually thinking of a small number of specific cow workers I've known over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
[*]Why yes, I'm actually thinking of a small number of specific cow workers I've known over the years.
Oh, the black and white spotted ones are the worst. Always chewing their cud.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the Dunning-Kruger poster child IS the management.
They exist at all levels. A bit problem with management is that lots of tech companies don't really believe in it, valuing tech above all else. So tech people who do well get promoted. There's no training for management nor an attempt to figure out who might be good at management before being promoted into it.
Trouble is, ability to code an algorithm doesn't correlate with ability to tell an idiot to STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
"We hire on merit" is a fancy way for racist trash to keep out non-whites. Moreover it is against federal law.
Because if you hired purely on merit, you would get too many Asians. Federal law tends to get written by people who don't like that.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what race-blind admissions lead to? Whites getting pushed out by Asians.
"With affirmative action outlawed, Asian American students have dominated admissions. The freshman class admitted to UC Berkeley this coming fall is 30 percent white and 46 percent Asian, according to newly released data. The share of admitted Asians is four times higher than their percentage in the state's kindergarten to 12th grade public schools." -- link [foxnews.com]
"Currently, Asian-American students, who represent about 5% of public h
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably get out of the dairy industry.
You say that but I suspect there's more bullshit in the tech industry than any industry working with cows.
Re:How to do work that is complex (Score:4, Interesting)
Ensure everyone in the room is hired on merit and has the skills to work.
The whole point is that is damn near impossible to determine when the industry is stuffed with people who emphasize confidence over competence. It can become obvious once underway, but in larger companies where resource calls are made higher up they often fall for the... interpretation given by the blowhard.
Basically, you can get more success by conning your way through a career than being good at your job but not claiming competency above your level.
Re: (Score:1)
Turds like you burn books, you don't slam them around.
Moderation (Score:5, Interesting)
"The loudest, most bombastic engineer states their case with certainty, and that shuts down discussion."
This is why meetings need a moderator. Nobody gets to dominate the meeting, regardless of position. I received moderator training years ago, and it helped immensely during design/code reviews.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Precisely. What is toxic about this situation is the apparent lack of leadership. A single person who can give every perspective its due consideration, and then make an authorative decision on how to proceed - accepting both blame and praise for the consequences. Few things are as stressful as working in an unclear power hierarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely the sort of leader of which there seems to be a serious shortage. Iâ(TM)m still amazed and appalled at how most decision making - at any level - is done in large corporations.
I always thought there is a very simple way to get to correct decisions: First, you answer the question: "What do we want?", and then you answer the question: "How do we get there?". I've very rarely seen a decision made that way. Usually it's just everyone saying their opinions, more or less loudly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moderation (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely. What is toxic about this situation is the apparent lack of leadership.
It's both. An asshat doesn't get a free pass on being an asshat just because the asshat should have been stopped. But yes leadership IS a big problem. A lot of tech companies want the fiction that they have a flat, merit (and by merit, they usually seem to mean "can code google interview algorithms well") based structure. What that often means is lacking leadership and management, and leads to precisely the sort of thing described in the article.
Re:Moderation (Score:4, Insightful)
But yes leadership IS a big problem.
This is because leadership, as a concept, is being taught wrong or not at all. Leadership is about taking responsibility for an action or decision. Responsibility is a passé concept these days. Now, what passes for leadership is more akin to dodging responsibility for as long as possible, taking credit fpr whatever successes can be found regardless of involvement, and finding someone to scapegoat for any failures. That's the easy "leadership" role. That and a healthy dose of sociopathy and a total disregard for ethics.
The hard one involves listening to subordinates, learning about the subject matter enough to make qualified decisions, admitting when you're wrong, acknowledging contributing players who were crucial to success, mentoring those who came up short, and recognizing those who aren't a good fit regardless of any other attributes they may have.
The former is easy because it requires no real skill, just ruthlessness. The latter requires real work and talent which is why there are so few real leaders anymore. Work? Nobody has time for that! Take the easy path no matter the cost so long as you come out on top! Everyone else may be crushed, the project may fail, it may cost millions or billions in the long run, but so long as you advance your position or get a bigger paycheck, who cares, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why meetings need a moderator.
No, its why you should point out dishonest fucks when they are being dishonest fucks. If someone "states their case with certainty" but they are not actually certain, its called a lie, not "confidence."
Once the dishonest fuck has been labeled in front of everybody for being the dishonest fuck that they are, their utterances will no longer "shut down discussion" and will instead have the opposite effect.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that... At this point you have nothing to prove that the dishonest fuck in question isn't actually certain - or even wrong. So, you're just being another loudmouth trying to use social capital to bully out the first loudmouth. You're just another part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you suppose should be doing that? Get the point? And no, you don't get to disrespect people in any of the meetings I moderate. You can point out logic failures, you can explain what's wrong with their presentation, you are reviewing the product/idea, not the person presenting it. The person presenting will either learn from that, or not. Some of those people are new, and making honest mistakes. Those that aren't are quickly identified and dealt with outside of the process, and w/o much wasted t
Re:Moderation (Score:4, Interesting)
This presumes there is someone in the room that *can* recognize and challenge the perspective. Even if someone might possibly have a different thought, they are likely to interpret the apparent certainty of the speaker as "well maybe he knows something I don't, after all my thoughts going into this aren't based on enough experience..."
There are some people I know who act in this manner. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they very much are wrong, and unless I know first hand what they speak of, I have no way to tell which case it is that day. On average, their projects are failures, so I just position myself to not be on their teams unless I have enough knowledge/skill on the subject matter to feel like I can go toe to toe with them and be justified. In general I would still rather avoid them since I just don't trust people who are always confident despite obvious proof they shouldn't be.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to tell what kind of projects you're talking about, but let me give you an example...
When doing code or design reviews, it was each reviewers responsibility to come to the meeting having previously read the review package. That way, they could bring up concerns during the meeting w/o wasting everyone's time. Normally, we'd have the person make their presentations, and anyone could speak up as they went through the package, raising concerns. The presenter might be able to respond with an answer that
Measure It (Score:1)
"I'm about 60% sure it's useful."
That's a bombastic statement without the measurements backing it up. Remember to attach methods, determination of uncertainty and risk on your report, fellow engineer.
It comes to mind that a software engineer would need to understand both quantitative and qualitative methods and their limits. And to go "meta" on them regularly. That would be something my education definitely lacked and the culture around it actively discouraged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead we should be training people to assume there ARE qualifiers even when they're not stated, to ask relevant questions, and keep the discussion intellectual and not emotional.
That's a good idea.
Sometimes it's actually good to shut down (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes it's actually good to shut down the discussion. If it was never shut down, software engineers wouldn't ever get anything done, instead spending all their time on inane bikeshedding over the most ridiculous bullshit imaginable. At some point a senior engineer (or a manager, though that's not ideal) has to put an end to this idiocy and make everyone actually move towards the end goal again.
Re: (Score:3)
And let's face it, if the topic is 'how to reduce the world's population', you're going to tell the guy who wants to snap his fingers and kill half of them to sit down and stfu.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or elect him and follow his twitter feed.
Please excuse me, it was too obvious to pass by.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but that isn't what we are talking about. But you can still make a decision, but let it be known that it it might not be the right one. The problem is when people think they need to "shut down" discussion so they proclaim certainly when there is none.
Worked under a toxic boss once (Score:2)
Outside the office, he pictured himself as God's gift to women. That's where that 99% certainty came from.
100% certain (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Confidence isn't toxic (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are in fact right, then of course you should be confident. That's the nature of truth: when you're right, you're right.
What you should never be is arrogant. You can't know everything. Some intellectual humility is required even of the great. Yes, you may have found the pearl of great price by digging through the field of error, but it's probably still got a bit of mud sticking to it. Hold on the pearl, but be humble enough to let others wash off the dirt.
Re:Confidence isn't toxic (Score:4, Interesting)
Justified confidence is good.
However the world rewards and education encourages exuding unjustified confidence. If you are 90% certain of something and are right but soften your position by admitting to 10% chance of being wrong, then the person who is 10% certain of something but exudes 100% confidence will be listened to over you in a disagreement.
This is the effect being called out as I see it. Appearing 100% certain despite knowing there's a strong possibility of changing your mind later is the 'strong opinions, loosely held'. The 'loosely held' doesn't matter when the initial 'strong opinions' wave off critical examination, which is what happens in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
I was once pushed on this pretty hard in an interview for a consulting position, basically from my resume and grades said I was very smart and how I'd work together with people that were more average and wouldn't let me argue about that. Also one of the corporate values was humility. The answer I gave, which at least was good enough I got the job was that being smart is not the same as knowing everything or immediately understanding things. I'd be working with customers who obviously know their domain and h
In theory, sure... (Score:3)
"If you are in fact right, then of course you should be confident. That's the nature of truth: when you're right, you're right."
In theory, sure. In real life the "data set" that you are basing your conclusions on can be bad or incomplete without you realizing it so while you might be correct in the context of the data you are using you are in fact wrong. This can happen to even the most intelligent people as it can be awfully hard to know for certain in many instances if your data set is based on good data
Re: (Score:1)
Even if I have a strong opinion, it's not about certainty that I am right, it's about having a good reason for holding that view until some other information is presented.
For example, our main software "architect" is using several microservices. They waste time, are poorly implemented, and poorly documented. I don't see any net benefit in them, and our organizational structure doesn
Re: (Score:2)
Been saying something similar for years. (Score:1)
I think this Dunning-Kruger type of effect is especially present in IT because how many people in tech/IT are masters of their domain(s). Sort of gods of a reality that they control 100%. It would from their perspective follow that they have an equal mastery over other levels of abstracted reality, which of course could not be further from the truth.
Software Release Delays (Score:1)
Is Mr. Natkin suggesting that the Toxic Certainty Syndrome is what is responsible for the Glowforge pass though slot alignment software that was promised in September 2015 (yes, that is correct, 44 months ago) not being released yet? Many people made early purchase of the Glowforge Pro model of their laser cutter based upon the pass though slot automatically aligning the design when using long materials put through the slot. Yes, there are ways of doing this manually, but that is most definitely not how
Re: (Score:2)
The "OWBNID" Syndrome (Score:2)
Yes, it's called the "Often Wrong But Never In Doubt" syndrome.
Here's how it works: You state your position with an attitude of total absolute certainty and never show the slightest doubt about it, as if it's a proven fact, a done deal. You shoot down any objections by implying that the person objecting is stupid, inexperienced, or hasn't done their research. You raise your voice and double down on your position, warning of terrible consequences if any path but yours is taken.
A lot of people will fall for t
Re: (Score:2)
Only good arguments for your position will convince me. Make treats, give warnings, ask me to "trust you", calling me stupid or ridiculing my position is the best way to convince me that you know nothing at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Only good arguments for your position will convince me. Make treats, give warnings, ask me to "trust you", calling me stupid or ridiculing my position is the best way to convince me that you know nothing at all.
That's nice, but it's your boss he's convincing, not you.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's how it works: You state your position with an attitude of total absolute certainty and never show the slightest doubt about it, as if it's a proven fact, a done deal. You shoot down any objections by implying that the person objecting is stupid, inexperienced, or hasn't done their research.
Woah flashback!
Raise your hand if this makes you instantly think of any current or former coworker!
"Oh, if only the rest of the world was as smart as me then we wouldn't run into these pesky insurmountable issues!
Re: (Score:2)
I know this guy!
We all know this guy. Some of us know several of them.
loud and popular wins the day ! (Score:5, Interesting)
We're talking about engineering, not science. In science, we doubt. It's required. Nobody dares to jump up and say he/she has 'the answer'. We hint, suggest, encourage thinking in a certain direction, but never propose any final truth.
Why should engineers be different? Presumably engineers are working toward a product with commercial value. They face competitors who want to reach the market first. No time for wishy-washy thinking. They want the best answer they can get in the least amount of time- they can fix it later.
Here's a fine point in TFS to note: "most bombastic engineer states their case with certainty, and that shuts down discussion." Did you see "states THEIR case"? This is an allowance that a woman may conceivably be involved in the discussion. Very generous. How bombastic she will be is of interest. They tend not to be. Which brings up a split in how we look at the 'winner' in these discussions.
One likely winner will be the most bombastic.
Another likely winner will be the one with the highest social standing.
In neither case is it likely to be the most thoughtful person in the room. The quiet person. The woman? As a science minded person this strikes me as unfortunate. From a practical viewpoint, it may be best.
Interesting use of ... (Score:2)
... "executive."
Reminded me of current events and I'll be goddam if the whole fucking summary didn't fit, as well.
Engineering by cave-men (Score:3)
Even worse than engineering by committee. These people destroy, nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse than engineering by committee. These people destroy, nothing else.
Engineering by anger.
It's also interesting the feedback loops that happen. Often these people get their way because if management doesn't shut them down then it's miserable and the competent people head off and find something else to do.
So they get their way and can meet with success. What's required for success is "adequate" combined with "right place at the right time". Surprisingly mediocre systems can meet with success, and the
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much how it works, yes. If it has success, it is _their_ success. If it fails, somebody else is at fault. We often need to be very careful in documenting what we warned customers about, because they are actively not listening and we can see the train-wreck wayyy before it happens.
A Partial Defense Of Strong Opinions Loosely Held (Score:2)
As someone who behaves this way (and indeed tries to persuade others to adopt it) I have to admit I found this analysis compelling and the author raises some very good points.
But the primary advantage of strong opinions loosely held isn't that it gives you the best survey of what employees might think but that, when it works, it most effectively puts those opinions to the test by encouraging people to pick a side and develop the best arguments they can for their point of view. For some purposes, e.g., afte
Move fast and break (other people's) things. (Score:2)
Simplest + loudest + shortest out-propagates everything else, is retained better than everything else, and degrades less in transit than everything else.
Signal jamming in meatspace.
Bonus: this compression model can also frees up mental bandwidth and real estate to accommodate an additional (and to those doing the signalling, supremely important) attribution payload.
this is news? (Score:3)
This has been obvious for years. The loudest engineers, the guys with the strongest opinions who fight to squash anyone else, are generally wrong. After all, if they had a good, well reasoned argument, they wouldn't mind discussion. But no, they have to be "right" so they work to crush dissent. Such guys are the worst of the worst.
Method doesn't work on Slashdot, won't work IRL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
One of these is not like the other.
"Collegial" comes directly from academic colleges - places where people would hold debates and definitely vigorously defend their strongly held viewpoints.
Re: Collegial? Vigorous defense? (Score:1)
Well, given that colleges are the opposite now, I would say confusion over that word makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is the first part about proclaiming certainty when you are far from certain.
Confidence is a strong qualitative indicator of how much you *should* believe someone. If someone is just always 100% confident (but they *can* change their minds later), then you have very little way of trusting anything such a person says.
Re:More bullshit SJW nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
If you just qualified your words I wouldn't be afraid to challenge them.
But the practice being criticized is *not* qualifying your words.
If I'm full of it but no one has called me on it and I pretend it's certain, there is a great deal of inclination to look elsewhere for things to do and accept what I say as fact. It would mean work to challenge me or work to ascertain some other 'truth', and if I give no indication of uncertainty, then the alternative pursuits appear more productive.
Now when it comes down to something that matters more or people are passionate about, sure, I'd probably get challenged. But a great deal of our 'taken at face value, don't bother re-examining' knowledge can be rooted in crappy guesses presented as fact. The attitudes called out make it challenging to know at a glance what ideas are truly solid and what ideas are someone projecting confidence beyond what is warranted.
Re: (Score:2)