[HN Gopher] Don't be afraid to be wrong
___________________________________________________________________
Don't be afraid to be wrong
Author : shelika
Score : 45 points
Date : 2023-09-16 18:44 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nlopes.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (nlopes.dev)
| 71a54xd wrote:
| This is flat out bad advice - being wrong is okay sometimes but
| if it becomes a pattern or you make yourself look like always
| needing aid from other devs or team members you'll quickly paint
| a target on your back as the next person to be cut or fired.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Yes it sort of depends are you wrong or do you just fear it but
| you are not really wrong.
| robswc wrote:
| When you're in a meeting where everyone has gotten past the fear
| of being wrong, its a whole different dynamic and breath of fresh
| air.
|
| Suddenly the complexity melts away and people admit asking a
| professional is better than BSing a solution.
| vaylian wrote:
| I wonder to which extent this fear can be attributed to the
| school system which literally penalizes students for being
| wrong.
| burkaman wrote:
| Obviously it depends on the school and the teacher, but I
| don't think is is generally true. You get penalized for being
| wrong on a finished assignment (which can also happen at
| work), but it is not uncommon to have open classroom
| discussions where nobody is punished for asking questions or
| saying something wrong. This is the norm in my experience, I
| can't claim it's the norm everywhere but it doesn't seem
| unusual based on other people I know.
| stringtoint wrote:
| I'm sure this is a part of why this fear exists. Middle
| Eastern countries are especially harsh in that sense imo:
| you're afraid of making mistakes or making your family "look
| bad"(tm).
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Generally, the cultures that place high value on
| "preserving face", struggle with the fear of being _proven_
| wrong.
| Aurornis wrote:
| As opposed to the workplace, where nobody is ever penalized
| for being wrong?
|
| The reality is that performance is rewarded basically
| everywhere in life. Id argue that schools actually have some
| of the least penalties for being wrong compared to what
| happens in the real world.
|
| Frankly, if an education system doesn't teach people about
| the relationship between performance and grades/outcomes,
| they wouldn't be prepared for the real world. I've seen this
| in a number of people fresh out of college who absolutely
| melt down the first time they encounter anything other than
| glowing feedback. Depending on the school systems you go
| through, it's possible to get all the way through college
| without really experiencing anything other than passing
| grades and praise and infinite opportunities to try again
| with extra help. Once those people hit the real world and
| encounter consequences, it's a painful learning experience.
| kortilla wrote:
| In workplaces you can iterate to come to a correct solution
| with feedback from peers and supervisors. So it's nothing
| like school tests where you have to get everything correct
| the first time you swing.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| It's more, something in our DNA. Being confident and/or right
| many times increases or at least increased our chances of
| passing on more of our DNA. Hence there's more people with
| such DNA.
|
| (my DNA will punish/praise me hormonally according to the
| amount of resulting downvotes/upvotes. Since I'm rather
| confident, i take my chances here. Also I'll try to apply the
| article's advice if I fail.)
| Aurornis wrote:
| There is a kernel of truth to this argument: There must be some
| allowance for being wrong some of the time for a team to really
| thrive. If one wrong move results in outsize penalties to your
| reputation, your performance review, or your compensation then
| everyone is going to avoid taking any risks. It becomes safest to
| do nothing at all and adhere closely to the status quo, because
| you can't be wrong if you avoid making any calls on your own.
|
| However, this article takes this concept a little far, in my
| opinion. There must be some room for being wrong after making a
| good faith effort and doing proper research, but we have to be
| honest that being wrong on important outcomes will never be
| perfectly free of consequences even in the most idealistic
| workplaces. If you're wrong as often as you're right, people will
| notice. People take account of how often others are rigit and
| wrong and will factor that into judgments. It's only natural.
|
| In a healthy workplace, making the right call most of the time
| should open up room for being wrong occasionally. Nobody is
| perfect! If a company is handing out outsize penalties, explicit
| or otherwise, for single incidences of being wrong then that's
| toxic and bad.
|
| However, I've worked with people who are so unafraid of being
| wrong that they can't be trusted. They'll take on projects they
| know they're not qualified to do because they don't mind failure.
| They'll answer questions they aren't qualified to answer because
| they're not afraid of leading someone astray. They'll pull the
| trigger on high stakes issues quickly because they're more
| concerned about doing something than doing the right thing.
| Everyone around them learns this quickly and adapts around it. It
| becomes an obstacle to promotion, as it should in a company that
| chooses leaders who can be trusted.
|
| It's a balance.
|
| This article makes a mistake I see from a lot of casual advice
| writers, which is to first construct a hypothetically ideal
| workplace and then explain how to operate within their ideal
| workplace:
|
| > In my posts, especially when providing advice, I will assume
| you work in a healthy workplace environment. If you work in a
| psychologically unsafe environment, none of this even matters -
| if possible, and safe, search for a different job.
|
| This advice tends to feel good because it always describes a
| perfectly safe, secure workplace that caters to the employee (the
| reader) with little or no regard to anything else like their
| coworkers, the company, or the bottom line. In the real world,
| it's never that simple. It's easy to say "quit your job" to
| anyone who doesn't see this ideologically perfect scenario in
| their own workplace, but the reality is that people need to learn
| how to operate within the realities of an imperfect, real
| workplace.
|
| Definitely search for better jobs if you're at a toxic company!
| However, don't expect any company to live up to some of the lofty
| ideologically pure scenarios that get described in advice
| columns. In the real world, you're going to have to weigh the
| risks and consequences of being wrong and adapt as you learn more
| about how the company and your peers react. Behave accordingly
| and operate with a feedback loop, but watch out for irrational
| paranoia about being wrong.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Seems like not being trusted is the only consequence to being
| wrong, but otherwise whatever system is in-place is designed to
| reward people who try and do things they're confident in
| approaching, but not necessarily sure of or measured to be good
| at, and that's a very common theme in management in every
| bureaucratic structure I've seen. It's not particularly
| relevant what choices they made or whether they're good or bad
| or have residual effects if they were either the only one who
| stepped up to try it or they were selected arbitrarily. It's
| the system that enables balancing effects or risk, not
| individual components.
|
| No manager I've ever had has been good with people, their job
| has never been to be good with people, and there are rarely any
| consequences that have anything to do with that, other than
| perhaps high turnover and lots of complaints, but that only
| happens when there are other options for subordinates and a
| valid place to complain to, which also never exists.
| shelika wrote:
| I think my intent is less different from what you stated on how
| it comes across.
|
| Especially this bit "I've worked with people who are so
| unafraid of being wrong that they can't be trusted.". Hopefully
| the article doesn't come across as "be mindless" in the
| workplace. In fact in the conclusions I state that this is no
| substitute for hard work and thinking critically.
|
| > "first construct a hypothetically ideal workplace and then
| explain how to operate"
|
| I don't think this is what I stated but I know it wasn't the
| intent. Hopefully, working on a psychologically safe workplace
| isn't hypothetically ideal.
|
| I'm definitely learning a few tricks on what I should be
| clearer by reading the comments though so thank you.
| beebeepka wrote:
| One interesting aspect of this is pair programming. I have
| noticed that sometimes even little ol' me can't focus enough
| while sharing a screen.
|
| Frankly, I am not completely sure why that happens. Sure, trying
| to keep a conversation going is not free in terms of attention,
| but I have caught myself more than once just wanting to end the
| session so that I can do totally stupid things for a couple of
| minutes. Now, why would I prefer that, unless I am somewhat shy
| of showing weakness or something
| arter wrote:
| I believe the author addresses the core issue of why we have a
| fear of being wrong in the first paragraph. Toxic work
| environment or the belief that the work environment is toxic.
| Work is only an edge case here too, we are afraid to be wrong in
| all environments. (I say "we", but of course some are more afraid
| than others.)
|
| And I believe that showing a scared person the merits of not
| being scared and experimenting might motivate them temporarily
| and most likely get them to agree... but it will not stick.
| Because fear is a very powerful impulse that has roots that can
| go very deep and wont't just stand up and move to a little more
| nutricous soil. People have very, very good reasons to feel fear
| that are rooted in their past and they are most often
| irrefutable. What is refutable is that these reasons no longer
| exist or that one might now have other skills to deal with them.
|
| Sadly this is an individual issue and the method for fixing it is
| case by case.
|
| Similarly - this works the same way for confidence. Knowing that
| the benefits of being confident outweight the cons will not make
| you confident.
|
| They can provide motivation though.
|
| Source - only my personal experiences. Fear leaves me only if I
| feel safe or if I expend a great deal of effort to supress it
| temporarily. The latter of which is courage and willpower and
| both are not infinite.
| abnry wrote:
| I think there are two types of engineers:
|
| - Those who approach technical conversations where all facts
| stated must be always true (usually details-oriented people).
|
| - Those who approach technical conversations where facts stated
| should converge to the truth (usually highly intuitive people).
|
| These two types tend to frustrate each other. Although, I would
| contend that everyone needs to have the capacity to operate in
| either mode.
|
| For example, you _must_ be technically correct when programming.
| You cannot omit a closing parenthesis. However, if you are
| working on trying to solve the overall problem, usually something
| that could have multiple implementations, you need to brainstorm,
| which is best done when you are free to state things imprecisely.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| I recognize that. My colleague would say, I'm fixing that in
| the docker. Then i ask (somewhat frustrated) 'the dockerfile,
| the docker image or the docker container?' Then he answers
| (somewhat frustrated) 'that's a detail I don't want to go into
| now.' And I understand it like, 'damn I didn't even think about
| that, i just fend him off'. My other colleague, who has great
| empathy, says: "you are very blue, he's very red".
| fragmede wrote:
| I'm not sure what blue vs red is, in this context, but I
| can't tell if the frustration is because your colleague
| thinks you're asking because you don't understand docker, or
| because you question their understanding of docker.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| I know he knows docker well enough, but somehow he finds
| something a detail, where i find that difference important.
| That said, i do get what you're saying, indeed this might
| be the issue.
| ivix wrote:
| If it's a detail to them, they might be looking at a
| bigger picture than you are.
| hnhg wrote:
| This is an interesting perspective. I think these might
| actually be modes of thought, since I've experienced these
| attitudes from the same people just at different times. I'll
| keep this comment in mind.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| hmm...Atelophobia is more than just the fear of being wrong; it
| encompasses a broader fear of imperfection and making mistakes in
| various ways. Fear of being wrong is _related_ to it, but
| Atelophobia extends to a general apprehension about not meeting
| one 's own or others' expectations. So more like a fear of
| failure, reluctance to take risks, or a constant attempt to
| attain perfection
| shelika wrote:
| Indeed. I was willing to leave it in and get this feedback.
| Well observed
| xwowsersx wrote:
| Still, a great post. Thanks for sharing.
| cloogshicer wrote:
| I've been teaching programming to complete beginners for a few
| years now.
|
| One of the things holding them back the most is being too afraid
| to admit when they don't understand something.
|
| This is despite many efforts on our part to give them a safe
| environment where such an admission is not ridiculed, but
| congratulated instead.
|
| I really wish that culturally, we all were more kind when people
| openly display confusion, misunderstanding, and errors in
| thinking.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| There were some studies with firemen that showed the following
| technique was better than traditional teaching:
|
| 1. Explain/demonstrate right things to do. 2. Have the students
| criticize other people's work to find deviations. 3. Have the
| students do the work themselves.
|
| That is: by looking at other people fail it takes the ego out
| of it.
| roenxi wrote:
| As a beginner, they don't plausibly understand anything.
| Understanding functions and variables is a deep topic that can
| take years to master. If it is possible to truly understand
| them and assuming human knowledge has reached the point where
| we understand functions completely - I feel confident we've got
| variables although even then it is hard to be sure. And that
| covers all of programming! I suspect in a large number of cases
| "admit when you don't understand something" is useless advice
| because the problem is they can't identify discrete chunks of
| knowledge to practice.
| jvans wrote:
| This holds back people of every level. Paradoxically I think it
| holds senior people back more because once someone gets a
| sufficiently senior label, they think they should have all the
| answers and stop asking questions
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| Saying something wrong out loud is like asking for help if among
| societies dedicated to the enlightenment.
|
| To remain silent and wrong inside, is to truly loose ones face
| forever.
| Asraelite wrote:
| I agree on the parts about being more willing to share ideas and
| healthily accept criticism about them, but in general this
| article feels like it's presenting a false dichotomy: that you
| must either state things metter-of-fact or stay silent.
|
| It's possible to share a belief while expressing an appropriate
| level of uncertainty about it, and this is something I really
| wish more people did rather than blurting out falsehoods with
| confidence all the time. There's no harm in adding "I think ...
| is likely" or "AFAIK ... seems the most probable" etc. Reserve
| direct assertions for things you are _actually_ sure about. And
| then if you 're wrong about _those_ things, reflect on what led
| you to be more certain than you should have been and try to
| prevent it from happening again.
|
| I think everyone should strive to never be 100% certain about
| things that end up being wrong.
| stringtoint wrote:
| "Reserve direct assertions for things you are actually sure
| about." is something I keep saying as well. I wish more people
| would follow this approach.
| Jensson wrote:
| When someone says "A is B" you should hear "I think A is B",
| that makes everything much simpler since there are very few
| things people are certain about.
|
| When making a stronger statement people say "I'm certain A is
| B".
|
| Edit: Take your post as an example, it is about twice as long
| as it has to be since you add so much padding to mark
| uncertainty. Humans are uncertain about most things, if you say
| something I'll assume that is what you think and it isn't the
| whole truth, that is what everyone does, just learn to not be
| afraid of being wrong and just do the simple thing that is easy
| to read.
| MrJohz wrote:
| I find that tends not to be true, although this may be a
| cultural thing. When people say "A is B", what I find they
| usually mean is "I think that A is B, but I have not
| questioned this opinion particularly strongly and do not have
| a confidence level attached to this belief". And very often
| the default confidence level people attach to their
| unquestioned opinions is relatively high, which means for
| them it typically lies relatively close to the "I am certain"
| mark.
|
| This is why I find it's really helpful to purposefully
| indicate when I'm saying things that are merely my opinions,
| when I'm saying things that I'm certain about, and when I'm
| somewhere in-between. Partly, it indicates to the to the
| other person the degree to which I hold a given opinion, but
| it mainly just helps me hold myself accountable about the
| assumptions I'm making: is this something I have sincerely
| thought about and formulated a belief about, or is this just
| an intuition that I've not tested yet?
| Jensson wrote:
| > When people say "A is B", what I find they usually mean
| is
|
| The important part is what confidence levels people are
| used that you have when you say "A is B", not what the
| person who said it is thinking. As you said here, you know
| people are wrong a lot when they say it, so that is what "A
| is B" means, it means "I think A is B".
|
| The exception is if you are saying it from a place of
| authority like being a teacher or writing a manual. If you
| are an authority then you should hedge what you say if you
| aren't confident, but HN comments aren't an authority,
| there is no need to hedge what you say here, everyone knows
| you are just saying what you think. If someone was an
| authority they would start the comment with it.
| MrJohz wrote:
| Well the important part for me is what confidence levels
| _I_ have, which is why I wrote the rest of the comment
| about why I try to distinguish between my opinions and my
| facts.
|
| But yeah, when I'm reading things, I take them with a
| grain of salt (or depending on the topic, rather more
| than a grain). But I always trust people who are capable
| of expressing their own confidence levels more, because I
| can see that they've considered the topic more fully. For
| example, I don't like microservices, but I trust the
| comment that talks about microservices with qualified
| positivity far more than the one that just says
| "microservices are bad because XYZ" without giving any
| indication of the nuances involved in such a decision.
| Jensson wrote:
| > But I always trust people who are capable of expressing
| their own confidence levels more, because I can see that
| they've considered the topic more fully
|
| You shouldn't since it makes you vulnerable to social
| manipulation and bullshitters. People know you think like
| this, so those who wants to manipulate will talk like an
| authority, which is why you see ChatGPT use a lot of
| hedging and fluff language like this, because it makes
| people trust what it says more. Don't fall for that, it
| is so easy to fake.
|
| But sure, if you want to manipulate people you should
| speak like that since it makes them trust you more. But
| that has nothing to do with being wrong or not, since
| people don't view you as an authority if you don't speak
| like that and therefore don't trust you then that means
| it is the correct way to speak if you aren't sure.
|
| You don't get tricked since I don't hedge my language,
| that is exactly what I want.
| roenxi wrote:
| The necessity of the verbal construct "I think X" logically
| suggests that all the other times someone is lying. Which
| isn't the case, I just find the implication funny.
|
| People have a weird relationship with confidence. Because
| most people can't assess facts for themselves (reality is
| horrible, complex and it is good strategy to let someone else
| figure it out) they rely on the speaker's confidence to gauge
| how true something is. I guess is there is some sort of
| follow-up social system to punish people when their expressed
| confidence is out of line with what the expert consensus is,
| treating them as though they were exposed liars.
|
| So on the one hand I personally prefer your approach - it is
| easier just to add a mental "I think" in front of everything
| everyone says because that is the real situation. And on the
| other don't expect the flowery language to go away because
| there is a social game playing out.
| shelika wrote:
| Author here. I really hope it doesn't come across as "blurt out
| falsehoods with confidence all the time"- I do mention in the
| conclusion that this is no substitute for working hard and
| thinking critically.
|
| Definitely agree with all you said.
| Sakos wrote:
| Also, have the grace to admit when you're wrong and to adapt to
| new information.
| Jensson wrote:
| That is a part of "don't be afraid to be wrong".
| Sakos wrote:
| I think it needs to be said explicitly.
| barrysteve wrote:
| Being wrong is often directionless and flat, with excessively
| repetitive work.
|
| Mining people for concepts is an incredibly slow way to progress.
|
| Being right often requires order of magnitude less time. Nobody
| notices.
| dylan604 wrote:
| "I just found 999 ways to not make a lightbulb."
|
| SpaceX blowing up rockets but still being considered a
| successful launch test.
|
| Many times in the world, you _have_ to be wrong enough times to
| know that the suspected correct answer truly is correct. To
| call that directionless and flat is just naive on a very large
| scale.
|
| There are times that some people can get to the correct answer
| faster, and it can be extremely frustrating to have the feeling
| of being held back or slowed down for everyone else to catch
| up. That's an ego problem that person needs to contend with and
| not a fault of everyone else.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| The problem is the terms "wrong" or "right". If I tell
| everyone confidently that https is all you need for a secure,
| privacy focused site then that is a different kind of wrong
| to companies that are set up to do experiments.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >The main thing to remember is that being wrong isn't the end of
| the world
|
| well it depends on how wrong you are. Being wrong, especially
| being wrong and confident can be a pretty costly combination.
| There's a reason the principle 'be liberal in what you accept,
| conservative in what you send' exists in programming. Being
| afraid of being wrong imposes a cost on you, not being afraid
| generally tends to impose a cost on others.
|
| The fear of being wrong isn't just some evil invention by a team
| leader with a clipboard, it's an instinct that genuinely exists
| for good reason, it makes people scrutinize their claims. In
| general I think we tend to live more in a culture where people
| speak without thinking and too often propose solutions based on
| questionable intuition than the opposite. Especially in business
| culture where it's pretty rare for people who are responsible for
| something going wrong to internalize the cost of those decisions,
| mostly someone else just ends up dealing with it.
| aatd86 wrote:
| At the same time, in boolean logic, something False can always
| lead to something True.
|
| It should be okay to share something and get feedback, as long
| as everyone is aligned to get to the bottom of the truth.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-16 23:02 UTC)