Overthinking (2021)(kerkour.com)
kerkour.com
Overthinking (2021)
https://kerkour.com/overthinking
69 comments
I was once accused of perfectionism. I've been working on a crushing rebuttal for a while now.
> I had anticipated that my peers and leadership would notice a drop in quality.
Speaking from my experience in writing docs fast vs slow, the peers probably noticed the drop in quality, but as a positive on team-work.
Getting a document out before it is set in stone has helped bring in leadership early and have their hand in guiding your document (for better or worse). This has a diffusion of credit in general, but a document with many inputs and one editor has worked out better than a document which is written alone and only enters the debate as a "product".
Giving other people the opportunity to influence your opinion before you've made up your mind is a bit of a leap - but it is better for the group than the individual.
Speaking from my experience in writing docs fast vs slow, the peers probably noticed the drop in quality, but as a positive on team-work.
Getting a document out before it is set in stone has helped bring in leadership early and have their hand in guiding your document (for better or worse). This has a diffusion of credit in general, but a document with many inputs and one editor has worked out better than a document which is written alone and only enters the debate as a "product".
Giving other people the opportunity to influence your opinion before you've made up your mind is a bit of a leap - but it is better for the group than the individual.
Leadership doesn't care about the odd bug or two going in, but they really do love to write DONE in the spreadsheet next to a project.
[deleted]
Is there any similar tool that Amazon used, that helps in providing anonymous feedback to other co-workers. I want to try it in one organization where I am involved
Interesting. How long did it usually take you to ship stuff vs your coworkers? And now are you on par or even faster?
I no longer work at AWS but the lesson has stuck with me. Whenever I start to feel that I'm starting to overthink, I quickly break the cycle and ship whatever I have.
This has always rang true for me- even during my music career, no song ever felt ready. But my fans always loved and supported each release. Now that I write code, no PR out side project ever feels ready. But irregardless of the medium, I’m always glad I put my work out there. It’s still hard to pull the trigger though, and I still don’t do it nearly enough.
> incomplete, unpolished, not quite at the "bar"
Do you think your coworkers were telling you your bar was too high?
Do you think your coworkers were telling you your bar was too high?
I think his coworkers were telling them exactly what they said.
part of this may have been the "queen's duck" effect
This made me think of science and academia. One of the things that seems to distinguish productive people in science is the balance between “doer” mentality and “thinker” mentality.
Too much “thinker” mentality and the project never goes anywhere. Too much “doer” mentally and the project moves but may go down an unproductive path.
Perhaps an analogy is that “thinker” and “doer” mentalities work together like a stochastic gradient descent algorithm.
The “thinker” mode tries to calculate accurate gradients, but never moves towards the goal.
The “doer” mode takes a step towards the next iteration, regardless of whether you have an accurate gradient already.
Balancing the two correctly can give beautiful momentum dynamics that steers towards your goal.
Too much “thinker” mentality and the project never goes anywhere. Too much “doer” mentally and the project moves but may go down an unproductive path.
Perhaps an analogy is that “thinker” and “doer” mentalities work together like a stochastic gradient descent algorithm.
The “thinker” mode tries to calculate accurate gradients, but never moves towards the goal.
The “doer” mode takes a step towards the next iteration, regardless of whether you have an accurate gradient already.
Balancing the two correctly can give beautiful momentum dynamics that steers towards your goal.
> Balancing the two correctly
There are some famous examples complementary and different personalities working together very well, like e.g. Kahneman and Tversky:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-two-friends-...
There are some famous examples complementary and different personalities working together very well, like e.g. Kahneman and Tversky:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-two-friends-...
I appreciate the sentiment, as you're right about one of too many of these are easy traps to fall into. I would also say that life isn't so binary, it's not one or the other, it's a huge mix of everything. Also I am not sure doing without thinking exists, the "doer" in your case has to think about what he is doing otherwise he wouldn't be able to do anything no?
> 学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆 - Confucius
A refreshingly good take on paralysis by analysis. I have suffered from this in the past as well. I found that having projects that are otherwise meaningless that I can hack together helps. It’s almost like a mini hackathon where the only thing that matters is the end product. Maybe I’ll choose something completely out of my professional life (eg woodworking with scrap wood) or write something in a language nobody around me likes because it’s “ugly.”
Kind of like practicing non-perfectionism? I received that advice from a friend once. Pick a domain with much lower stakes, and practice making decisions.
Yes, I find failure is a key component here too. Without being able to fail, you get stuck in the perfection loop.
> I've also noticed that, up to a certain point, the smarter a person is, the more it has to be apparent in their work. Every algorithm needs to be perfect, every function needs to be side-effects free, every data structure needs to be the fastest, and every best practice needs to be followed.
Many engineers are somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum, as Temple Grandin tells her Googler audience in [1]. Overthinking is a prime symptom of it. I'm disappointed to see that not even mentioned in this article.
There are some engineering practices that, unfortunately, amplify this rather than tamping it down. Code reviews, in particular, can do that; a reviewer gets points by nitpicking ("you could have done that in one line instead of two!").
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA4tE3_2qmI
Many engineers are somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum, as Temple Grandin tells her Googler audience in [1]. Overthinking is a prime symptom of it. I'm disappointed to see that not even mentioned in this article.
There are some engineering practices that, unfortunately, amplify this rather than tamping it down. Code reviews, in particular, can do that; a reviewer gets points by nitpicking ("you could have done that in one line instead of two!").
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA4tE3_2qmI
Yes I think a lot of people who struggle with these things are not aware they could actually be dealing with various psychiatric issues. ADHD is another disorder that can go undiagnosed and often manifests as indecision or procrastination.
Discovering you have a mental disorder puts motivational and organisational think pieces in a very different light.
Discovering you have a mental disorder puts motivational and organisational think pieces in a very different light.
Way to point out a tiny “error” in an article about trying to overcome the fear of being nitpicked.
[deleted]
> Many engineers are somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum
Would love to see a link to solid data of what this means. Is it 20% vs. 2% kind of thing if you filter for just engineers vs. general population?
Would love to see a link to solid data of what this means. Is it 20% vs. 2% kind of thing if you filter for just engineers vs. general population?
We all know that "The perfect is the enemy of the good.", still we lose countless hours trying to make the perfect design, the perfect
Yesterday I helped a guy to register his little perfume company’s trademark on a government platform. We filled in all the fields and then unexpectedly (to me) it just asked for a picture. I thought okay, maybe we’ll get back to it after a designer makes a logo.
The guy pulls his iphone and creates a note. “Good fonts”. Three enters, <companyname>, enter, parfum. He asks how to make first line bigger, I show him. He indents with spaces. I point out that alignment is not exactly centered. “Looks okay”, he takes a screenshot, crops it to a rectangle and sends it to me to upload into the form, and to his chinese partner, straight into production.
Yesterday I helped a guy to register his little perfume company’s trademark on a government platform. We filled in all the fields and then unexpectedly (to me) it just asked for a picture. I thought okay, maybe we’ll get back to it after a designer makes a logo.
The guy pulls his iphone and creates a note. “Good fonts”. Three enters, <companyname>, enter, parfum. He asks how to make first line bigger, I show him. He indents with spaces. I point out that alignment is not exactly centered. “Looks okay”, he takes a screenshot, crops it to a rectangle and sends it to me to upload into the form, and to his chinese partner, straight into production.
Thing that helped me with avoiding this kind of problem was learning about wabi sabi[0]. A mindset of accepting and finding beauty in imperfection.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi
Are there any books you recommend?
I’d recommend https://metarationality.com/.
It’s a book optimized for arguing with rationalists (who among other things think overthinking can solve every problem) so some of the points seem irrelevant to most people, but they can be useful.
It’s a book optimized for arguing with rationalists (who among other things think overthinking can solve every problem) so some of the points seem irrelevant to most people, but they can be useful.
Not wabi-sabi specifically but the book "How to be an imperfectionist" was spot on and really helpful for me
I've read "Wabi-Sabi for Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosophers" by Leonard Koren 978-0981484600.
It's a bit pretentious, but helped me think about the concept on my own.
I penned this short verse a long time ago to help remind me about "Analysis Paralysis" and hopefully try and minimize its effects on me :-) Being reminded of it from time to time, has helped me avoid 'stalling out' on too many details and better learning to live with imperfect information to make progress in a reasonable timeframe.
---
"A person who faces many choices, really has one
Out of indecision and confusion, they choose to have none"
---
"A person who faces many choices, really has one
Out of indecision and confusion, they choose to have none"
I like the article. The architecture bit I'm not so sure about though. I wish in my company the architects actually did more thinking and especially talking / negotiating with all the other architects of adjacent components. That would really help. Instead they work hard to fix minor problems and build walls in between the components... or yet another middleware-generator-middleware-wrapper.
There is an assumption here is doing anything is better than doing nothing. Inaction is not inherently inferior to action. Sometimes, if not most of the times, doing nothing is exactly what you need to do in response to something. If your brain prevents you from doing something, maybe it's because it has a point? Trying to find a shortcut by generalizing will do more harm than good.
> If your brain prevents you from doing something, maybe it's because it has a point?
No. If we're anxious, addicted, lazy, having wrong information, being misled - then no. And unfortunately that is the case (most of the time). This assumes that all can think rationally and failure or redundant effort is wasteful. As always, balance is needed.
No. If we're anxious, addicted, lazy, having wrong information, being misled - then no. And unfortunately that is the case (most of the time). This assumes that all can think rationally and failure or redundant effort is wasteful. As always, balance is needed.
[deleted]
A big part of learning this is not overanalyzing past failures. Check and see if you missed something major, but then don't dwell much on the details; perhaps anything you would have done would have been doomed to failure; it wasn't the time, etc.
PA Yeomans, the 'other' father of permaculture, had a checklist he called the Scale of Permanence. It's a sort of priority list for irreversible decisions, and is helpful for figuring out if you're expending energy on something that's easy to change later, or rashly deciding on something that is going to be difficult or infeasible to change later.
In a system that favors watching first and acting at the last responsible moment, this is in someways both a counterweight and an anchor for analysis.
There are some ways in which systems thinking is the same no matter what domain you're looking at, and to some extent the ways in which they are different have more to do with lack/lag in cross-domain communication rather than any intrinsic distinctions between the domains. There is probably a Scale of Permanence for creating a business, it's just not called that or nobody has compiled a canonical list from the available sources.
In a system that favors watching first and acting at the last responsible moment, this is in someways both a counterweight and an anchor for analysis.
There are some ways in which systems thinking is the same no matter what domain you're looking at, and to some extent the ways in which they are different have more to do with lack/lag in cross-domain communication rather than any intrinsic distinctions between the domains. There is probably a Scale of Permanence for creating a business, it's just not called that or nobody has compiled a canonical list from the available sources.
> PA Yeomans, the 'other' father of permaculture, had a checklist he called the Scale of Permanence.
What an interesting case of nominative determinism.
What an interesting case of nominative determinism.
I'd like to read more on this.
I'd also like something much more difficult to estimate: Scale of Importance.
You have some sloppy but readable code in a unit test vs. sloppy and unreadable code in a tight loop in a production module. Which one is more important?
I'd also like something much more difficult to estimate: Scale of Importance.
You have some sloppy but readable code in a unit test vs. sloppy and unreadable code in a tight loop in a production module. Which one is more important?
Relatedly, this is also a big reason why I personally struggle to work at large tech companies. The velocity just isn't there because you have to be more thoughtful before you act - the environment is less conducive to quick action and less forgiving of mistakes. And you specifically have to be more thoughtful about considerations that are often immaterial to core business value. I realized after a while that certain large company experiences can train you such that you no longer know how to hustle, and that seemed like a considerable invisible cost of the arrangement.
This is a very minor nitpick, but saying you need a specific technology is part of the problem, even if it's a really good and appropriately-complicated technology like postgres.
90% of the time, you need whatever technology your company already uses, or your team already knows, that solves the problem.
If your company already uses .NET and SQL Server, you probably don't need node.js and postgres. If your company already uses PHP and sqlite, you still might not need postgres, unless there's an identifiable reason to switch.
90% of the time, you need whatever technology your company already uses, or your team already knows, that solves the problem.
If your company already uses .NET and SQL Server, you probably don't need node.js and postgres. If your company already uses PHP and sqlite, you still might not need postgres, unless there's an identifiable reason to switch.
> Is it better to tweet at 18:00 or 18:05?
> Rust or Go?
Well that's quite a range.
> Rust or Go?
Well that's quite a range.
[deleted]
To me, i can translate this article like:
- OK stop all the complexity of devops processes, just ssh to the server, then run `docker compose build && docker compose up -d`.
Now i can have my app running in production to serve its purpose. Problem solved.
- OK stop all the complexity of devops processes, just ssh to the server, then run `docker compose build && docker compose up -d`.
Now i can have my app running in production to serve its purpose. Problem solved.
This is what I'm doing, except that I'm using watchtower + dockerhub + github to automate, work like a charm, cost 60$/year.
[watchtower](https://github.com/containrrr/watchtower)
[watchtower](https://github.com/containrrr/watchtower)
To measure the meaning can make you delay.
It's time you stop thinkin' and waisting the day.
—from The Hobbit (1977) [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dQ5c5SIYnc
It's time you stop thinkin' and waisting the day.
—from The Hobbit (1977) [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dQ5c5SIYnc
> Thus we learn how to think, and we end up with whole countries filled with people who think, think, think but never start doing anything.
That could of have used a lot more thought: What is the basis for it? Are less educated people more productive? Is the US ever portrayed that way?
IME, there are individuals who overthink - that is, they think for emotional needs not related to the problem. But I don't think I've ever encountered an organization where generally too much thinking was going on!
I think it's trendy to denigrate or ignore critical thought, education, reason, facts ... Our decisions come from somewhere; either we think for ourselves or we are victims of others who will think for you and influence the public. It seems so many trends these days benefit a powerful few and train the public to follow them obediently.
That could of have used a lot more thought: What is the basis for it? Are less educated people more productive? Is the US ever portrayed that way?
IME, there are individuals who overthink - that is, they think for emotional needs not related to the problem. But I don't think I've ever encountered an organization where generally too much thinking was going on!
I think it's trendy to denigrate or ignore critical thought, education, reason, facts ... Our decisions come from somewhere; either we think for ourselves or we are victims of others who will think for you and influence the public. It seems so many trends these days benefit a powerful few and train the public to follow them obediently.
[deleted]
I tend to ship fairly quickly, at a high Quality (but not perfect) level, then go back and clean up, after it’s out there.
It’s important that the first release be extremely high Quality. I’m not a fan of lash-up MVPs.
I work very quickly, and do good work.
I just did that with the 2.0 version of one of my apps. I released 2.0 a couple weeks ago, and it’s at 2.1.4 (I think). I test, and solicit feedback. One of the releases covered feedback on the App Store.
It stops, after a few tweaks.
It’s important that the first release be extremely high Quality. I’m not a fan of lash-up MVPs.
I work very quickly, and do good work.
I just did that with the 2.0 version of one of my apps. I released 2.0 a couple weeks ago, and it’s at 2.1.4 (I think). I test, and solicit feedback. One of the releases covered feedback on the App Store.
It stops, after a few tweaks.
Interesting. Whenever I talk about Quality, the downvotes appear. It's almost as if people are actively against the concept of high-Quality software.
This is not some idle boasting. This is a project with a great deal of history.
Here's the app, itself, in the App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ambiamara/id1448933389
It started off as "SpeakerBeeper," in ObjC, ten years ago. Here's the codebase for that: https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/speakerbeeper
It then became "X-Timer," in 2015-17, after Swift came out. Here's the codebase for that: https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/x-timer
This is the current codebase for the "AmbiaMara" app, which has been out for the last three years or so: https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara
The codebases show a lot of learning and growth. You can easily see how fast I work, and how I'm able to maintain a fairly high level of Quality, throughout the project.
Yeah, it's just a silly timer, but it's a good one. I use it constantly. I basically wrote it for myself. A lot of my work is like that.
This is not some idle boasting. This is a project with a great deal of history.
Here's the app, itself, in the App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ambiamara/id1448933389
It started off as "SpeakerBeeper," in ObjC, ten years ago. Here's the codebase for that: https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/speakerbeeper
It then became "X-Timer," in 2015-17, after Swift came out. Here's the codebase for that: https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/x-timer
This is the current codebase for the "AmbiaMara" app, which has been out for the last three years or so: https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara
The codebases show a lot of learning and growth. You can easily see how fast I work, and how I'm able to maintain a fairly high level of Quality, throughout the project.
Yeah, it's just a silly timer, but it's a good one. I use it constantly. I basically wrote it for myself. A lot of my work is like that.
Living in China it's quite amazing how the business culture differs from many western markets. People seem to throw themselves in to ventures without business plans, market research or specific costings. I suppose that when the cost of failure is reduced, dynamism results, because reaction times to opportunities are reduced and people are able to take the risk of following a new path. These days, when I think of analysis paralysis, I think of conservative traditional western business mindsets. The worst of which, frankly, seem to be continental European and governmental bureaucracies.
FWIW in the last 18 months I recall pitching one major European industrial group requesting specifically disruptive technology for established industries. Considered at the board level, their feedback was unanimously positive: but they could not take the opportunity because it was "too far from existing business lines". If you thought corporate VC was bad, try that in an old-Europe context...
FWIW in the last 18 months I recall pitching one major European industrial group requesting specifically disruptive technology for established industries. Considered at the board level, their feedback was unanimously positive: but they could not take the opportunity because it was "too far from existing business lines". If you thought corporate VC was bad, try that in an old-Europe context...
> If you thought corporate VC was bad, try that in an old-Europe context...
I am not sure whether it is specific for old-Europe or not just a universal symptom for long-running companies unable to re-invent themselves, because they were somehow locked into an established pathway, so that fundamental changes promissing probable benefits in the long run would mean certain short-term losses in the near future due to major investments and canibalization of their legacy businesses. An example outside of Europe seems to be Boeing's stretching of a several-decade-old airplane design towards a limit were it became increasingly problematic, while starting over would have involved extremely large investments and the loss of much of the experience gained from the old design.
On the positive side, such lock-ins of traditional companies can mean sound business opportunities for small newcomers. I was myself working with small dynamic companies in Germany and Austria who were afraid that one day a large, financially strong competitor might decide to copy their successful products and business modell or enter their highly profitable niche market -- however, it never happened. In other words: If the parent is right and established companies in old-Europe are even more unflexible than elsewhere, it should be safer to attempt to disrupt their old-Europe markets than to try the same somewhere else.
I am not sure whether it is specific for old-Europe or not just a universal symptom for long-running companies unable to re-invent themselves, because they were somehow locked into an established pathway, so that fundamental changes promissing probable benefits in the long run would mean certain short-term losses in the near future due to major investments and canibalization of their legacy businesses. An example outside of Europe seems to be Boeing's stretching of a several-decade-old airplane design towards a limit were it became increasingly problematic, while starting over would have involved extremely large investments and the loss of much of the experience gained from the old design.
On the positive side, such lock-ins of traditional companies can mean sound business opportunities for small newcomers. I was myself working with small dynamic companies in Germany and Austria who were afraid that one day a large, financially strong competitor might decide to copy their successful products and business modell or enter their highly profitable niche market -- however, it never happened. In other words: If the parent is right and established companies in old-Europe are even more unflexible than elsewhere, it should be safer to attempt to disrupt their old-Europe markets than to try the same somewhere else.
> I suppose that when the cost of failure is reduced, dynamism results, because reaction times to opportunities are reduced and people are able to take the risk of following a new path.
First, how is the cost of failure reduced?
It sounds like fundamental economics: If you reduce the cost of investing, usually by lowering interest rates, then investment increases, following the pattern you described.
What is the state of credit / funding in China? Is the government still pumping credit into the economy?
> People seem to throw themselves in to ventures without business plans, market research or specific costings.
But usually when we start seeing that pattern, it's a bubble. Resources are being allocated to unproductive initiatives.
As with anything, there's a balance.
First, how is the cost of failure reduced?
It sounds like fundamental economics: If you reduce the cost of investing, usually by lowering interest rates, then investment increases, following the pattern you described.
What is the state of credit / funding in China? Is the government still pumping credit into the economy?
> People seem to throw themselves in to ventures without business plans, market research or specific costings.
But usually when we start seeing that pattern, it's a bubble. Resources are being allocated to unproductive initiatives.
As with anything, there's a balance.
There's a social cost & opportunity cost to failure. If a culture stigmatizes failure there's less risk taking. Though I think it often happens at the family level too: One business failure and you're the family screw up, maybe even if you get success later on it's still held over your head.
I understand that, but the comment seemed to say there was less cost to failure in China, not more.
Ah, yes-- a reread of the comment does imply that, and I can't evaluate that claim. Except to say that, as you mentioned, the financial cost shouldn't be much different (unless the government has much stronger support/subsidies for starting new businesses? I know the Bank of China has friendly terms for domestic loans but I though that tended to be for large scale initiatives and less so for startups)
I'd really like to know more about any cultural or social factors involved. Putting aside the governmental regime, I think the region has a fascinatingly different culture & outlook on the world that differs much from more Western views but has a depth that is often obscured by modern politics. Of course some of that stems from a historic tradition that made the region extremely opaque, if not outright inaccessible (geographically) from outsiders. Hong Kong for example was founded (partially) because ports & cities beyond that area were forbidden. (The cynical & hypocritical Opium Wars waged by Great Britain were of course a factor as well)
I'd really like to know more about any cultural or social factors involved. Putting aside the governmental regime, I think the region has a fascinatingly different culture & outlook on the world that differs much from more Western views but has a depth that is often obscured by modern politics. Of course some of that stems from a historic tradition that made the region extremely opaque, if not outright inaccessible (geographically) from outsiders. Hong Kong for example was founded (partially) because ports & cities beyond that area were forbidden. (The cynical & hypocritical Opium Wars waged by Great Britain were of course a factor as well)
There are not many industry breaking huge china based companies globally in comparison of how many people they have.
Perhaps our way might not be that bad after all.
And while Chinese currently the EV market discovers it's totally unclear how the car industry will look in 10 years
Perhaps our way might not be that bad after all.
And while Chinese currently the EV market discovers it's totally unclear how the car industry will look in 10 years
After 20+ years here (currently, like ~every other foreigner, leaving) I ascribe the failure of China to innovate at a rate matching its size, industrial significance and affluence to the politicization of its education and media systems primarily and secondly to its insistence on isolating young people from foreign internet influence. The dynamism of small business is a counter-weight, not a contributor. Local engineering staff are good, but they are primarily domain-specific pragmatists who lack both the theoretical foundations and the general analytical capacity to independently face ill-defined cross or novel domain problems and I believe this stems directly from the rote-oriented education system and "don't be the nail that sticks out" politicization of society as a whole. After decades of seeing the individual and original ideas of themselves and their peers put down, most Pavlovian subjects, regardless of nationality, are going to wind up cognitively and emotionally eschewing creative thinking. "Not my department" is rife. There are many great things about China historically and the modern supply chain is unrivaled, but culturally modern China is simply not aligned with R&D at a fundamental level.
> I ascribe the failure of China to innovate at a rate matching its size, industrial significance and affluence to the politicization of its education and media systems primarily and secondly to its insistence on isolating young people from foreign internet influence.
That follows an old pattern: In a leading history of modern China (1644 to the late 20th century) [0] they talked about the Chinese emporer's response to the Enlightenment in the West and the resulting power imbalance, which resulted in Western countries stealing Chinese cities and forcing trade on China (including opium). The following probably has a few details off, but my point is the general pattern:
Before the opium wars in the mid-19th century, the Emporer Qianlong wrote a famous letter in 1793 to the King George III of England in response to an offer of trade and diplomatic relations: "As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures." [1]
The imperial policy was to severely limit all interactions with the outside: No diplomats, no trade, no tourists, nothing. Some foreigners lived in Peking, but were restricted in their movements and not allowed to leave China (read the cited letter for details). IIRC, foreign traders were restricted to special ports where they were isolated from the country itself.
Subsequently, the Western countries, with their advanced technology, siezed control of Chinese port cities and forced trade on China. The Chinese state could no longer deny the value of these manufactures, and China's need for them.
(Perhaps think of this from the perspective of an isolated country that lacked all IT and was trying to acquire it for their military, but without any exposure of their people to the people who make it and without any changes in their own society:) They tried to simply acquire the technology, but of course had trouble operating and maintaining it. Then they allowed certain military officers to receive training in operating it, but still couldn't supply their own parts, maintenance, etc. Then they learned some of the manufacturing, but didn't have the military doctrine or education to apply it. They tried learning the doctrine, but lacking Western educations, couldn't really utilize it or understand it broadly throughout their miltary. ... They tried expanding step by step, but in the end, lacking widespread Western education, they lacked people who could understand the technology and find ways to apply it. You would be surprised how much of Western values is embedded in that technology. (Again, some details may be off, but that was the pattern over decades.)
Today, thankfully, many people in China can access a better education and foreign governments no longer control parts of China. But it seems like the Chinese Communist government is trying to have capitalism and free markets without freedom and free-thinking - arguably another step in the same process. (And to be clear, I'd love for the people of China to have freedom and self-determination to control their own fates - I am sure they would thrive, as the people of Taiwan and Hong Kong have shown.)
In many ways, IMHO, the current Chinese Communists are similar to the imperial dynasties that preceded them.
[0] Either Emmanual Hsu or Jonathan Spence, I don't recall which one.
[1] https://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-179...
That follows an old pattern: In a leading history of modern China (1644 to the late 20th century) [0] they talked about the Chinese emporer's response to the Enlightenment in the West and the resulting power imbalance, which resulted in Western countries stealing Chinese cities and forcing trade on China (including opium). The following probably has a few details off, but my point is the general pattern:
Before the opium wars in the mid-19th century, the Emporer Qianlong wrote a famous letter in 1793 to the King George III of England in response to an offer of trade and diplomatic relations: "As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures." [1]
The imperial policy was to severely limit all interactions with the outside: No diplomats, no trade, no tourists, nothing. Some foreigners lived in Peking, but were restricted in their movements and not allowed to leave China (read the cited letter for details). IIRC, foreign traders were restricted to special ports where they were isolated from the country itself.
Subsequently, the Western countries, with their advanced technology, siezed control of Chinese port cities and forced trade on China. The Chinese state could no longer deny the value of these manufactures, and China's need for them.
(Perhaps think of this from the perspective of an isolated country that lacked all IT and was trying to acquire it for their military, but without any exposure of their people to the people who make it and without any changes in their own society:) They tried to simply acquire the technology, but of course had trouble operating and maintaining it. Then they allowed certain military officers to receive training in operating it, but still couldn't supply their own parts, maintenance, etc. Then they learned some of the manufacturing, but didn't have the military doctrine or education to apply it. They tried learning the doctrine, but lacking Western educations, couldn't really utilize it or understand it broadly throughout their miltary. ... They tried expanding step by step, but in the end, lacking widespread Western education, they lacked people who could understand the technology and find ways to apply it. You would be surprised how much of Western values is embedded in that technology. (Again, some details may be off, but that was the pattern over decades.)
Today, thankfully, many people in China can access a better education and foreign governments no longer control parts of China. But it seems like the Chinese Communist government is trying to have capitalism and free markets without freedom and free-thinking - arguably another step in the same process. (And to be clear, I'd love for the people of China to have freedom and self-determination to control their own fates - I am sure they would thrive, as the people of Taiwan and Hong Kong have shown.)
In many ways, IMHO, the current Chinese Communists are similar to the imperial dynasties that preceded them.
[0] Either Emmanual Hsu or Jonathan Spence, I don't recall which one.
[1] https://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-179...
Yes, history repeats itself. Perhaps human nature will never change, but we have the technology to meaningfully change our political systems, education, media, supply chains and social fabric and those together should be powerful enough to adjust our aggregate behavior. It is perhaps the greatest tragedy of modern China that it has come upon the most realistic such opportunity ever presented to mankind and so far squandered it on imitation and autocracy.
I wonder how much of that is a result of the state enforced cultural isolation-
(as a means of decreasing the chances of information and ideas which they actively censure from spreading in the population, ideas which would be likely undermine the current leadership's ability to maintain unilateral power. Just as Russia has experienced with its citizens as they become more connected to others outside of the country, whose individual liberties and relatively meritocratic economic systems they've begun to push for domestically)
-rather than lacking technical merits in what they create or the speed at which they do so.
(as a means of decreasing the chances of information and ideas which they actively censure from spreading in the population, ideas which would be likely undermine the current leadership's ability to maintain unilateral power. Just as Russia has experienced with its citizens as they become more connected to others outside of the country, whose individual liberties and relatively meritocratic economic systems they've begun to push for domestically)
-rather than lacking technical merits in what they create or the speed at which they do so.
> Perhaps our way might not be that bad after all.
I think it's a fundamental error to call anything 'our way' or 'their way'. It prevents you - and them - from learning and integrating ideas. My way is to avidly learn and use the best ideas I can find, regardless of their source.
I think it's a fundamental error to call anything 'our way' or 'their way'. It prevents you - and them - from learning and integrating ideas. My way is to avidly learn and use the best ideas I can find, regardless of their source.
> I think it's a fundamental error to call anything 'our way' or 'their way'. It prevents you - and them - from learning and integrating ideas.
The phrases "our way" and "their way" are neutral. Our way can be better sometimes, not as good other times. And vice versa.
Avoiding common useful simple language can only reduce clarity.
> My way is to avidly learn and use the best ideas I can find, regardless of their source.
Absolutely. "Your way" is good in this instance.
The phrases "our way" and "their way" are neutral. Our way can be better sometimes, not as good other times. And vice versa.
Avoiding common useful simple language can only reduce clarity.
> My way is to avidly learn and use the best ideas I can find, regardless of their source.
Absolutely. "Your way" is good in this instance.
By our way you mean leverage fiat currencies and take advantage of being in total control of international multilateral organizations?
[deleted]
At first, I got a bit defensive ... and in response, I ended up running an experiment, delivering code & written documents that — inside my head — felt incomplete, unpolished, not quite at the "bar".
The feedback following?
Overwhelmingly positive.
I had anticipated that my peers and leadership would notice a drop in quality. Instead, I was commended for speed of delivery.