This is a great post, and it's unfortunate that so many people are missing the point. You may not like the writing, or the layout, or the title, and you may be able to pick holes in the argument, but who cares? That's an easy, boring game to play. Take it from a reformed cynic -- you will grow so much more from trying to figure out what's right about someone's argument rather than what's wrong.
The key insight in the article is: For many skills, becoming highly proficient is easier than most people realize. That is both true and highly under-appreciated, in my experience. Any time you can combine those two attributes, you're writing something important. Keep the "ridiculable" posts coming Dan!
Corollary: the more you try to explain an idea to someone who doesn't understand it (or doesn't like it - usually one in the same) the more they will try to disagree.
Coming to key insights requires either good faith or investigation, coming to true ones requires both. You can also challenge everything and wait for the really smart people to embarrass you, which, as a lazy person, I find an attractive option :)
Very good point and wise. I find this more applicable as a leader when reviewing designs. It's so easy to poke holes and complain, but it is hard to find the good and value that. It is worth it because I can then focus my comments on what is essential and then drive accountability to get all the details done well enough.
Is there a review system (code, design, writing, whatever) that allows you to color code chunks of what you're reviewing and has a well defined color scheme? E. G. Shades of green for mildly to very good, shades of red for mildly to very bad, and some other colors to denote confusion, etc.
It would be useful to see feedback of where you did stuff right, but allow you to focus on where you did stuff wrong. Making sure you're aware of what you did well is important both for being able to repeat it and psychologically, and as a reviewer it can help you make sure you are providing that positive feedback (a bunch of red with no green should be obvious).
Thats bit to say it shouldn't include specific comments, but sometimes there's not a lot to say about a large chunk of what you're reviewing that you're generally pleased with, but the person that produced it could definitely benefit from knowing that.
So, the best way to provide feedback is via good questions.
This is why tools like quip/gdocs can be great for design documents because I can pinpoint a detail and then ask a good question.
Most junior engineers are bright, and they can solve the (or a) problem at hand. However, the lack both experience in the field and within the domain. Questions are a great way to express concern and share experience.
For software, if they can reasonable code, then it is not so much an issue of right/wrong but "hey, what problem are you solving?" and then aligning on the right problem via questions.
The power of good questions work at every level, and you can drive a lot of good growth and progress via them.
I'm not suggesting this in lieu of questions, but in addition to. The problem with questions by themselves is sometimes it's ambiguous if it applies to a small portion or a larger portion. Also, questions are not always a good way to indicate doing something right, and any good review will also highlight what was done well.
In the end, it's an additional channel of information, which may expose miscommunication on either side. I don't think it's that uncommon to have a comment next to something that the reviewer might think should cover a larger portion of the work than the creator thinks, either because it's unclear, or the creator slightly misinterpreted what the reviewer meant and didn't see how it applied.
Providing structure that requires active categorization of all of a work (or all of it that's being reviewed), even if it's just to mark it the equivalent of "eh, no real comment" removes ambiguity. If for nothing else than because different reviewers have different standards, and some will mark and question everything, and you can assume anything left unmarked is good or better, and some will only mark egregious stuff, and the rest can be considered to range from mediocre to excellent, which isn't as useful if you goal is also to foster improvement.
> The power of good questions work at every level, and you can drive a lot of good growth and progress via them.
Good questions means well defined questions, and I think anything that could make those easier to output by default (or reduce the minimum quality) might be extremely beneficial.
I think it's kind of a 'secret' that it's possible to become really quite good at something with just a little bit of practice and an internet connection. Most people are still unaware of this, or think that it isn't for them.
In the future, perhaps this realization will become commonplace, and skills will no longer be impressive things to have. Or, conversely, the internet will disappear, and we'll think back to the era when it was possible to learn anything under the sun from the comfort of our bedrooms, and realize that we mostly squandered it.
> you will grow so much more from trying to figure out what's right about someone's argument rather than what's wrong.
Isn't this how we get flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, religious zealots, etc? They focus on "what's right" rather than looking at "what's wrong"? Don't cult leaders or tyrants encourage people to do the same. Look at what's right about my leadership rather than what's wrong?
> The key insight in the article is: For many skills, becoming highly proficient is easier than most people realize.
Maybe I'd agree with "becoming proficient" is easier than most people realize. I'm not so sure about "highly proficient". But then again, that's a subjective rather than an objective characteristic.
Well, if you listen to anti-vaxxers, at the very least - then you’ll learn how many times the governments actually fucked up vaccination practices in the world?
It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vaccinate, but they have _something_ to say.
> Well, if you listen to anti-vaxxers, at the very least - then you’ll learn how many times the governments actually fucked up vaccination practices in the world?
You don't have to listen to anti-vaxxers to learn that, any more than you have to listen to Alex Jones' rants to learn that corporations dump toxic chemicals into the water supply that can affect the ecosystem. Fringe conspiracy theorists and extremists are not the sole arbiters or guardians of hidden knowledge or suppressed truths.
The key insight in the article is: For many skills, becoming highly proficient is easier than most people realize. That is both true and highly under-appreciated, in my experience. Any time you can combine those two attributes, you're writing something important. Keep the "ridiculable" posts coming Dan!