There’s a thing we tend to do as engineers where we hear a thing and then start thinking through the implications and design, which is normal, but also we seem to assume we’re the only ones who’ve ever thought about it, and therefore our concerns must be unaddressed, and we’re brilliant, so clearly nobody’s ever thought of them before, so we’ve gotta share them. If you’d like to see this behavior in action, this is the thread for you.
I really wish you would say outright what you're referring to, because to me right now your comment comes off as a bit of cryptic snark. Perhaps there were some comments along the lines you mean earlier, but scanning through the top 6 or 7 comments now, none of them appear to display the kind of arrogance you are implying.
That sort of arrogance is absolutely out of control in the tech industry and it's bizarre because I've never seen it at the remotely same level anywhere else.
It can make it difficult to work in the industry because you find yourself surrounded with expert beginners who (generally privately) think they're geniuses.
I love working with people who aren't afraid to solve problems, but are also firmly in the camp of recognizing how clueless we usually are. We shouldn't be terrified of failure, anxious about what we don't know, etc. But man, some humility goes a long way.
The alternative leads to terrible software, team dynamics, work-life balance, etc.
Heard a guy about six months out of undergrad once declare (completely serious) that of course he knew how to run a school district, he attended public school!
Wow did that make me distrust every suggestion he made.
Hahaha. As an undergrad in my University, I asked a guy just before an exam on electro magnetic waves if he had studied properly, and the guy told me dead serious, that he knows Ohm's law, and he can derive everything from it!
In a different way. There's the old joke and doctors and God, and you will certainly find attorneys who are full of themselves. But while I've never met an attorney who thought they were an engineer simply because they were excellent lawyer, I've encountered plenty of engineers who believe themselves to be masters of the law (including here on Hacker News), having logically deduced it from first principles with their superior intellect.
> I've never met an attorney who thought they were an engineer simply because they were excellent lawyer
Not sure about attorneys, but there are certainly legislators / regulators who think that, or who at least think that every problem they throw at engineers, like implementing end-to-end encryption that their government can backdoor but foreign governments can't, is instantly and easily solvable.
That's basically the opposite phenomenon: you know so little about how an industry operates that everything they do seems like magic to you, so you end up making absurd demands of them.
The phenomenon discussed here has engineers believe they can practice law and medicine themselves. So they're not asking lawyers to get them out of a murder caught on national television, or doctors to cure their cancer in three days. They think they can do these themselves.
One of the most important skills a lawyer can have is being able to comprehend highly complex topics in a very short time with minimal information to a reasonable level of confidence that they can advise genuine subject matter experts (experts the lawyer counts on knowing more about a topic than the lawyer does) about risk issues.
This is, of course, one of the most important skills anybody can have, but most people are terrible at it (whether by lack of talent or lack of practice) so our society pays lawyers to do it for them.
The proliferation of Hanlon's Razor has been one of the most damaging things to society.
People as a whole are not incompetent, every individual (and every grouping of individuals) have goals and will take appropriate actions to achieve them with intent, but somehow a neologism has tricked people into believing this is the exception and not the norm.
There's two different questions here: one is "is the way things are currently done stupid" (to which the answer is often "yes"). The other is "can a random outsider do better just by thinking about it" (to which the answer is usually, though not always, "no").
It's the same principle as another comment I made a few days ago ([1]). It's not hard to identify problems that really are problems, but finding effective and feasible solutions to those problems is often far more difficult, especially if you're an outsider. The mistake isn't in identifying the problems, it's in thinking that you can come in totally blind and know how to solve them. (Or, put another way, in thinking that you as an outsider can tell the "dumb and easily fixed" problems from the "horrifying systemic nightmare" problems.)
It's because most of the time people see mostly powerless people trying to do their jobs and messing up. They don't have as much of a frame of reference for how powerful people act, especially because there is so much mystification in the media (literally owned by the said powerful people). The rule you apply to your friends and co-workers isn't suitable for the maniacal supervillians running society. Of course, those guys also fuck up in bizzare and stupid ways too, so people will point that out and be like look, they're just bad at their evil jobs!
Whenever I catch myself doing this, I try to reframe my concerns from statements (e.g. "the wording here doesn't exclude XYZ scenario...") into questions (e.g. "does anybody know if XYZ is possible with this wording?").
Then what happens is I realize I can go answer that question myself by doing some research, and either I discover my original concern is unwarranted OR I can now state "well they said this but if you look here it's actually XYZ in fact!", which is much more interesting.
It’s an online board. You share your thoughts and challenge them against others responses, and learn more as a result. Is there a minimum requirement of corporate structure expertise required to comment?
Yeah, there is just too much here - i started down the path of trying to explain some of the legal issues and problems, and how people often think and deal with them (with pointers to some of the more interesting attempts, etc), since as you say, this is a thing that's been thought about, by many people, many times, but i feel like i'd end up writing 50 comments and so gave up.
It's not that we think we're the only one who thought about some implication, it's that that implication seems important and nobody has explicitly mentioned it yet, and maybe other people who have also though about this implication are trying to hide it because it's inconvenient.
a wonderful thing to do in that case is to either ask, or present your concern as a concern. An expression of uncertainty and fear. Not as a statement, or counterclaim, or by trying to propose a solution to the problem you've invented.
I don't completely agree with you, but reading the blog post gives off the same vibes as what I imagine Larry and Sergey must've been thinking when they came up with the "Don't Be Evil" slogan 26 years ago.
Everyone starts off with a great intention, but money corrupts and humans are generally highly unreliable long term.
