That depends on how you think DeVliegendeHollander models the situation in his mind.
Modeling people in situations like this isn’t trivial. Given the priors I have about him, there’s learned helplessness that provides a bias towards simply staying in the status quo.
In general most decently skilled developers don’t stay unemployment for longer periods of time if they are in a startup that fails.
If you read his post closely then he says that he doesn’t even consider it. The act of considering it would be irresponsible. I don’t know enough to say that it would be the right choice for him to take that job, but I think he would profit from actually deeply considering it.
My experience is primarily not in the hands-on coding which in my business software world tends to be really primitive (read data, verify it, sum it up, write it somewhere, it is essentially primitive scripting), I don’t think I have even seen an algorithm since school that was as complex as a quicksort which is first year exam material, as it is simply not done. In fact we constantly try to make frameworks where no coding is needed, just configuration, and employ non-programmer domain expert consultants as implementation specialists, but it always fails because people don’t understand that properly that once your configuration gets that advanced that it loops over a set of data and makes if-then decisions, then it is coding again: just usually a poor coding framework. Example
Anyway it is more of a being a general troubleshooter. It is sort of difficult to explain (but actually this is the aspect that is likable about it, which is kind of balances the less likable aspects) that I lack a job description. A manager wants a certain kind of information in a regular report. To provide it, there needs to be software, bought or developed or both (customized), users trained, processes defined, and a bunch of potential other things and nobody really tells how to do it, nobody really tells what to do, it is just the need to achieve a result, an informational output just anyhow, with any sort of combination of technology, people and process. This is the good part of it, how open-ended it is but clearly far more than coding, and the coding part is usually primitive.
The bad part is coding the same bloody report the 100th time only slightly different… or answering the same stupid support call the 100th time because people keep making the same mistakes or forget the previous call. Of course both could be improved by reusable frameworks (often not supported by primitive technologies used), knowledge bases, or writing user manuals but that unfortunately does not depend on one guy, the obstacles to that tend to be organizational, usually short-sightedness.
BTW do you have any clue where to go on with this kind of skillset if I ever want to change things or what could be a good Plan B to get a foot in the door in? There are some professions that are really isolated and have little overlaps with anything else, such as doctors and lawyers and I have this impression all this business information management is like that, too. Outsiders know next to nothing about it and insiders tend to not know much about anything else, professionally at least. Ever knew a succesful SAP, Oracle, NAV, CRM, Baan or whatever consultant who is now good at doing something else? I know one guy who held out only for three years and, I sh.t you not, threw it all away and became an undocumented (illegal) snowboarding trainer in the US in the Rockies :) But that is probably not the typical trajectory esp. not after a dozen years.
Wouldn’t that mean focusing less on the reliable parts of the thing (software, process) and far more on the people? I would have to motivate people and suchlike and basically simulate someone who is an extrovert and likes to a talk and this type of normal personality?
That very much depends on the particulars of a managing job and on the company’s culture. Your skills as you described them aren’t really about programming—they are about making shit happen. Management is basically about that, except that the higher you go in ranks, the less you do yourself and the more you have other people do for you. It is perfectly possible to be an effective manager without being a pep-rally style extrovert.
No, I do not think that your fallacy depends on what DVH thinks.
If I’m saying something to have an effect in another person then the quality of my reasoning process depends on whether my model of the other person is correct.
It’s like debugging a phobia at a LW meetup. People complain that language isn’t logical, but in the end the phobia is gone. The fact that the language superficially pattern matches to fallacies is besides the point as long as it has the desired consequences.
You’re confusing risk aversion and learned helplessness.
No, I’m talking to a person who at least self-labels as schizoid and about whom I have more information beyond that.
If I would think the issue is risk aversion and I wanted to convince him, I would appeal to the value of courage. Risk aversion doesn’t prevent people from considering an option and seeing the act of considering an option as irresponsible.
What result did I achieve here? I got someone who hates his job to think about whether to learn a different skillset to switch to a more enjoyable job and ask for advice about what he could do. He shows more agentship about his situation.
If I’m saying something to have an effect in another person then the quality of my reasoning process depends on whether my model of the other person is correct.
LOL. Let me reformulate that: “If I’m trying to manipulate another person, I can lie and that’s “besides the point as long as it has the desired consequences”. Right? X-)
Saying “There’s no real safe job” is in no lie. It true on it’s surface. If my mental model of DVH is correct it leads to an update in a direction that more in line with reality and saying things to move other people to a more accurate way of seeing the world isn’t lying.
Ahem. So you are saying that if you believe that your lie is justified, it’s no lie.
saying things to move other people to a more accurate way of seeing the world isn’t lying.
Let’s try that on a example. Say, Alice is dating Bob, but you think that Bob is a dirtbag and not good for Alice. You want to move Alice “to a more accurate way of seeing the world” and so you invent a story about how Bob has a hobby of kicking kittens and is an active poster on revenge porn forums. You’re saying that this would not be lying because it will move Alice to a more accurate way of seeing Bob. Well...
No. There are two factors: 1) It’s true. There are really no 100% safe jobs. 2) The likely update by the audience is in the direction of a more accurate belief.
Getting Alice to believe that Bob is an active poster on revenge porn forums by saying it likely doesn’t fulfill either criteria 1) or criteria 2).
There is really no 100% safe anything, but I don’t think that when DVH said “I will not leave a safe job for a startup” by “safe” he meant “100% safe”.
That doesn’t prevent the statement from being true. The fact that there’s no 100% safe anything doesn’t turn the statement into a lie while the example that Lumifer provides happens to be clear lying.
meant
I didn’t focus on what he “meant” but on my idea of what I believed his mental model to be.
I don’t think DVH’s mental models have getting inaccurate in any way as a result of my communication.
He didn’t pick up the belief “Startups as as safe as my current job”. I didn’t intent to get him to pick up that belief either. I don’t believe that statement either.
My statement thus does fulfill the two criteria: 1) It’s true on it’s surface. 2) It didn’t lead to inaccurate beliefs in the person I’m talking with.
Statement that fulfill both of those criteria aren’t lies.
I have no problem with including intentions as a third category but in general “see that you intention aren’t to mislead” is very simply to “see that you reach an outcome where the audience isn’t mislead” so I don’t list it separately.
That doesn’t prevent the statement from being true.
It doesn’t (though it does mostly prevent it from being useful), but the statement you made upthread was not that one. It was “Today there’s nothing like a real safe job”, in which context “safe” would normally be taken to mean something like “reasonably safe”, not “exactly 100% safe”.
1) It’s true on it’s surface.
What do you mean by “on its surface”? What matters is if it’s true in its most likely reasonable interpretation in its context.
Meh. Enough with the wordplays and let’s get quantitative. What do you think the P(DVH will lose his current job before he wants to|he doesn’t leave it for a startup) is? What do you think he thinks it is?
in which context “safe” would normally be taken to mean something like “reasonably safe”, not “exactly 100% safe”.
I didn’t just say “safe” I added the qualifier “real” to it. I also started the sentence with “today” with makes it more like a general platitude.
I specifically didn’t say your job isn’t safe but made the general statement that no job is really safe.
It happens to be a general platitude commonly repeated in popular culture.
What do you think he thinks it is?
I think he didn’t have a probability estimate for that in his mind at the time I was writing those lines. When you assume he had such a thing you miss the point of the exercise.
This is an excellent example of the Fallacy of Gray, don’t you think? :-)
That depends on how you think DeVliegendeHollander models the situation in his mind. Modeling people in situations like this isn’t trivial. Given the priors I have about him, there’s learned helplessness that provides a bias towards simply staying in the status quo.
In general most decently skilled developers don’t stay unemployment for longer periods of time if they are in a startup that fails.
If you read his post closely then he says that he doesn’t even consider it. The act of considering it would be irresponsible. I don’t know enough to say that it would be the right choice for him to take that job, but I think he would profit from actually deeply considering it.
My experience is primarily not in the hands-on coding which in my business software world tends to be really primitive (read data, verify it, sum it up, write it somewhere, it is essentially primitive scripting), I don’t think I have even seen an algorithm since school that was as complex as a quicksort which is first year exam material, as it is simply not done. In fact we constantly try to make frameworks where no coding is needed, just configuration, and employ non-programmer domain expert consultants as implementation specialists, but it always fails because people don’t understand that properly that once your configuration gets that advanced that it loops over a set of data and makes if-then decisions, then it is coding again: just usually a poor coding framework. Example
Anyway it is more of a being a general troubleshooter. It is sort of difficult to explain (but actually this is the aspect that is likable about it, which is kind of balances the less likable aspects) that I lack a job description. A manager wants a certain kind of information in a regular report. To provide it, there needs to be software, bought or developed or both (customized), users trained, processes defined, and a bunch of potential other things and nobody really tells how to do it, nobody really tells what to do, it is just the need to achieve a result, an informational output just anyhow, with any sort of combination of technology, people and process. This is the good part of it, how open-ended it is but clearly far more than coding, and the coding part is usually primitive.
The bad part is coding the same bloody report the 100th time only slightly different… or answering the same stupid support call the 100th time because people keep making the same mistakes or forget the previous call. Of course both could be improved by reusable frameworks (often not supported by primitive technologies used), knowledge bases, or writing user manuals but that unfortunately does not depend on one guy, the obstacles to that tend to be organizational, usually short-sightedness.
Okay, then I likely underrated the skill difference between what you are currently doing and the work that exists in a startup like that.
BTW do you have any clue where to go on with this kind of skillset if I ever want to change things or what could be a good Plan B to get a foot in the door in? There are some professions that are really isolated and have little overlaps with anything else, such as doctors and lawyers and I have this impression all this business information management is like that, too. Outsiders know next to nothing about it and insiders tend to not know much about anything else, professionally at least. Ever knew a succesful SAP, Oracle, NAV, CRM, Baan or whatever consultant who is now good at doing something else? I know one guy who held out only for three years and, I sh.t you not, threw it all away and became an undocumented (illegal) snowboarding trainer in the US in the Rockies :) But that is probably not the typical trajectory esp. not after a dozen years.
You might want to think about moving into management.
Wouldn’t that mean focusing less on the reliable parts of the thing (software, process) and far more on the people? I would have to motivate people and suchlike and basically simulate someone who is an extrovert and likes to a talk and this type of normal personality?
That very much depends on the particulars of a managing job and on the company’s culture. Your skills as you described them aren’t really about programming—they are about making shit happen. Management is basically about that, except that the higher you go in ranks, the less you do yourself and the more you have other people do for you. It is perfectly possible to be an effective manager without being a pep-rally style extrovert.
No, I do not think that your fallacy depends on what DVH thinks.
You’re confusing risk aversion and learned helplessness.
Another English irregular verb.
“I can see that this won’t work. You are risk-averse. He exhibits learned helplessness.”
If I’m saying something to have an effect in another person then the quality of my reasoning process depends on whether my model of the other person is correct.
It’s like debugging a phobia at a LW meetup. People complain that language isn’t logical, but in the end the phobia is gone. The fact that the language superficially pattern matches to fallacies is besides the point as long as it has the desired consequences.
No, I’m talking to a person who at least self-labels as schizoid and about whom I have more information beyond that.
If I would think the issue is risk aversion and I wanted to convince him, I would appeal to the value of courage. Risk aversion doesn’t prevent people from considering an option and seeing the act of considering an option as irresponsible.
What result did I achieve here? I got someone who hates his job to think about whether to learn a different skillset to switch to a more enjoyable job and ask for advice about what he could do. He shows more agentship about his situation.
LOL. Let me reformulate that: “If I’m trying to manipulate another person, I can lie and that’s “besides the point as long as it has the desired consequences”. Right? X-)
Saying “There’s no real safe job” is in no lie. It true on it’s surface. If my mental model of DVH is correct it leads to an update in a direction that more in line with reality and saying things to move other people to a more accurate way of seeing the world isn’t lying.
Ahem. So you are saying that if you believe that your lie is justified, it’s no lie.
Let’s try that on a example. Say, Alice is dating Bob, but you think that Bob is a dirtbag and not good for Alice. You want to move Alice “to a more accurate way of seeing the world” and so you invent a story about how Bob has a hobby of kicking kittens and is an active poster on revenge porn forums. You’re saying that this would not be lying because it will move Alice to a more accurate way of seeing Bob. Well...
No. There are two factors:
1) It’s true. There are really no 100% safe jobs.
2) The likely update by the audience is in the direction of a more accurate belief.
Getting Alice to believe that Bob is an active poster on revenge porn forums by saying it likely doesn’t fulfill either criteria 1) or criteria 2).
There is really no 100% safe anything, but I don’t think that when DVH said “I will not leave a safe job for a startup” by “safe” he meant “100% safe”.
That doesn’t prevent the statement from being true. The fact that there’s no 100% safe anything doesn’t turn the statement into a lie while the example that Lumifer provides happens to be clear lying.
I didn’t focus on what he “meant” but on my idea of what I believed his mental model to be.
I don’t think DVH’s mental models have getting inaccurate in any way as a result of my communication. He didn’t pick up the belief “Startups as as safe as my current job”. I didn’t intent to get him to pick up that belief either. I don’t believe that statement either.
My statement thus does fulfill the two criteria:
1) It’s true on it’s surface.
2) It didn’t lead to inaccurate beliefs in the person I’m talking with.
Statement that fulfill both of those criteria aren’t lies.
That would mean that if you say something that is literally true but intended to mislead, and someone figures that out, it’s not a lie.
I have no problem with including intentions as a third category but in general “see that you intention aren’t to mislead” is very simply to “see that you reach an outcome where the audience isn’t mislead” so I don’t list it separately.
It doesn’t (though it does mostly prevent it from being useful), but the statement you made upthread was not that one. It was “Today there’s nothing like a real safe job”, in which context “safe” would normally be taken to mean something like “reasonably safe”, not “exactly 100% safe”.
What do you mean by “on its surface”? What matters is if it’s true in its most likely reasonable interpretation in its context.
Meh. Enough with the wordplays and let’s get quantitative. What do you think the P(DVH will lose his current job before he wants to|he doesn’t leave it for a startup) is? What do you think he thinks it is?
I didn’t just say “safe” I added the qualifier “real” to it. I also started the sentence with “today” with makes it more like a general platitude. I specifically didn’t say your job isn’t safe but made the general statement that no job is really safe.
It happens to be a general platitude commonly repeated in popular culture.
I think he didn’t have a probability estimate for that in his mind at the time I was writing those lines. When you assume he had such a thing you miss the point of the exercise.