Willingness to look stupid • Hacker News Board

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#691

Post by dragonsky » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 3:29 AM UTC

andrewla wrote: post #338

This has happened to me frequently at my current company. I get pulled into a meeting about something that I have no context on because it touches my area of expertise, and the discussions have apparently been stalling out. I brace myself to be the idiot. I'm going to waste everyone's time asking questions that everyone knows the answer to, and I just got looped in, so everyone's going to feel like they need to walk…

This is my life at the moment. Even when I think I may know what is being discussed, experience has shown that a lot of people will try and fake it and being the idiot who doesn’t have a clue and needs it explained is useful for everyone.

I don’t know what it is about the IT trade, but so many people seem to find it difficult to admit that knowing everything is impossible.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#692

Post by jimkleiber » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 3:58 AM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #376

mywittyname wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the best people I've ever worked with used this approach. "I'm going to ask stupid questions now." and "Just so I'm understanding the problem, ." were two phrases she used all the time . I am surprised at how difficult it has been to emulate her technique. Feeling comfortable asking the obvious questions is one half of the battle, but the other, more difficult half, is knowing what obvious questions to ask. Mo…

>> Most of the time when I ask obvious questions, the replies are yes/no. She knew how to ask them in such a way that gets the person talking in greater detail. Dumb question here, but is it as simple as starting your question with "how" or "what" rather than "does"? The former invite explanation and the later looks for a yes/no. My big thing lately is to not ask rhetorical questions (which can be sarcasm in disguise…

> Dumb question here, but is it as simple as starting your question with "how" or "what" rather than "does"?

I really appreciate that you used the technique that people were discussing and it still seemed to work here, at least it worked on me. I found myself thinking, "No no, that's not a dumb question at all and I feel grateful that you asked it!"

So, thank you for that meta experience :-)

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#693

Post by jimkleiber » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 4:05 AM UTC

sharkweek wrote: post #370

mywittyname wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the best people I've ever worked with used this approach. "I'm going to ask stupid questions now." and "Just so I'm understanding the problem, ." were two phrases she used all the time . I am surprised at how difficult it has been to emulate her technique. Feeling comfortable asking the obvious questions is one half of the battle, but the other, more difficult half, is knowing what obvious questions to ask. Mo…

VP in my org does this, and it really disarms the room. She’s big on that exact phrase of “this could be a really stupid question, but…” She’s also really good about making sure other people are rewarded for doing the same by reassuring someone asking what might be a dumb question as, “that’s a a great question and I’m sure others were wondering the same…” before responding. Great leadership, IMO.

I love these examples, they helped me realize that I'll often preface "this could be a really stupid question" and then ask the question—even though I'm quite confident I already know the answer—because I had sensed that other people in the room might have been feeling lost. I actually do this quite often, even when I'm hearing two people talk with each other but actually talking past each other.

Also, I just took a training and observed the trainer hear a participant say that she felt frustrated with the process, and then the trainer immediately asked the room something like, "How many other people are feeling frustrated as well?" And of course, numerous hands went up, and it seemed to help show the person she wasn't alone.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#694

Post by wheelinsupial » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 4:13 AM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #670

indymike wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an interrogation technique called Five Whys. I believe it was created by S. Toyoda, and was and very is effective in root cause analysis. The basic idea was to ask a question and follow up with "Why?" until an answer contained an alterable behavior... that answer would usually come with the fifth why. Once in a while I use it in a business meetings, and as long as the person who is being questioned doesn't g…

5 Whys is great for getting depth into one causal subtree, but based on a paper I once read, answers can lack breadth when there is more than one cause (which is often the case). It said that "Why" is often best answered with a directed acyclic graph of causal relationships. (Though when I tried to use a causal DAG for root cause analysis of an incident at my current company, I was told that I was wasting time and no…

Regarding the lack of breadth of a 5 whys analysis, there is a fishbone diagram that can be used before the 5 whys to ensure more breadth.

In manufacturing there is usually 4 big topics (person, machine, material, method), but there are many variations that can be used.

Trees or other visual depictions can be used too.

The point is to have some sort of structure and adapt it to your needs.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#695

Post by csnover » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 4:18 AM UTC

hunterb123 wrote: post #644

philosopher1234 wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you evaluated, or even bothered to seek out, the literature that disagrees with you?

That doesn't make any sense. It's not a philosophical view, it's an event in history and a matter of fact. Cities defunded police departments, crime went up, some of those same cities then later re-funded those departments, and even increased budgets. The crime statistics and city council laws passed support these claims, I have not found any claims disputing these facts. Even the left most leaning sources agree with…

Hi, Minneapolitan here. I try not to wade into these sorts of discussions because it is usually unproductive or even counterproductive, but since you have expressed a sincere interest in talking about the facts of the situation, here’s what they actually are here.

The police budget for MPD in 2014 was $145.6M for 850 officers. In 2020, the year you suggest they were defunded, the budget was $181.9M for 770 officers—a 38% increase per officer from 2014 (28.7% after adjusting for inflation)[0]. In fact, that department is ending the current fiscal year $5M under budget[1], and the current mayor has proposed an additional 17% expenditure increase for 2022.[2]

The police in Minneapolis were never defunded. They have more money than ever. Efforts to introduce meaningful reforms (inaccurately called “defunding the police” by some) have also not been abandoned by the city council. We are currently voting on a charter amendment that would replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new Department of Public Safety. The new department would still include police officers but would be coequal with all other departments in the city (it currently has a unique status where it is controlled exclusively by the mayor), and its focus would be on preventing crime instead of policing people.

On the other hand, other parts of the city budget are underwater due to hundreds of former officers quitting and claiming PTSD[3], and the officers who remain are engaged in an intentional work slowdown[4] while blaming others[5] for what is a largely self-inflicted wound.

What I think the other participant in this discussion was suggesting—and something that I would echo—is that your sources for news don’t seem to be giving you accurate information and you may want to reconsider using them as primary sources, at least on this topic.

[0] https://minneapolismn.opengov.com/transparency

[1] https://twitter.com/lisabendermpls/status/145018398771290931... (This is the Minneapolis city council president)

[2] https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/FileV2/24988/2022-Bu...

[3] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/10/06/mpls-police-ptsd-cl...

[4] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-poli...

[5] https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/10/20/mpd-cop-says-office...

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#696

Post by sitkack » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 4:57 AM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #532

ValentineC wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a bit like the Socratic method [1], just used for making sure everyone is aligned with the fundamental goals. As someone who's recently been put in a position to make sure everyone's aligned (and failing quite a bit at it), it sounds like genius, in my opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

The Socratic method is where they eventually realize the answer, not one where you make them all feel frustrated before finally revealing it.

Wielded w/o skill, the Socratic Method comes of patronizing and trite.

To stay respectful, it is polite to negotiate with all participants in its use.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#697

Post by hunterb123 » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 5:19 AM UTC

csnover wrote: post #695

hunterb123 wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense. It's not a philosophical view, it's an event in history and a matter of fact. Cities defunded police departments, crime went up, some of those same cities then later re-funded those departments, and even increased budgets. The crime statistics and city council laws passed support these claims, I have not found any claims disputing these facts. Even the left most leaning sources agree with…

Hi, Minneapolitan here. I try not to wade into these sorts of discussions because it is usually unproductive or even counterproductive, but since you have expressed a sincere interest in talking about the facts of the situation, here’s what they actually are here. The police budget for MPD in 2014 was $145.6M for 850 officers. In 2020, the year you suggest they were defunded, the budget was $181.9M for 770 officers—a…

December 2020, the Minneapolis city council voted to defund the police department $8 million for the 2021 budget. [1]

February 2021, the Minneapolis city council voted to add $6.4 million to the police budget. [2]

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minneapolis-city-council-v...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/minneapolis-police-fun...

[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minneapolis-to-spend-2464-...

The budget for 2020 was never in question, the riots and defund police movement started in the summer of 2020.

City policies were being discussed late in the year, concerning the 2021 budget.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#698

Post by xapata » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 5:36 AM UTC

Zarel wrote: post #544

Ensorceled wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The insurance dealer does his job and tries to get a higher premium? Not surprised. This is actually an example of where the author IS stupid. You will often be found "at fault" in cases where you are not actually at fault (the other driver lies better than your truth) and there are many cases (at least in Ontario) where you are legislatively at fault even if you did nothing out of the ordinary (making a left turn…

I don't think it's about who's at fault, it's about what risks you're willing to tolerate. Insurance is always a trade-off of EV for tail risk. In exchange for losing money on average (the insurance company has to earn money somehow, after all), you're protected from the worst case scenario. You can think of it like, yourself from parallel universe where you don't get into a crash, pays yourself in the parallel unive…

No, it's the injuries you can't afford. Property damage doesn't add up to much (for some definitions of "much").

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#699

Post by lugged » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 5:48 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #258

lugged wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facts don't care about your feelings and the truth doesn't hurt points of view that are legitimate.

I’m not sure what this has to do with an ancient Athenian philosopher being stoned to death for saying things other people didn’t want to hear, such as “I can’t possibly be both an atheist and worship false gods”. Care to elaborate?

Just a modern rif on the same statement made above.

Re: Willingness to look stupid

#700

Post by lugged » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 5:51 AM UTC

strken wrote: post #608

lugged wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facts don't care about your feelings and the truth doesn't hurt points of view that are legitimate.

Here's a gigantic PDF listing ways the truth can hurt all kinds of things: https://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf

What's your point? I didn't say the truth was harmless.

Just that it doesn't hurt points of view that are legitimate.

Illigitimate views and your feelings may still suffer from hearing the truth.

My point is that the facts don't care.