Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joel on Software: Anecdotes

joelonsoftware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#51

Post by neilk »

pchristensen wrote: post #40
spolsky wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, lemme see if I understand here, what you're saying... Are you claiming that (a) I'm successful, and (b) I think that I'm successful because I'm smarter and worked harder and (c) Malcolm Gladwell thinks I'm successful because of good luck and timing and that (d) therefore I'm mad at Gladwell's new book and that (e) therefore I decided to slam it? Is that your theory?

You've worked harder than most people I know, but didn't you a) get the first PC in Israel, b) go to Yale, c) get early '90s Microsoft stock, d) have a house you could use as an office when you started your business, e) define the category of software blogging by getting there first, and f) start a profitable company during a tech slump, giving you an advantage in hiring? Joel Spolsky: Hard work + good luck = success…

Hang on a minute. Gladwell's book is not about mere ordinary successes, but outlier successes. Like Michael Phelps or Bill Gates. (Joel, I hope you will forgive me for calling you an "ordinary" successful person).

I think you can see the effects of luck and diligence in just about everyone's life. That's not at issue. Gladwell is suggesting that to be a Bill Gates requires a good amount of diligence (10,000 hours of practice) and also utterly ridiculous good luck. That is, the skill component stops scaling really quickly, but there's no limit to how lucky you can be.

The critics are proclaiming this to be both unsubstantiated and a truism. But I think Gladwell is onto something, because certainly our culture treats successful people differently. Think about all the successful businesspeople invited to Davos. Maybe future generations will look at that and wonder what we were thinking. Like we gathered together a lot of people who won the lottery, in the hopes that they'd win the lottery again?

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#52

Post by jackchristopher »

pg wrote: post #2

A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form. You just have to do it right.

It's implicit in the form. Mediums can bend but they break. The hard part is figuring out where.

Essays make you generalize; they're short. But generalizations need interpretation.

And if you really want to know something, you read a technical paper or do it yourself.

I could go on about this in comment but won't; Comments want to be witty.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#53

Post by jerf »

DaniFong wrote: post #9

The book review is impressively hypocritical. She ruthlessly disdains Malcolm Gladwell's use of selectively chosen biographical examples and anecdotal evidence, and then proceeds to selectively cherry-pick examples, to optimally infuriate politically correct sensibilities. She then lampoons him for incompleteness. She mentions only one of the many larger studies that he cites, the Terman study. Was the Terman study w…

I'm coming around to the point of view that when somebody complains about simplification or incompleteness, that they should simply be ignored. As long as the simplification isn't actively wrong and the incompleteness isn't deceptive by leaving out contrary evidence, one must be aware that all forms of work are limited.

Jeff Atwood took a lot of flack in his recent NP post simply because he dared describe the problem in non-mathematical terms. He may also have been wrong, but I am inclined to think his explanation was (correctly) too simplified to really be wrong... but still, right now I'm talking about the people who flamed him for failing to include a complete computer science textbook in his blog post.

Yes, I am so sorry that in my blog post ruminating on how unit testing seems to affect my Python coding that I did not include a complete, correct Grand Unified Theory of the universe complete with how to apply it at the macroscopic level and use it to predict who will win the Presidential election in 2016 and create a superhuman-intelligent AI. At some point you to understand that any given work has boundaries.

I've become sensitive to this because I actually have fallen for the trap of trying to be too inclusive, and it's worthless. Stop complaining about it. Or, at the very least, when complaining that work X should have included Y, you should say what should have been cut instead and why it would be an actual improvement in the end product, preferably beyond "I would like it better".

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#54

Post by calambrac »

DaniFong wrote: post #12
spolsky wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have real data, and used the anecdote to illustrate it, you're doing it right. If you give us the anecdote, but don't extrapolate to wild grand theories, you're doing it right... simultaneously telling an interesting story and giving people more data points to build up their own understanding of how the world works. If you give us an anecdote, then tag on some theory so that the anecdote isn't mere storytellin…

There are many theories that Gladwell's book ties together, and there's some pretty serious data on each of them. I know three, and all of this book I've read are excerpts. Each of his books includes a reading list and citations, and I don't think this will be any different. In particular, page 10 of Flynn's book is worth reading. It is not merely Gladwell's hypothesis. Terman et. al's studies of gifted children ( ht…

You expected any kind of depth, even in criticizing others for a lack of depth, from Spolsky?

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#55

Post by mattmaroon »

markessien wrote: post #34
mattmaroon wrote: post #18

This hit the nail on the head as to why I don't care for Gladwell's writings. I'm tired of telling smart friends that I think his books are largely useless (and incredibly boring) and getting the same look I would if I said that Jesus and L Ron Hubbard came to me in a dream and gave me a great recipe for chicken chili. Though unlike Chris Anderson, at least the anecdotes Gladwell bases his stories on are true, rather…

What writing then would you say was similar enough to Gladwells to be in the same genre, but better in your opinion?

Michael Pollan.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#56

Post by Agathos »

pg wrote: post #2

A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form. You just have to do it right.

You mean, "I was on a bus, complaining about Thomas Friedman, when the driver looked back and said, 'A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form.' And I realized it was true. You just have to do it right."

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#57

Post by jimbokun »

DaniFong wrote: post #12
spolsky wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have real data, and used the anecdote to illustrate it, you're doing it right. If you give us the anecdote, but don't extrapolate to wild grand theories, you're doing it right... simultaneously telling an interesting story and giving people more data points to build up their own understanding of how the world works. If you give us an anecdote, then tag on some theory so that the anecdote isn't mere storytellin…

There are many theories that Gladwell's book ties together, and there's some pretty serious data on each of them. I know three, and all of this book I've read are excerpts. Each of his books includes a reading list and citations, and I don't think this will be any different. In particular, page 10 of Flynn's book is worth reading. It is not merely Gladwell's hypothesis. Terman et. al's studies of gifted children ( ht…

I believe in one of his interviews (the New Yorker?) Gladwell kind of sheepishly admitted that people think he's a genius while really he's just packaging up other people's work with a more engaging presentation.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#58

Post by jimbokun »

"Such assessments turn individuals into pawns of their cultural heritage, just as Mr. Gladwell’s emphasis on class and accidents of historical timing plays down the role of individual grit and talent to the point where he seems to be sketching a kind of theory of social predestination, determining who gets ahead and who does not — and all based not on persuasive, broadband research, but on a flimsy selection of colorful anecdotes and stories."

1. We have just spent an entire presidential campaign during which we were reminded at every turn (and rightfully so) that the gap between rich and poor is growing, and this seems to dovetail nicely with a "theory of social predestination." Having anecdotes and data to try to explain the mechanism for how this works seems a worthwhile undertaking.

2. Why does she want Gladwell to research high speed Internet connections?

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#59

Post by Hexstream »

planzero wrote: post #28
sharkfish wrote: post #7

It kills me how the Gladwell book brought this out of Joel. Nobody wants to be told their success is a good part luck and timing. They all want to believe it is because they are smarter and worked harder. So suddenly the software world's number one anecdotal blowhard decides to slam another blowhard. Okay. Whatever.

Your data is correct, but you've got it backwards. People who believe they can be successful by working harder generally do become successful. The inverse holds as well. Aside: watch for when people say "whatever." It means they care very much about something.

Whatever.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#60

Post by wingo »

hugh wrote: post #41
aswanson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is data more than a plurality of anecdotes? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=239392

A plurality of anecdotes sampled without bias? That's the problem: interesting data points become anecdotes while uninteresting data points don't, which is why you can't reconstruct the data from the anecdotes.

A problem with your statement is that you can substitute "data" for "anecdotes":

A plurality of data sampled without bias?

That's the problem: interesting anecdotes become data while uninteresting anecdotes don't, which is why you can't reconstruct the anecdotes from the data.

Post reply on HN