There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones • Hacker News Board

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#171

Post by igouy » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 6:51 PM UTC

jqjester wrote: post #169

igouy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regarding DeMarco and Lister... After the words you quote, McConnell goes on to say -- "Having said that, their study supports the 10x claim in spades and is not subject to many of the more common methodological weaknesses present in other software engineering studies." After the words you quote, McConnell goes on to say -- "Bossavit should have looked at the paper I cited, not the book. The paper shows a 5.6x diff…

I was originally responding to the challenge "aren't you taking Bossavit's claims on trust?" I'm differentiating between Bossavit's claims about the citations from Bossavit's analysis and arguments. I have to take his claims about the articles and books on trust, because I haven't read them. On the other hand, I don't have to trust his analysis and arguments - I can evaluate those on my own. In the case of DeMarco an…

To check my understanding of your response, let me reduce it to caricature:

B claims the article is not printed on blue paper, and we have to take that claim on trust because we haven't seen it.

M agrees with that description of the article, but disagrees that not printed on blue paper invalidates its status as evidence.

We can decide for ourselves whether we think not printed on blue paper invalidates its status as evidence.

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#172

Post by jqjester » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 9:01 PM UTC

igouy wrote: post #171

jqjester wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was originally responding to the challenge "aren't you taking Bossavit's claims on trust?" I'm differentiating between Bossavit's claims about the citations from Bossavit's analysis and arguments. I have to take his claims about the articles and books on trust, because I haven't read them. On the other hand, I don't have to trust his analysis and arguments - I can evaluate those on my own. In the case of DeMarco an…

To check my understanding of your response, let me reduce it to caricature: B claims the article is not printed on blue paper , and we have to take that claim on trust because we haven't seen it. M agrees with that description of the article, but disagrees that not printed on blue paper invalidates its status as evidence. We can decide for ourselves whether we think not printed on blue paper invalidates its status as…

That sounds fair.

Re: There are no 10x developers, but there are 1/10 ones

#173

Post by igouy » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:28 PM UTC

jqjester wrote: post #172

igouy wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To check my understanding of your response, let me reduce it to caricature: B claims the article is not printed on blue paper , and we have to take that claim on trust because we haven't seen it. M agrees with that description of the article, but disagrees that not printed on blue paper invalidates its status as evidence. We can decide for ourselves whether we think not printed on blue paper invalidates its status as…

That sounds fair.

So presumably you'd characterise --

"I am claiming that for whatever reasons he is here dressing up, in the trappings of scientific discourse, what is in fact an unsupported assertion meshing well with his favored opinion. McConnell is abusing the mechanism of scientific citation to lend authority to a claim which derives it only from a couple studies which can be at best described as “exploratory” (and at worst, maybe, as “discredited”)."

-- as Bossavit's "analysis and arguments" which you can evaluate for yourself.