Interesting Links for 15-01-2023

[andrewducker]

1. The truth about Scotty

(tags:StarTrek funny Scotland )

2. Suella Braverman refuses to apologise to Holocaust survivor who points out the dangers of her language

(tags:language Holocaust migration conservatives nazis )

3. Long Covid: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations

(tags:disease Pandemic disability )

4. "Strong Opinions Loosely Held" Might be the Worst Idea in Tech

(tags:technology belief communication )

Comments

[simont]

#4:

My employer has been known to use a similar saying, but the wording is 'hold strong opinions lightly'. I had not known it was general across the tech industry; I'd assumed it was something invented locally. Moreover, nobody ever explained or clarified in more detail what exactly it was supposed to mean, and when I pondered it on my own, the idea that I should have strong opinions and moreover hold them lightly seemed nonsensical.

I ended up deciding it was really a kind of safety warning, because I reinterpreted it in the same way that you'd parse an instruction like 'handle dangerous chemicals carefully'. Nobody saying that is trying to tell you that you should handle dangerous chemicals at all – only that if you do it, then you should do it carefully.

In the same way, my understanding was that if you have a strong opinion (say, that so-and-so software is THE BEST or that it's UTTERLY WORTHLESS, rather than that it has its pros and cons like any other), then you should not insist on it beyond reason, be prepared to back off if someone else in the discussion disagrees strongly, and have a healthy respect for the possibility that you made an error in forming it. In other words, hold it lightly.

But I now see that I'm wrong! This article is starting from a wording that doesn't admit that conditionalised 'safety warning' interpretation, so I agree that in that form, the motto must be talking about the 'robust debate' concept that the article says. And if that version of it is a common meme throughout the tech industry, then I now have to assume that that is what my own employer meant by it.

How disappointing – my version made much more sense to me!

[jack]

I'd only heard this distantly as a phrase, if at all, and only now wondered what it meant.

My guess as to a worthwhile meaning solely from the name was something like "forge ahead with your best available information, but be prepared to course correct often". Googling produced some people saying an interpretation close to that, eg https://medium.com/@ameet/strong-opinions-weakly-held-a-framework-for-thinking-6530d417e364

And I can see that's something that would be useful to some people if I imagine what it looks like to NOT do that enough: I've seen groups make the opposite mistake of thinking, doing, or saying, everything too cautiously, too ready to revert to the consensus if anyone is surprised, for fear of pushing too far or too hard.

I can interpret that as a description of useful way of thinking internally: think of a hypothesis that might push boldly in a direction, compare against reality, see what useful insights come, evaluate. Better than only taking tiny steps.

But obviously what the glowforge article describes is a horrible dysfunctional culture I hadn't seen either but apparently seems common to him, of people who think "weakly held" means "express a blowhard opinion and shout down all opposition and pretend that they know they have to fight back harder (but half the time actually hate them if they do)". I don't know how common it is, but I agree it's bad. Whereas I also agree saying something bold is often illuminating even if it's wrong (eg by someone junior), if it doesn't give people the idea they have to agree, and isn't so constant as to DoS any decisions

[andrewducker]

Here's a good piece on the original usage of the term:
https://medium.com/@ameet/strong-opinions-weakly-held-a-framework-for-thinking-6530d417e364

And here it is on the creator's own blog:
https://www.saffo.com/02008/07/26/strong-opinions-weakly-held/

[chess]

Yeah, I have found that it unfortunately usually means 'as the technical manager I want license to have loud strongly worded arguments and then force you to do whatever I wanted to do anyway', or at the very least 'the way to get any input into decision making is to have a shouty argument' - which I can totally do, but feel like this isn't really the most inclusive way to do it, and I do run a higher risk of actually upsetting someone who can get me into trouble because 'autistic' and 'female' both make it harder to keep within the arbitrary acceptable range while still being assertive enough to be heard.

[andrewducker]

Here's a good piece on the original usage of the term:
https://medium.com/@ameet/strong-opinions-weakly-held-a-framework-for-thinking-6530d417e364

And here it is on the creator's own blog:
https://www.saffo.com/02008/07/26/strong-opinions-weakly-held/

[autopope]

Reminder that after Braverman finally goes too far and gets the heave-ho they're going to inflict Kemi Badenoch on us.

Thereby maintaining a sequence of Home Secretaries getting worse and worse and worse with every succession.

[hairyears]

True, but that kind of thinking manipulates a community into grudging acceptance of their current problem, through fear of it becoming even worse.

Not *quite* Stockholm Syndrome but it's still useful to authoritarian governments.

Also: Suella Braverman can and will get worse. We could easily find ourselves with someone worse than Badenoch by accepting what we've got - which is functionally identical to not unsettling and threatening to unseat her by making these policies and attitudes an electoral liability.