There are some good points in this article, but data-driven discussion drives me bonkers. Too many engineers hold to some doctrine based on "science" or "data" or whatever, and don't really show compassion toward intuition or gut, etc. Feelings and thoughts are just as vital to human understanding as anything cold or wanton floating out in the ecosystem of observationally proven things. (Human observation is actually intrinsically tied to gut...)
I'm much more interested in generous discussion. I do agree with a lot of your other points, however, which somewhat fall in line with compassionate disagreement.
Head of Product at Temporal. Previously lead architect and low-level systems programmer for scale out SaaS offering. Game engine developer, ML engineering expert. DMs open on Twitter.
Your argument should be driven by data, but practically will rely on well-educated guessing
Which I believe is what you're saying too. Data is important. Data can't be mislead, or confused, or shortsighted, it just is. Obviously you won't always have the data you need, but you should strive to always have the data you need.
No, I'm not talking about guess work in data. I'm talking about imperative trust of human intuition, that is, completely detached from reason or logic or data.
People who are obsessed with a data-driven understanding of the world sometimes aren't willing to engage with other forces at play that go beyond consciousness.
If you really wanted to get in the weeds, you could pit this as cold hard secularism against spirituality, but I prefer a scientific view of a psychological unconscious that we don't yet truly understand.
This becomes a breakdown of communication because people sometimes won't listen on the merits of intuition. It often becomes either / or, instead of looking at things from multiple points of view. I like data as much as the next person, but there are other important means of approaching conversation.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
There are some good points in this article, but data-driven discussion drives me bonkers. Too many engineers hold to some doctrine based on "science" or "data" or whatever, and don't really show compassion toward intuition or gut, etc. Feelings and thoughts are just as vital to human understanding as anything cold or wanton floating out in the ecosystem of observationally proven things. (Human observation is actually intrinsically tied to gut...)
I'm much more interested in generous discussion. I do agree with a lot of your other points, however, which somewhat fall in line with compassionate disagreement.
I did say
Which I believe is what you're saying too. Data is important. Data can't be mislead, or confused, or shortsighted, it just is. Obviously you won't always have the data you need, but you should strive to always have the data you need.
No, I'm not talking about guess work in data. I'm talking about imperative trust of human intuition, that is, completely detached from reason or logic or data.
People who are obsessed with a data-driven understanding of the world sometimes aren't willing to engage with other forces at play that go beyond consciousness.
If you really wanted to get in the weeds, you could pit this as cold hard secularism against spirituality, but I prefer a scientific view of a psychological unconscious that we don't yet truly understand.
This becomes a breakdown of communication because people sometimes won't listen on the merits of intuition. It often becomes either / or, instead of looking at things from multiple points of view. I like data as much as the next person, but there are other important means of approaching conversation.