Instead, please try “hold narrow opinions, ask good questions”.
“Strong opinions” is an excuse for imprecise, sloppy thinking. Sloppy thinking is bad. Don’t do it.
Is there an alternative? I think so. First, I propose a taxonomy of knowledge:
An observation is a record in time. Observations are facts. “On 2022-12-17, I saw a user struggle to understand how to navigate an app I made” is an observation.
An implication connects cause and relation". Implications are facts. “If we separate between mutable code and immutable code, we derive a clean caching strategy for the immutable code” is an implications. Another example is “When the user gets a login error, there’s a fault in the system John is making”.
Facts can be invalidated. We can misremember events, or use sloppy logic. Facts are true or false, not good or bad.
In contrast, judgment is subjective. You can ask people for information, for facts. You can also ask people for help judging something. Here are three examples:
| observation | Mark practically knows Go’s standard library by heart, he was able to point me to strings.Split(). |
| implication | Last Tuesday, Ben helped me figure out why code crashed when I was stuck. |
| judgment | I asked Ann how I should approach working with a customer, and she helped me understand their point of view. |
I split judgment into aphorism and contextual utility.
An aphorism is a deeply held belief. It’s part of your theory of the world. “Do: treat people with respect” is an aphorism. Your aphorisms are shaped by your experience. Treating the people you meet with respect is good for long term relationships, but it might cause you harm in low trust environments. It would be nice to just be perfect. I’m not. You’re probably not either. We humans are. We can’t rewrite our past, we must live with it. I believe we should accept that we hold deep beliefs which cannot be changed on a whim.
Contextual utility is when you recognize a good thing to do in a situation. You’re able to recognize and match some situation to potential actions, and pick one that makes sense. You ask a good follow up question because you recognize the situation of your conversation partner, have a hunch of where to move the conversation, and are able to open up something that was previously fuzzy and unknown.
Phew. That was a lot. We’ve got a bit further to go, please bear with me. I promise that there’s a specific call to action at the end!
By talking more precisely about knowledge, we can build better stuff together. So, where does “better” fit into this hierarchy of knowledge? Where’s the quality? That’s a great question, and I don’t have a precise answer. I believe quality is both objective and subjective. It doesn’t fit neatly into either of the four categories. Rather, it ties fact and judgment together.
So, what should we do?
I started out claiming that “Strong opinions loosely held” is an excuse for sloppy thinking. A strong opinion stands on its own, as a whole. It is in part observation, in part implication, in part aphorism and in part contextual utility. A big, monolithic opinion is hard to criticize precisely. You either agree with it, or you don’t. When you’re choosing to hold strong opinions, you put the burden of total analysis on your conversational partner. I think that’s a bad thing to do. And you can choose to not do it.
Instead, hold and present narrow opinions. Avoid depending on your aphorisms when possible. When expressing contextual utility, make the context explicit. Explain the situation in which you’re suggesting your cause of action. Complex problems tend to require observations, implications and contextual utility. Don’t lump these together. Split them. By sharing your observations, others can trust your perception, or present conflicting evidence. Your implications can help others learn how you reason. When you’ve split up and recomposed your problem, end by asking questions to shape the conversation. Help people help you by sharing where you’re uncertain. Are you missing information? Is there a part of your suggested course of action you’re not confident about? How can other people help you? Ask about that. Then people can understand where you’re coming from, and how they can help you.
How about you? You’re just perfectly doing this all the time? Not at all. This is an ideal! Precise thinking requires more effort.
If you don’t make your thinking explicit, you won’t be able to look at your thinking from the outside. Explicit thinking is exactly what you get when you write down what you think. You disconnect from the “react to what’s happening right now” loop. You can revisit your thoughts at a later point in time, and see if you still believe what you wrote.
Let compassion for others motivate you when you write. Who is your target audience? How can you make it easy for them? Take your time to disassemble your ball of ideas before you attempt to shove it into another person’s head. Or be precise in what you’re asking for. “You should do as I say” is a very different thing to ask for than “Can you help me disentangle this problem I can’t get my head around?”
Writing is caring.
Big thanks to Oddmund, Ivar and Isak for early feedback!
If you want to add a comment, just send it to Teodor, or create a PR adding your comment to the comment section. Here’s some plaintext for you to copy to get started:
* Discussion
If you want to add a comment, just send it to Teodor, or create a PR adding your comment to the comment section.
Here's some plaintext for you to copy to get started:
# [... how to comment ...]
# (let's avoid infinite recursion, heh)
# Please add your comment here 👇
** 2022-12-17
*** I need to go fast!
# (assuming your name is Mike!)
I don't like how you're trying to put everything into a box.
What you're writing here really doesn't help me think.
It would just get in the way, slow me down and make me mad.
-- Mike
# Please add your comment here 👆
Then make a PR changing the source file for this document.
I don’t want to discourage people from trying or learning. Yet, I want to be clear. Not quite sure how to balance that. Comments & reactions welcome, curious if people find this encouraging, insulting or somwehere in between.
– Teodor
I start out like this:
“Strong opinions” is an excuse for imprecise, sloppy thinking. Sloppy thinking is bad. Don’t do it.
Is there an alternative? I think so. First, I propose a taxonomy of knowledge:
- Knowledge
- Fact
- Observation
- Implication
- Judgement
- Aphorism
- Contextual utility
The jump from sloppy thinking to a taxonomy of knowledge strikes me as sudden and surprising. Suggestions for improvement are much welcome. I especially dislike the “Is there an alternative? I think so. First, I propose a taxonomy of knowledge” part.
– Teodor
I found a text by Bob Sutton written in 2006: https://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html
And a 2014 tweet by Adam Grant referencing Bob Sutton: https://twitter.com/adammgrant/status/508601907330686976
Thoughts:
I’d like to suggest a better title for the “Strong opinions weakly held” concept:
Clear opinions supported by falsifiable evidence. I wonder if David Deutsch would find that acceptable?
– Teodor
How about
– Teodor
Old table:
observation Pete has such vast knowledge of Ukraine’s geography! implication Ben is a smart guy. judgment If you’re uncertain, ask Ann. She really helped me get unstuck last week.
New table:
observation Mark practically knows Go’s standard library by heart, we was able to point me to strings.Split(). implication Last Tuesday, Ben helped me figure out why code crashed when I was stuck. judgment I asked Ann how I should approach working with a customer, and she helped me understand their point of view.
I think those examples are better!
– Teodor