jack

A recent conversation about Defence against the Dark arts teachers made me realise I use "evil" in two different ways. Sometimes I mean, "doing something bad on purpose". Sometimes I mean, "doing harm to other people". The greatest harm is often done by people who are indifferent to it. But people who maliciously hurt others are awful is a special way.

A couple of the professors were very indifferent-evil. They didn't set out to hurt people, but they didn't see any of the awful things they did to people. Others were malicious-evil, they were killing people all over the place.

And of course, it's more complicated by that. Most people who cause harm by inattention SHOULD notice, and exist somewhere on a scale from "I'm 8 and I haven't broken away from the worldview I'm immersed in" to "I'm really really really wilfully ignorant, and I must be actively avoiding thinking about this."

But insofar as it's helpful to be able to think about bad things, it's useful to realise that they often overlap, but when I say "very evil" I might mean one of two different things.

I sometimes think of things I enjoy doing, just like things I need to be able to do, as skills. Not that the main enjoyment of reading a book is the challenge, but I think *some* of it is. I enjoy reading books where I DO have to work to follow what's going on, even though I enjoy that less often than I enjoy reading books that aren't as hard work.

But that partly means, I'm always slowly getting bored with the sort of books I used to like. Because if you can read the first few pages and say, "right, I bet the tough protagonist talks like an asshole but actually always does the right thing and the female lead flirts with him for some reason and the morally ambiguous manipulators switch sides several times but end up essentially working with the protagonist in the climax even if he doesn't like it", and all that happens, the only bits I'm really experiencing are the bits that *don't* fit into that mold.

And it also means, reading books in a different genre can be *difficult*, I need to consciously practice in order to follow when much more of the book is new to me. But rewarding, because a bit of practice can open up a lot of other books.

And it also means, "how much do you like this book" can vary a lot, "it's good, but only if you're familiar with that sort of thing" or "it's good, but you may have read it all before", can be the norm, not the exception.

Nakedtoes recently described to me something Chris Hadfield said, that he described people's places in an organisation as an extremely loose approximations: Ones, who contributed a lot; Zeros who were mostly treading water; and Minus Ones who sucked more effort than they produced.

And he said, he found it easy to aim to be a One and almost always end up as a Minus One due to trying too hard and making the wrong mistakes. But if you aim to just do your job reliably, aim to be a Zero, you are much more likely to end up functioning as a One.

I wasn't sure at the time, but that resonated a lot with me. I think I've always suffered from smart-at-school syndrome, that I expect to be exceptional, but find it hard to see my worth if I'm not exceptional. So I'm constantly trying to do things exceptionally, to revamp all the procedures at once, and introduce all the things I think are necessary, and find the amazing magic bullet for a situation -- and that leads to me getting really stressed because every time an idea is shot down it's really hard to say "oh yes, you're right, this idea that I consider a fundamental necessity is stupid and not worth it" and even harder when you'd tied your self worth to being "the guy who introduced distributed source control" or whatever. And I find it hard to motivate myself to do just an ok reliable job, because I find it hard to believe that if I do that, I'm worthwhile, and find it hard to believe I _can_ do that (partly a self-fulfilling prophecy, because I tend to procrastinate a lot on things that don't seem important).

But if I tell myself that just doing the mundane stuff reliably and well will contribute to overall success of the organisation and myself, it gets a lot easier to do, it seems to help. And maybe I shouldn't need to do that, but it seems to help...

Good question, and I don't really have a good answer, I'd like brainstorming it with ghoti more, but at this point in December, I have to start saying if I haven't got to it yet, I probably won't get to it.

To me, "counter-culture" suggests "subculture you wish could be mainstream culture" and foible suggests "loveable weakness". And I really hope I've some personality traits in the overlap, but I can't think of any!

Most of my social group are massively progressive (usually socially, and often economically) and I agree with all of that, but it's really just "agreeing with people I think are right", I don't think it really counts as counter-cultural nor a foible.

And I have other opinions and traits which are most people don't share. I'm vegetarian, and I do think that's right (or some approximation to that, I'm not sure ethically farmed meat is unethical), but that's not really a foible, it's a principled decision, even if I'm wrong about it. And I have lots of grammar quirks, but they're not really counter-cultural.

I brainstormed this with Liv, and she suggested that I'm more law-abiding. And I agree, I am, and sometimes that's an amusing personality quirk. But I think "being too conformist" is the opposite of counter-cultural, and also, is actually a really big personality defect: it somewhat helps me following rules when they matter (eg. I rarely deliberately compromise ethical opinions, even though I'm rarely faced with a stark choice), but it's a massive risk of me following rules which don't really exist, or are harmful, or are useless, and would be better ignored.

The best I can think of is an inherited weakness for old-school socialism and singing the red flag. Which I don't think is polite to do in public, because it's been so co-opted by Stalinist USSR :( But I'm nostalgic for a remembrance of the idea of a complete cultural revolution, imposing fairness on society as a whole without regard to existing structures or national borders (even though I think it's often a disaster to try to do that rather than supporting successive improvements).

This is something I've been introspecting a lot about recently, it's interesting to try to distil the latest thoughts down into written form. I've deliberately shot for the moon, on the theory that it's useful to have reference points on either side of the right answer, and build up from what's plausible and down from what's ideal, rather than only assume that you must take baby steps forward and never reach. But I'm ashamed if that makes me sound really arrogant :(

1. Hard things

Trying to synthesise what I enjoy doing and am good at, I think I like doing hard things that work. Both learning new hard things, and putting into practice hard things I've already learned. Probably slightly more to towards the practical than pure academic research, but in that direction compared to most jobs. I like understanding hard things, and putting that understanding into action.

Which all fits programming very well, yay! Other ways programming is well suited to me is that I don't like flying without an undo, and I don't like nebulous things where it's not clear if they worked or not, and you get those in programming, but lots of programming is about avoiding them.

I like building complicated systems, and then looking and them working and saying "wow".

This doesn't have to be programming. If there's a surplus of good programmers, and a dearth of good managers, entrepreneurs, UI designers, economists, politicians, artists... I could maybe do some of those things, which do involve hard, accurate thought and building systems that work. The thing I am best at and enjoy doing isn't automatically actually in demand! But on balance, I hope that actually the best programmers are sufficiently in demand that it's a worthwhile contribution to society (both in terms of contribution I make, and what I might expect to get in return).

My fantasies are still embarrassingly adolescent-mathmo, of people saying "we just couldn't figure it out, and then Jack thought very hard, and then explained it to us and now it's fixed, yay!"

And not necessarily alone, I'd like to lead creating a larger system than I can manage myself, but ideally if the work is primarily in technical design, not in communication overheads and management.

2. Making something that perpetuates

This kind of blended through from the previous point, but is different. I'm not sure how much it's something everyone would like but isn't arrogant enough to hope for, and how much it's just me. But I always want the idea of looking at something worthwhile and saying "I did that". And ideally that would go on being worthwhile when I'm not there doing it any more!

I want to make something awesome, not just do worthwhile things that get absorbed.

3. Worthwhile

Worthwhile, both in the sense of having a measurable impact, and in being socially worthwhile. I probably can't hit both of those poles 100%, but I'd like it if I could. Currently I think I'm making software which is useful, and not actively anti-social, which is generally a plus to society, but I the more my work is immediately needed (by anyone) and makes a real positive difference to people's lives, the more I would like it (although I've not really expected to be able to do that without giving up #1, unless I do it in a completely different way).

4. Respect

I'm embarrassed to call this out specifically, but it would be nice if other people recognised the other points, and generally had an attitude of "thank goodness Jack's doing this, yay" not "ugh, more Jack".

And ideally about multiple different things, not just "here's a black box with Jack in where we throw equations and coffee in and get answers out, but we refuse to discuss whether those are the RIGHT equations, or we're working towards the right goals". Like, maybe I could work with other people who are competent at other things, but are able to explain them enough in broad outlines that I can trust them, and know where they interface to my areas of expertise, and occasionally make constructive suggestions based on my work.

Like, fame would be nice but not necessary, but it would be nice if when I told people what I'd done they said "wow, thank you" not "boring" or "why bother".

I'm embarrassed to list this because it feels like I shouldn't care, and that it's not something you're entitled to ask for, just to get or not. But this is list of things I'd like, not necessarily things I deserve.

5. Financial security

Talking it over with Liv, I don't want more money in the short term, my lifestyle has mostly reached a level I feel sufficient. I only want a larger salary because it represents respect and job security: that people should pay you what you're worth, and if they don't, and there's no specific reason for that, even if it's not bad for it's own sake, it's a pointed reminder that you don't have as much control over your own life as you aspired to...

And, linked to the previous point, respect from friends and peers, not just employers, which shouldn't depend on money, but I feel like everyone always assumes I'm a loser because I don't have anything obvious holding me back, I don't have an obvious disability, I don't have a family, I didn't deliberately make a trade-off to do something I thought was worthwhile, and yet, I'm not wildly financially successful :(

However, there are ways earning lots of money would make a lot of difference, not in terms of getting a better lifestyle, but in terms of preventing it getting worse. Enough of a cushion that if I lost my job, I wouldn't need to worry at all, or that if I decided that I'd rather spend two years developing some piece of software I thought was worthwhile without being beholden to investors, I just could. Enough that if some other disaster happens, to me personally or my financial situation, I can ride it out. Enough that I don't need to worry about my lifestyle when I need to retire, or if my parents need a lot of support as they get older. Enough that if Liv needed help I could give it.

And lots of small ways that a superfluity of money would not enable me to be decadent, but would make lots of things easier. Maybe I'd like to spend a month every spring or summer working from the med coast. Maybe I'd like to spend six months living in a completely different country to see what it's like. To split my time between Cambridge and Keele however I liked, or to be able to stay somewhere else for a week working from home without worrying about arranging accommodation, negotiating leave, etc. I'd like to not waste time on all the little things that waste time every week, if I could just buy my way out of them. Money can't be immortality -- but it can buy more life, by removing time spent waiting for buses, wrestling with bureaucracies, fixing problems, etc, etc.

6. Good process

It would be nice to work somewhere with a clear shared understanding of what we're trying to achieve, and measuring success working towards that. Including a clear sense of achievement and progress; clear decisions about what we're doing and not doing, not just assuming that everyone that some things will never be finished; that we'll be realistic about important goals and have stretch goals and actually MEET them, not always have too-ambitious goals that we fail every single time.

I work so so so much better when I've got something to work towards, not swimming in shared and unshared assumptions...

Moving from the general to the specific, from a software point of view, it would be nice to have all the obvious good practice:

* requirements
* unit tests and release tests
* coding standards
* clear procedure for committing, building, releasing
* nightly builds, fast builds
* DVCS
* agile-ish (but not too scrum-y)
* clear process for bug database
* as much communication as needed (hopefully daily), but not endless rehashing
* etc, etc

7. Low but not zero hectic-ness

I hate sudden disasters, especially ones that everyone thinks, or I feel, are my fault, because I didn't have enough control over how much advance planning to do. (That doesn't mean, I think everything should be polished until it's perfect, it means there should be a positive decision on how much to prioritise perfection and reliability, and if that's underchanged, we should budget for future problems coming to light, not just treat them as bolt-from-the-blue "oh look, Johnny McWeDidn'tAllowHimToTestOrTellHimTheRequirements fucked up again,")

But I do like a certain amount of handling real-time response, when I have the freedom to anticipate it and assign priorities, because I like the satisfaction of doing it well and not panicing :)

So, ideally, not big one-shot events which succeed or fail, nor constant fire-fighting, but maybe rapid and flexible release cycles? I'm not certain of what I DO want, but I'm certain of what I DON'T want :)

Specifics

If I put that together into a little story, how might it go? Someone comes to me and says "I was talking to a mutual friend and I plan to do [socially constructive thing], but in order to do that, we need to do [hard things] and it seems like your experience and ability to learn new things rapidly would be perfect. I've a lot of experience with [field] and with hiring good people, but not with building software. I'm thinking of several other good people, but I'd like your input on them. Can you handle a small team of committed techies? No problem if you think someone else would lead better."

"We don't have infinite money, but we have resources to tap for anything that seems important, and we don't want to scrimp on day-to-day comforts for the team. Most of the time you should probably work from Cambridge, but you'd have to travel occasionally and you can arrange it however you like. You'd have [some fancy job title] and a [serious salary], plus a significant stake in the success of the organisation."

"The code should probably be open source, because it might be useful in other fields even though the real advantage in what we're doing is the people not the code base. Is there anything else you think I should know?"

I also note, I'm mostly agnostic whether the organisation is a new department in large company, a start-up, a non-profit, or something else -- I think any of those can fit the role of "doing something worthwhile".

ewx asked about my distinctive writing and speaking style. I was flattered
people noticed. Unfortunately, I don't really have any idea -- it's like
having an accent or dialect, to me, I just sound normal, and everyone else
sounds normal too! :)

I guess I assumed I was much like everyone else I knew: prone to pedantry
and grammatical flourishes, maybe more so, but not otherwise an outlier :)
But I asked several close friends, and they separately agreed I DID have a
distinctive writing and speaking style. But I didn't get much closer to
describing it.

Thinking about it more, I said grammatical flourishes, but I think I tend
to do that _more_. I tend to be very precise in numbering things, and
having subclauses, which even if they ramble on, I will always be very
definite that I _intended_ to finish up the main sentence with a last verb
or preposition. And ramble on too much trying to enumerate things, and
going meta and meta-er, to the extent of trying to overgeneralise, and
completely failing to say the thing I was actually trying to say. And I
tend to a sort of deadpan sarcasm, aiming for it being so plausible you
might _very nearly_ think I meant it (which often goes badly if you're
talking to a diverse audience, or mis-estimate how well people know what
I'm likely to believe).

But, basically... I'm not really sure. You tell me -- what is my
distinctive style? :)

I used to tag posts about LJ "meta", but I had no way to tag posts which were about "meta" itself. I could have used "meta-meta", but then, well, that enters an infinite recursion of paradox...

In what ways are facebook more attractive than DW/LJ? Either better or more addictive. I agree with all the reasons facebook is bad (that it hides what you want to see in favour of things that will get more advertising, that they obscure the privacy model, that they inconsistently enforce real names policy and let abusive things pass but ban anything vaguely detrimental to advertisers, etc) And why many of us like LJ,DW, because I love long-form posts. But I suspect that I end up using it because it's convenient in some ways, not *just* because of the network effect.

Off the top of my head:

* Easy to do many things
* Easy to "share" other people's statuses
* Easy to post short updates and have *some* (albeit bad) comment threads on them
* Easy to post albums of pictures
* Easy to see weddings, births, etc from distant friends
* That simply everyone is on there

What else?

What am I awesome at? What am I ok at?

I think I realised why I don't naturally get on with statistics as much as you'd expect.

I think it's because in statistics it's more likely that you'll do a bunch of calculation, and at the end, it's not obvious to everyone that you got it right. I'm not sufficiently confident that I've done all the hard stuff right, I still like the external validation of it being obvious.

I feel like I've succeeded in getting good at handling new complicated situations without entering a negative spiral. Yay me!

Unfortunately, it feels like everything I *used* to be stressed about over the last ten years are still scattered about my brain like landmines, and whenever I walk into one, I'm suddenly equally stressed, partly from long experience of expecting it to be doom, and partly from guilt at not having handled it better in the past. And the number *is* being steadily reduced as they become irrelevant or I prove they're not a problem. But each one requires a lot of tiptoeing around gently defusing it bit by bit by dealing with the practical problems and learning that "it's not so bad" and letting the negative emotions dissipate before it actually goes away.

I also feel like I've been doing a lot of introspecting recently, which has been pretty successful, but means I don't have anything to talk about in person or on LJ except "here's a bunch of complicated emotional stuff", which isn't very engaging.

But I resolved to blog three times a week about whatever I was doing at the moment, on the theory that writing high-flown interesting essays was unlikely to happen, but it was still a valuable way of keeping people involved in my life if I just talked about things I was doing without having to have a new and original thought for every post. And this is what I was thinking about today.