The May 18, 2006
PinFeed Almanack
Wherefore Pinfeed?
The decisions that people make aren't nearly as interesting as the reasons why
they make them. The fact that a fellow runs 300 miles without stopping is not
really very significant, but it does make you wonder why he did it. The Pinfeed
Almanack is a meditation on why people use obsolete stuff, because the fact that
they do is news to nobody.
In fact, we don't care very much about news itself anymore, as evidenced by the
declining fortunes of nightly broadcasts and daily papers. But we fixate on the
talking heads and venomous partisans that purport to explain it all. Whenever
something bizarre happens, the question on everyone's lips is, "Why?" Not, "What
crime was committed?" but, "What did he know, and when did he know it?" Even
after guilt has been assessed, punishment hangs on motive. And after the
verdict, the news cycle spins on what went into the jury's deliberations.
The backstory of everything not classified as a Natural Event is about somebody
making a decision; how the decision was made is what we really want to know.
Why should we care about other people's thinking? And on occasion, when
curiosity is slaked, what do we do with such reasonings as are finally dispensed
to us?
The easy answer is that analyzing others' behavior supports strategic planning.
This is the contention of generals, poker players and baseball managers. But
nobody of sound mind plans to outthink Mikhail Gorbachev or O J Simpson or Paris
Hilton; yet everyone wants to know why they did what they did. Private US
citizens aren't in the business of fending off terrorist attacks, but we can
spend untold hours poring over what motivates Al Qa'eda.
I suspect that what we are looking for is identity. We don't necessarily have
to agree with the decision once made, but if we see in another's motives
reflections of our own processes, we are reassured. There's room for discussion
and argument, perhaps compromise, or at least coexistence. Minor decisions may
be classified as 'tactics'. Thought processes and underlying motives are
'strategy'. Alliance or loyalty are possible despite disagreement over tactics,
but not in the face of strategic differences. Strategic contention is
existential, so to discover a way of thinking that is incomprehensible makes us
very uneasy.
As in many other endeavors, developing software benefits from diverse points of
view. When I need help with a gnarly bug, I don't want someone who keeps the
same hours, uses the same editor, and favors the same languages I do. I want
some real disagreement, some challenges to my assumptions. But there are
limits; if my colleague would prefer to see the project fail and the business
collapse, we have what might be termed a strategic difference.
Still, isn't it fascinating that someone might want something I don't? And
where exactly is the line between tactic and strategy? What if failure and
collapse would result in a reorganization that would benefit the community, the
industry, and our career prospects? Are we still at odds, or do we just have
different points of view? It's probably safe to say that life-threatening
actions are not just tactics, unless you're an army or a zealot, both of which
are compelling, but way outside the Almanack's point of view.
Ideology in general does not appeal to those of the Pinfeed persuasion. We are
pragmatic folks, and we assume that most everyone else is, too. Even though we
are riveted by the incomprehensible, even with the contrary evidence staring us
in the face, we would like to think that everyone wants the project to succeed
and the business to thrive.
================================================================================
Please add a comment.
================================================================================