[Off-Topic] The Problem of Credentials
It’s not news that everyone knows I’m a strong proponent against certifications, specifically in the IT area. Despite the intention itself being good, the practical effect is more harmful than the benefits. As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
However, I’d go further and put an umbrella term on it. In reality, I’m totally against “Credentials” in general, particularly out of context. And beyond that, I also like to argue about argumentation. For a while now I’ve been mentioning fallacies whenever I can. I’m very far from a broader understanding, but I’m always trying to expand it, and I think everyone should.
A simple example: I love the work of a Martin Fowler, or a Robert Martin. I think their insights are very valuable, their recommendations are excellent. Certainly they’re people who work hard to be above average. But — and here comes the problem — they are also human beings and, as such, they have flaws. This is an indisputable fact we need to accept in all argumentation. Simply because an Uncle Bob said something, that doesn’t automatically constitute truth.
It should be obvious, but many people get “dazzled” by celebrities. Seriously, they literally turn into “cheerleaders.” That is, because the person worked at some renowned company, or because they wrote a book, or simply because they’re a foreigner, anything they say carries the weight of truth. And that’s a huge danger. Everything the big names say needs to go through the same scrutiny as anyone without renown. No exceptions. I repeat many of the things a Fowler says, not because I consider him “the supreme authority” on the subject, but because what he says effectively makes sense, can be experimented with, discussed, and — more importantly — opens the way for refinement and evolution.
This is nothing more, nothing less than the appeal to authority fallacy. Because A said B; and because A is considered an authority; therefore B is true. Pay attention: this is used every day. This and a dozen other fallacies (see list below) are used daily, and we fall for them all the time.
The opposite is also true — just because Philippe Kruchten helped create RUP doesn’t mean he’s bad (kidding, the guy is very good). By the way, this is another thing that bothers me a lot: attacking some technology, practice, or the like by attacking its creator or participant. For example, “Rails is bad because David is arrogant.” That’s a fallacy, well known in English as the Straw Man fallacy, which in more general form is talking about an irrelevant subject to draw attention away from discussing the main subject.
Both cases are bad. This leads us to the tendency of also ignoring people without renown — your most experienced employee, who actually understands the problem, is sometimes ignored, because someone with more renown — but totally outside the context — has launched certain “truths.” Now that “truth” is the law. No more questions. And, of course, the opposite also exists: you only believe your most senior employee precisely because they’re the most senior. None of that is good justification. The important thing is always: the person doesn’t matter, what matters is their arguments. And arguments that follow the scientific method.
The fact is that most of us are lazy about thinking. Pure and simple laziness. Besides that, the way we were brought up always brings figures of authority, and that figure is always more right than we are — a sign of low self-esteem, I’d say. So when we see someone in a position of authority, the tendency is to accept what comes from them, especially if we’re comfortable with their understanding — the old problem of leaving the comfort zone. Most people weren’t trained for change, they were trained for stability, which is why anything different is always looked at askance. Most people only listen to what they want to hear, only see what they want to see. No one from outside can easily change that in another person, which is quite sad.
Some Wikipedia articles on the topic of argumentation:
A person who doesn’t like to argue, by definition, can never be a decision-maker. Many use others’ credibility inappropriately (“because so-and-so said — out of context, but said …”). But the worst is when a decision is made by shouting, by force of position, for example. That’s the attitude of an individual with clear incapacities of argumentation and, therefore, of understanding the subject.
Of course, on many occasions we’re forced to decide something “by instinct.” If we spent the whole day arguing every small decision, we really wouldn’t get anything done. Imagine arguing whether to wear the red shirt or the yellow one, and why. I’m not talking about micro-argumentation (which, like micro-management, doesn’t work). But decisions that involve people, divergent points of view, should be analyzed more calmly. If even after argumentation it’s still not possible to reach a logical conclusion from any of the premises, in the end it’s instinct that will end up guiding the possible solution. Argumentation isn’t an exact science — it’s humanities using scientific principles for better formulation of arguments.
And still in the case of fallacy, many still believe in the “dictatorship of the majority” or “because the majority said something is true, it must be.” One of the fallacious forms is described as argumentum ad populum, or that sneaky way of starting a sentence: “Everyone knows that…” I always say I admire the Founding Fathers of America for having had insights advanced for the time that to this day people don’t quite understand. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, we have:
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
So, it also isn’t “in all cases the majority wins” but rather “in all cases that don’t violate the rights of the minority, the majority wins.” That’s subtle. For example, because the majority decided we should take your property, therefore this is correct. No, because each individual has the right to their own property, and the government must protect it. Thus, the majority’s will to take someone’s property is revoked by the fact that a fundamental right is being violated, which by definition constitutes oppression, not democracy.
Thinking is hard — it requires study, requires culture, requires practice. Thinking hard isn’t something most “busy” people want to do. Most prefer to be given ready-made, canned answers, or prefer to quickly choose anything “by instinct,” or “because I’ve chosen right before, I’ll always choose right” or even “because it’s worked before somewhere, it should work here too,” which is obviously a fallacy, the good old Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
By the way, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is why self-help books, books with magical methodologies, “advanced” recipes, and every kind of canned procedure sell so much: because it removes the work of thinking from people, giving them ready-made answers, “that have already worked in dozens of places,” or something similar.
Some, effectively, after prudent research and experimentation, are actually good. Most, however, remind me of an allegory about medicine. Imagine if all doctors acted this way. You enter the doctor’s office and say:
- “Doctor, I’m in a lot of pain.”
- “My son, take this medicine every day and the pain goes away. You can leave.”
- “But Doctor, you’re not even going to examine me, diagnose me?”
- “What for? I already gave this medicine to the last 3 patients that came in and they all got better — why would it be different with you?”
Funny? It shouldn’t be. Review the decisions you make, or that people around you make, and you’ll notice they look a lot like that allegory. In fact, they look a lot like most of the fallacious arguments I mention in this article. Even I catch myself falling into that kind of trick, many times. Even the most vigilant person still falls. Argumentation is an art. Understanding too.
So, the only thing to do is what I say all the time: Be Skeptical. Question, always, the Status Quo.