The Fermi Paradox

"You know when you hear about humans of the past debating whether the Earth was round or if the sun revolved around the Earth or thinking that lightning happened because of Zeus, and they seem so primitive and in the dark? That’s about where we are with this topic."

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

There's something terribly exciting about looking at a problem like this.  "...whatever the truth actually is, it’s mindblowing."

Don't Think Outside the Box

Gordius, the King of Phrygia, once tied a knot that no one could untie. It was said that he who solved the riddle of the Gordian Knot would rule all of Asia. So along comes Alexander the Great, who chops the knot to bits with his sword. Just a little different interpretation of the requirements, that's all… and he did end up ruling most of Asia.

Such is the introduction to a truly insightful section of the book The Pragmatic Programmer.  The ideas presented in this section, like many great software engineering principles, expand beyond the realm of programming.

Programming in any existing language requires clarity of thought.  One significant component of that is the removal (or at least, verification of) assumptions.  This idea is equally applicable to any problem we might face in the "real world."  When trying to solve such a problem, assumptions can really be the enemy:

If the "box" is the boundary of constraints and conditions, then the trick is to find the box, which may be considerably larger than you think.

The key to solving puzzles is both to recognize the constraints placed on you and to recognize the degrees of freedom you do have, for in those you'll find your solution... 

It's not whether you think inside the box or outside the box.  The problem lies in finding the box - identifying the real constraints.

This really resonated with me.  When given a problem, we are almost never given the full set of real constraints.  Most constraints are assumed or imagined, leading us to believe we have a much smaller box.  This leads to potentially less effective (and certainly less innovative) solutions.

So what should we do?  The authors continue:

When faced with an intractable problem, enumerate all the possible avenues you have before you.  Don't dismiss anything, no matter how unusable or stupid it sounds.  

This isn't so ground-breaking.  It's basically the idea of "brainstorming" that we all learned in elementary school.  But the authors go a step further:

Now go through the list and explain why a certain path cannot be taken.  Are you sure?  Can you prove it?

This step is where I know I have failed in the past.  I can generate a list of fantastical ideas, but I know I have been too quick to prune some of the more outlandish ones.

I won't make that mistake again.
 

"He Who Can Do This Has the Whole World with Him"

Back in November of 2013, I posted about how to ask for a favor.  In a nutshell: make it so easy that people don't notice they're doing it.  This has clear implications for software design.

I just read that Cinemark went a step further: rewarding you for doing them a favor.

http://lifehacker.com/cinemark-rewards-you-for-turning-your-phone-off-during-1545581081

Now, I can't comment on the efficacy of this app, but I love the principle.  I'll again reference Dale Carnegie: "There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything... And that is by making the other person want to do it."  He further says: "So the only way on earth to influence other people is to talk about what they want and show them how to get it."

Let's think about the moviegoer with his phone on.  Sure, he may not want to disturb others in the cinema.  But when he gets a Tweet of a cat doing something funny (or Instagram buzzes with a picture of what his second cousin is having for breakfast) his personal desire suddenly trumps his concern for the rest of the audience.

Cinemark's tactic, then, is based on realizing that people care about their own desires much more than the desires of others.

Why has it been so hard to get people to behave in an environmentally-friendly way?  This same reason!  People care more about their personal inconvenience and/or expense than helping literally the rest of the planet by being green.

So what did Tesla do?  Did they market their cars as a way to help the environment?  No!  That would be appealing to the wrong desire.  They market their cars as high-performance status symbols.  If you go to teslamotors.com right now, you'll see that the biggest statement on the front page is "THE HIGHEST SAFETY RATING IN AMERICA."

In other words, they are showing you how you can benefit yourself.  They know that you really care about that more than the environment.

So whether we are building software or marketing a product, we must realize that the only way to get people to do something we want is to give them what will benefit them personally.

You Can't Win an Argument

I hate arguing.  Actually, I feel that if a discussion gets to the point of becoming an argument, I've already lost.  Or, more accurately, both sides have already lost.

I could never quite articulate why I felt that way, but now I think I can.  And I have Dale Carnegie to thank for that:

Nine times out of ten, an argument ends with each of the contestants more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right.  

You can't win an argument.  You can't because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it.  Why?  Well, supposed you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes... Then what?  You will feel fine.  But what about him?  You have made him feel inferior.  You have hurt his pride.  He will resent your triumph.  And- 

A man convinced against his will 

Is of the same opinion still.

Ben Franklin illustrates it with this trade-off:

If you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a victory sometimes; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent's good will.

So figure it out for yourself.  Which would you rather have: an academic, theatrical victory or a person's good will?  You can seldom have both.

Lincoln chimes in with what to do instead of arguing:

No man who is resolved to make the most of himself can spare time for personal contention, still less can he afford to take the consequences, including the vitiation of his temper and the loss of self control.  Yield to larger things to which you show no more than equal rights, and yield to lesser ones though clearly your own.  Better give your path to a dog, than be bitten by him in contesting for the right.  Not even killing the dog will cure the bite.

As Dale says, will proving someone wrong make him want to agree with you?  Of course not!  You just made him hurt and angry.  In other words, you've evoked emotions.  Negative ones.  And once those are in play, all the reason and logic in the world won't do any good.

Don't Roll Your Eyes

"[John] Gottman has proven something remarkable.  If he analyzes an hour of a husband and wife talking, he can predict with 95 percent accuracy whether that couple will still be married fifteen years later."  - Malcom Gladwell, Blink.

How does he do it?  By looking at the microexpressions on their faces while they have meaningful communication.  Each expression conveys an emotion or attitude.  The "Four Horsemen" of negative emotion are: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt.  But within those four, the king is contempt.  Contempt is the single strongest indication that a marriage is in trouble.

A disagreement, even criticism, can be discussed rationally and worked through.  But contempt is putting the other person on a lower plane than you.  It is immediately discounting what they are saying for no other reason than because you feel superior to them.  That is detrimental.

So what is the facial expression that indicates contempt?  You guessed it: eye-rolling.