Does programming lead to paralyzing perfectionism in other aspects of life?
10 comments
If you're prone to becoming paralysed with perfectionism, you're likely to suffer in your programming at least as much as in other aspects of life.
Except that in your first couple of years of programming, before you start worrying about maintenance, users, and other developers, "working" is about as "perfect" as you care to get.
I'm not sure about a need for "flawless truth" but after being immersed in code for hours I do have trouble socializing and being on a less intense level with people. I find I'm inclined to be more introverted unless I've had time to unwind, or to want to discuss topics with more detail, stuff that's better discussed one-on-one than in groups.
But the same can be true if I'm deep into writing a new song as well, so maybe it's a problem moving from the specific to the general without time to switch modes?
But the same can be true if I'm deep into writing a new song as well, so maybe it's a problem moving from the specific to the general without time to switch modes?
... after being immersed in code for hours I do have trouble socializing and being on a less intense level with people.
I have noticed this too. Though I've never really been that sociable a person to begin with, maybe that makes a difference. But for whatever reason, my "coding mode" does not seem to play well with my "social mode".
I have noticed this too. Though I've never really been that sociable a person to begin with, maybe that makes a difference. But for whatever reason, my "coding mode" does not seem to play well with my "social mode".
Yep, same here. It's like it takes time for my brain to switch gears.
Me too. At times, I've even thought about switching careers because I actually enjoy socializing with other people yet my other passion, programming, interferes with it
It's possible that some forms of programming education--I don't say all forms--lead people to simply disregard issues of quality applicable to other domains. "If it compiles, it's okay" is not a sufficient basis for saying that an argument about public policy, for example, is valid. I think I see quite a few examples of invalid reasoning about value-laden factual matters with policy implications in online discussion, perhaps precisely because people with programming educations were early adopters of online technology, and sometimes set the tone for how online discussion is conducted.
Perhaps there are examples both of your concern and of mine here on HN.
Perhaps there are examples both of your concern and of mine here on HN.
This gets even more complicated when I realize that the meaning of a word rests within people which means even something perfectly accurate to me could be inaccurate to someone else.
I try to equivocate intelligently, in an attempt to be more precise and accurate in what I say. I end up equivocating a lot. It works well for me, though of course I only get to experience it (and judge it) from the "inside".
I've noticed that when I ascend (descend?) into the land of proofs, I get annoyed with fuzzy imprecise human matters.
What is your obsession with programming and the notion that it encourages "paralyzing perfectionism"? See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=567827.
Probably it's something he's noticed in himself that he'd like to fix.
As Gladwell said, there are advantages of disadvantages, and disadvantages of advantages.
For most of us, it is hard to accept that our skills, such as programming, that allow us to do the things we love can ever be of any disadvantage.
For most of us, it is hard to accept that our skills, such as programming, that allow us to do the things we love can ever be of any disadvantage.
Only if you've never had to debug a program!
Life is more like recursive debugging. You poke around until you find a bug, fix it, introduce a couple of more, rinse and repeat ! When you think you're done, the requirements change.
Life is more like recursive debugging. You poke around until you find a bug, fix it, introduce a couple of more, rinse and repeat ! When you think you're done, the requirements change.
I think as programmers our interpreter must be hard-wired between our brain and our mouths. We more easily recognize when our speech is ambiguous and spend less time communicating unnecessarily.
But communication that is flawless in a truth telling sense is hard. For example, get one verb tense slightly wrong and your sentence could be slightly misleading.
Moreover, people sometimes sacrifice flawless truth for simplicity.