[Off-Topic] The Problem of Credentials
Everyone already knows I’m a strong proponent against certifications, specifically in IT. The intention behind them is good, but the practical effect ends up more harmful than the benefits. As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
I’d go further and put an umbrella term over it: I’m against “Credentials” in general, especially when used out of context. And I like to argue about argumentation itself. I’ve been mentioning fallacies whenever I can for a long time. I’m far from a complete grasp of the subject, but I keep trying to expand that understanding, and I think everyone should.
A simple example. I love the work of a Martin Fowler, or a Robert Martin. I find their insights very valuable and their recommendations excellent, people who genuinely work hard to be above average. The problem is they’re also human beings and, as such, they have flaws. That’s an indisputable fact we need to accept in every argument. Just because an Uncle Bob said something, that doesn’t automatically make it true.
It should be obvious, but plenty of people get “dazzled” by celebrities. They literally turn into “cheerleaders.” Because the guy worked at some renowned company, or wrote a book, or simply because he’s a foreigner, anything he says takes on the weight of truth. And that’s a huge danger.
Everything the big names say has to go through the same scrutiny as what someone with no renown says. No exceptions. I repeat a lot of what a Fowler says because it holds up in practice: you can test it, discuss it, and above all refine and evolve it. His name is not what gives the argument its weight.
This is the appeal to authority fallacy: because A said B, and because A is considered an authority, therefore B is true. Pay attention, because we use this every single day. This one and a dozen other fallacies (see the list below) show up daily, and we fall for them all the time.
The opposite holds too. Just because Philippe Kruchten helped create RUP doesn’t mean he’s bad (kidding, the guy is very good). This is another thing that bugs me a lot: attacking a technology or a practice by attacking whoever created it. Something like “Rails is bad because David is arrogant.” That’s the fallacy known as the Straw Man, which in more general form means bringing up an irrelevant subject to pull attention away from the main point.
Both cases are bad. It also feeds the tendency to ignore whoever has no renown. Your most experienced employee, the one who actually understands the problem, sometimes gets ignored because someone with more renown, but completely out of context, dropped a few “truths.” Now that “truth” is law. No further questions.
And the reverse exists too: believing your most senior employee just because he’s the most senior. Neither of those is a good justification. The person is secondary. What counts is the argument, as long as it follows the scientific method.
The fact is most of us are lazy about thinking. Plain, simple laziness. On top of that, we were raised with authority figures who would always be more right than we are, something I’d chalk up to low self-esteem. So when someone in a position of authority shows up, the tendency is to accept what comes from them, especially if we’re already comfortable with that understanding. It’s the old problem of leaving the comfort zone.
Most people weren’t trained for change, they were trained for stability. That’s why anything different gets side-eyed. Most people only hear what they want to hear and only see what they want to see. Nobody from outside can easily change that in another person, which is pretty sad.
A few Wikipedia articles on argumentation:
A person who doesn’t like to argue, by definition, cannot be a decision-maker. Many use other people’s credibility inappropriately (“because so-and-so said, out of context, but said…”). Worse still is when a decision is made by shouting, by force of the job title. That’s the attitude of someone with a clear inability to argue and, therefore, to understand the subject.
Of course, on many occasions we’re forced to decide “by instinct.” If we spent the whole day arguing every tiny decision, we’d get nothing done. Imagine debating whether to wear the red shirt or the yellow one, and why. I’m not talking about micro-argumentation, which, like micromanagement, doesn’t work.
But decisions that involve people and diverging points of view deserve more care. If, even after arguing, you still can’t draw a logical conclusion from any of the premises, in the end it’s instinct that guides the solution. Argumentation sits in the humanities: it uses scientific principles to build better arguments, without the precision of an exact science.
Still on fallacies, plenty of people believe in the “dictatorship of the majority,” in “if the majority said it’s true, then it must be.” One form of this fallacy is the argumentum ad populum, that sneaky way of opening a sentence with “Everyone knows that…” I always say I admire the Founding Fathers of America for having insights advanced for their time that people to this day don’t quite understand. Quoting Thomas Jefferson:
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 isn’t that “the majority wins in all cases,” but that “the majority wins in the cases that don’t violate the rights of the minority.” The difference is subtle. Picture the majority deciding your property should be taken, and concluding that, being the majority, it’s in the right. Every individual has a right to their own property, and government exists to protect it. The majority’s will to take someone’s property is voided because a fundamental right is being violated. That, by definition, is called oppression. Democracy is something else.
Thinking is hard. It takes study, takes culture, takes practice. Thinking hard isn’t something most “busy” people feel like doing. Most prefer ready-made, canned answers, or picking something fast “by instinct.”
There’s also “I chose right before, so I’ll always choose right” or “it worked somewhere before, so it works here too.” That’s the good old Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is exactly why self-help books, magical methodologies, “advanced” recipes, and every kind of canned procedure sell so well. They take the work of thinking off people’s hands and hand them ready-made answers, “that already worked in dozens of places,” or something along those lines.
Some of these recipes, after prudent research and experimentation, really are good. Most, though, remind me of an allegory about medicine. Imagine if every doctor acted this way. You walk into the 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, aren’t you even going to examine me, diagnose me?
- What for? I already gave this medicine to the last 3 patients and they all got better. Why would it be different with you?
Funny? It shouldn’t be. Look back at the decisions you make, or that the people around you make, and you’ll notice they look a lot like that allegory. And like most of the fallacious arguments I mentioned in this article. I catch myself falling for that kind of trick many times. Even the most vigilant person falls. Argumentation is an art. So is understanding.
So the only thing to do is what I say all the time: Be Skeptical. Always question the Status Quo.