| I’m management now and definitely an empathetic one. But there’s plenty of studies about the assumptions people make about their own capabilities https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect So the moment someone confidently posts an absolute like “zero downsides”, I immediately see red flags that perhaps that person hasn’t fully explored that solution. This is compounded by the fact that there are no shortage of cognitive biases (such as, but not limited to, the Ikea Effect) that can lead one to overestimate the value of their own ideas. So when I see absolutes, that’s always a queue for me to engage in a deeper discussion with the individual to ensure their confidence is justified. > So why not just stick to addressing the (de)merits of their suggestion, I had up until then. They couldn’t look past their idea and replied that there was zero downsides to it. Hence the concern I raised. > Attacking the guys seniority doesn't add any value and is a fallacy Fair point. It wasn’t a tactful response. Thank you for pointing that out :) > I think they meant specific examples (as opposed to hypothetical or vague examples) I gave a specific example and the other suggestions were anything but vague. You dont even need to look far to see my point, just look at the videos submitted to HN and you’ll see that YT is more than just internet personalities adding content for monetisation: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=youtube.com |
If you're taking a "no free lunch" approach, the downside is that it costs money to hire these people. Does that make the balance clearer?
Adding human review to more decisions, and changing nothing else, can possibly cause some problems but they should be very minor compared to the number of robot-caused problems they will fix.