| > Those vague "problems I had to overcome in university" that the job screening question wanted from me had happened, and I had learned my lessons from them, even though I forgot how they unfolded. Is the author sure about this? How do they know they learnt the lessons if they don't remember what happened? The best way to convince most people of something is to tell a story about it. Ask a senior engineer how splitting up a monolith into microservices can go wrong and they'll have a dozen stories. Ask someone about the importance of clear communication and they have hundreds of stories of things going wrong. And when I want to convince someone, I deploy a story from my experience and it has a good chance of working. I can tell someone my mental model, but also the evidence that went into the model from my experiences. Not having that second part is like publishing conclusions without publishing the data. I understand it's fine for the author but it does seem like a real handicap. Dwelling on it is not going to be useful for the author, but actively handwaving this all away doesn't seem credible. And on another note, when a loved one dies it is nice to think about them and remember things we did together. > By doing away with reminiscences, flashbacks, and graphic visions of possible futures, I can stay focused on the now, and on what I can do now to improve tomorrow. My graphic visions of past experiences and possible futures when someone says "let's do a complete rewrite of this business logic" are actually very useful for convincing people not to do that... |