[dhh]

Not every new architectural idea is a good one. Lots fell by the wayside over the years. See J2EE or Naked Objects (I actually kinda liked that one). Bad ideas fail faster when criticism is brought forward which opens the floor to new, better ideas.

[aGHz]

Constructive criticism, yes absolutely. Labelling things as wankery and reiterating that you don't see the point aren't. All they're showing is that you're missing the point.

[dhh]

Let me translate it for you, then. Wankery: Complexity brought on by the love of an abstract idea without meaningful practical benefit.

By definition I don't see the point in architectural exploits that can be labelled wankery.

[aGHz]

I know, you've repeated that several times. "Without meaningful practical benefit" is what I'm referring to when I say you keep stating that you're missing the point. Just because you happen to not see the meaningful practical benefit doesn't mean there isn't one.

[wpietri]

That is one of the most common young nerd mistakes. "If I don't see the value in something, the people doing it must be idiots!" Rather than, say, "... I must not understand something here."

I made it a ton as a youth. I had to have about a thousand, "Oh, now I see what they're talking about" moments before I learned to keep my mouth shut long enough to actually learn something.

[three14]

Agreed, but there has to be some filter. You can't just say, "I don't see the value in crystal healing, I must not understand something here." Sometimes, you do understand enough.

[wpietri]

Well, it depends on how you do it. My original reaction was, "duh, idiocy." But once I paid more attention, I learned a lot about the emotional motivations behind it, the placebo effect, and why western medicine is so unsatisfying to people.

That's helpful, in that you can convince anybody by saying: "Although I have no evidence, I'm sure that crystal healing is bullshit and I'm waaaay smarter than you." All they read from that is contempt and arrogance; that approach to skepticism is basically bullying.

I think a better approach is the one taken by my doctor. When people come in with concerns about vaccines, she first listens to their fears about kids and patiently explains why those particular fears might sound reasonable, but in this case are unwarranted. It's not really about the facts; it's about the hand-holding. For her, the interaction isn't about being right, but about persuading people.

So I agree, but for very high values of "understand enough". It's not enough for me to know that they're wrong; I want to understand why they're wrong sufficiently to have empathy for their situation.

[tokipin]

well the key word is "meaningful". and i think it can be stated in a more nuanced form:

wankery: architectural shenanigans which suffer significant diminishing returns on investment

[aidenn0]

If I were to buy into everything for which I see no practical benefit, 99% of what I buy into would be crap. By definition I can't tell the difference between snake oil and "stuff that is awesome, but I can't tell it's awesome." Therefore I reject everything for which I cannot see a practical benefit.

[wpietri]

There are more states available to you than "buy in" and "reject utterly".