Something Ive learned from switching careers (from politics/activism to tech): Before sharing ideas in a community, figure out the social norms around engaging in discussion/debate. In activism circles, its a given that if you have an opinion about strategy, you will advocate for it. Not because you necessarily believe your idea is the best, but because every good idea deserves its day in court, and you are serving as its momentary counsel. Its also (usually) a given that youre on the same team with the people with whom youre debating, so you dont take counter-arguments personally. Ideally, differences in opinion lead to healthy debate so long as all parties remain open to being swayed (of course, it can turn ugly if people dig their heels in). In tech/science circles, on the other hand, Ive found that many people are suspicious of anyone with an opinion. In this community, decisions are supposed to be made on the basis of solid evidence/data, and everything prior to gathering that data is phrased as a loosely-held hypothesis. So when someone starts advocating for a particular strategy, its assumed the person must be more focused on winning the argument than on choosing the right course of action. I dont think that one approach is better than the other. Ive come to really appreciate the humility and evidence-driven approach of the latter, while I still think theres a lot of benefit to the more intuitive and dialectical approach of the former. Im curious if other friends who bridge these (or similar) cultures have noticed this too, and if there are good ways to combine the approaches.
Posted on: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:24:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015