
I have no idea what I'm doing - InternetGiant
http://codon.com/i-have-no-idea-what-im-doing
======
gitaarik
Summary:

If you look closely enough, nobody really knows exactly what they're doing.

When you realize this, you're no longer blinded by the thought that you or
other people know everything about something.

Then you also realize that all the stuff that is created by people isn't
necessarily how it should be, it's just the outcome of the circumstances that
the people were in.

With this realization you allow yourself to think more creatively (outside the
box) about things.

However, the author and me don't have any idea what we're doing so I wouldn't
take his or my story too seriously.

~~~
collyw
This sounds a lot like mindfulness or other meditations when you describe it
this way.

------
javajosh
_> Nobody knows what they’re doing; ignorance fuels creativity; complex
systems are built iteratively. Those are the ideas I want you to remember._

Really liked this piece and wanted to add something to it that I hope
resonates with HN. I have myself run across all of this, particularly the
complexity part, and have heard anecdotal evidence from others that I know,
that when one finishes a function or a library of moderate complexity, and you
step back from it for a while, and you come back to it, it looks _really
impressive_. It's now no longer something that can be grokked at a glance. It
_looks_ complicated, with all kinds of persnickety details. You remember the
"why" of certain unintuitive parts - evidence of problems you ran into and had
to solve. The code is the product of many hours of iteration - and the code
expanded, contracted, and settled into the shape it's currently in - a shape
which, if presented to your earlier self, you would say "I created _that_?
Gosh, it looks like something a _professional programmer_ might have made."
(or it might look like a horrendous hacky mess, of course.)

~~~
jarcane
This is a thing that I have learned as well.

I have done projects that seemed small, and then by the end they were
enormous, but I knew them intimately.

But when I start a project with the idea of it being that big in my head from
the start, I'll get stressed and psych myself out, sometimes from doing it at
all.

There's something to be said for ignoring the forest for planting the tree, to
turn a proverb on it's head.

------
calcsam
In one sense the author is right. In another sense, saying "I have no idea
what I'm doing" is a status play. Those a bit down on the totem pole don't
have the luxury of publicly questioning their own competence.

~~~
joncameron
That's sometimes true, but it's nice to hear someone _with_ status admit
they're not an infallible paragon. There's value in that, especially for those
lower on the pole who stew in their own minds with assumptions about how
everyone else is x amount smarter and more competent, however true that may
be.

------
hawleyal
I know TDD has been discussed to death. However, I disagree completely with
TDD encouraging creativity and material exploration. In my opinion, small,
iterative increments are much more useful. Creating a test puts a tight box
around how you assume (without any experimentation) an interface should work.
As opposed to a tiny iteration to learn about how it could work. Then writing
a test after for that tiny bit. Finally, moving on and refactoring with the
test in hand.

~~~
hammerdr
Writing the test is the experiment, in your example. You're playing with how
it is going to be used and interacted without worrying about the
details/implementation. You'll take care of that later.

~~~
hawleyal
I don't see how you can experiment with functionality by writing tests at all.
Tests are basically just pseudocode. It's writing the requirement/interface
before figuring out what is possible.

For example. I was recently trying to figure out how to make an autocomplete
list faster, as the database was too slow. I already had a functional test
taking in search parameters and returning results. But there would be no way
to write a test for the actual implementation of the indexed/faster search
classes until I figured out a real approach. In the beginning, I had no idea
if this would require a separate daemon process to do indexing, or if it could
index realtime, or caching, or memoization, or where it might need to keep an
index once created. These are just a couple of the unknowns. Once I figured
out a workable concept, I wrote tests for those classes and functions. Then I
refactored multiple times, altering the tests accordingly.

~~~
hammerdr
Your functional test was a test that allowed you to experiment. You designed
the parameters and then altered the variables involved under the conditions of
those tests.

You probably even "called your shot" and make guesses about what would be
successful before you even approached the problem.

Then you wrote a test and saw whether your guess was right or not. If not,
then you misunderstood something and you dug deeper.

Software, in some ways, in simulated science.

------
wyager
This guy seems to confuse "I sometimes have to think about things" with "I
have no idea what I'm doing". Those seem quite different to me.

~~~
serve_yay
Indeed. Working on something for a long time but claiming you have no idea
what you're doing is an easy way of not appearing egomaniacal or vain.
Especially in our field, when people can be such pompous dickheads.

------
slayed0
Cached version as the page is beginning to load slowly:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IoQN9XY...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IoQN9XYCjTYJ:codon.com/i-have-
no-idea-what-im-doing)

~~~
sfeng
Yet another argument for building static websites
[https://eager.io/blog/build-static-websites/](https://eager.io/blog/build-
static-websites/)

~~~
tomstuart
It's already a static site, but being on the HN front page is really hammering
my tiny VPS's network & IO; there are a lot of large images and videos in the
post. Guess I should set up a CDN.

~~~
mod
Probably even just letting amazon or someone host the images would fix the
problem.

------
j2kun
He remarks in the talk about Lamarck having an incorrect theory of
"inheritance of acquired characteristics." From what I understand, recent
experiments have actually given some evidence to his theory. I can't remember
the particular studies though.

~~~
maxerickson
Epigenetics gives credence to the environment having impact across
generations. It doesn't really vindicate Lamarck, there are just some quiet
echos of his ideas there.

------
senthil_rajasek
"If you only take one thing away from this talk, make it this: beavers are
idiots. They have no idea why they’re building these huge structures; they
just blindly do it."

I can understand the author's use of the Beaver analogy but it may not be the
right analogy.

Beavers build these dams to keep the water level at a certain height. This not
only offers protection from predators but also makes it easy to access food.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver#Dams](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver#Dams)

They may have poor eyesight but they have a keen sense of hearing.

May be he meant that the Beaver does not know why its teeth grow continuously
but it uses it to cut down trees and make dams.

~~~
javajosh
_> Beavers build these dams to keep the water level at a certain height._

My friend, I think you are implying _intention_ where there is none. It's true
that the effect of beaver dam-building is advantageous, but there was never
any _deliberation_ about it on the beavers part. It's a curious case of
_effort_ without _decision_. One can easily think of a situation where a
beaver might actually do better to not build a dam - but a beaver will try to
build one anyway. It's just what he does.

Do humans eat to keep from starving? Do we have sex to have babies? Do we love
our babies so that they don't die? I don't think so. We do these things
because it's built into us to do them, just like the beaver.

~~~
pm90
Sex seems a lot more simple than building a dam though. I mean, how does the
Beaver even know this kind of stuff? Is it in its genetic material, or is it
taught by its parents?

Either way, fascinating stuff.

~~~
tomstuart
Just to answer your question: it's in its genetic material. It really is
fascinating; it can even make evolutionary sense to think of the dam as an
extension of the beaver's physical body, in as much a beaver's dams are "built
by" its genes just like the cells of its body are. Google "extended phenotype"
if you'd like more detail.

------
agentultra
This was an interesting talk. I admit I was easily hooked due to my own
circumstances and experiences. I often feel like I don't know what I'm doing.

Shoshin was a great lesson for me. When I was training in martial arts I was
told that shoshin was akin to fashioning one's self after an empty vessel. If
the vessel is full then it cannot receive any more water. I took it to mean
that one must periodically empty their minds of preconceived notions and ideas
and be receptive to new ones when seeking new knowledge.

It has also taught me that I have a hard time appreciating what I am capable
of and what I do know. I may fight feelings of inadequacy but I must remind
myself that my bar is much higher today than it was when I started out. It is
good to not feel like you know what you are doing _all of the time_. It's an
opportunity to learn and fill yourself with new knowledge. As long as I know
what I don't know I feel that I can find it out and fill the gaps.

I think what makes it difficult is the amount of competition there is these
days and how high we have raised the bar. Capital and growth demand experience
and knowledge but we need to take time for development too. You may want to
hire the best but maybe you need to take some time to help people develop into
the best they can be? But we should all take time to be thankful for what we
have done and are able to do. It's easy to forget how painful it all once was.

A talk worth watching, in my opinion, if you've ever been concerned about
feeling like you don't know what you'd doing.

------
treehau5
Hey Tom, I just want to say, I have your book, and I find it wonderful.

~~~
jarcane
Was really sad to hear this: _" You don’t really make any money by writing a
book, but O’Reilly did send me a nice hat"_

How poorly does O'Reilly pay their authors? A book the size of most of their
tomes, and at the prices they charge, should be a 5-figure advance in any
other part of the industry.

~~~
sanderjd
Curious about this too. I wonder if he means that you don't really make any
money compared to the opportunity cost of all the hours you spend on it, or if
you really don't make any money in an absolute sense. Unfortunately, I suspect
it's actually the latter due to the relatively tiny size of the target market
for such books.

~~~
lazyant
From other tech book authors it seems it's the former; they work many hours
for a year and then they make 20k or that kind of minimum wage money

~~~
julian_t
That's right. I wrote some computer books some years back, and the royalties
were somewhere around 10% of the _wholesale_ cost of the book. So a book with
a $40 shelf price might have a $20 wholesale price... and with only about 6000
copies as a typical print run, I didn't make much at all.

And also bear in mind that an advance is just that: it comes off the
royalties, so you may not end up making any money for quite a while.

~~~
jarcane
That's a good point. With a run like that, the advance may be all you ever
see.

------
tr352
I am suspicious of the imposter syndrome self-diagnosis. It permits you to
explain away your problems and possible deficiencies without being confronted
with the often not so nice reality. As the author rightly says, it is not a
solution. To anyone diagnosing himself with the imposter syndrome, I would
say: great, so now that you know, you don't have it anymore.

------
rbrogan
Everyone knew everything about everything they do then AI would be easy.

------
engendered
This sort of post seems to do well on HN, so to offer a bit of criticism I'd
like to posit that often they seem to be a thin veneer over humble bragging.

e.g. I don't know what I'm doing, but then neither does anyone else but I am
stating it so therefore I'm actually better than them and I have impostor
syndrome so that actually makes me better at what I do than you, and everyone
who says they know what they're doing suffers from the Dunning–Kruger effect,
etc.

This has become a bit of a meme -- the whole "I'm better because I claim to be
worse" bit.

~~~
Lellagram
So does this mean that we need to come full circle and become worse and being
better due to claiming to feel worse?

I get where you are coming from, but I think the best point in this somewhat
rambly essay is that it is fine to come out and talk about how to deal with
these odd mental effects, especially when they are keeping us from getting
work done.

~~~
visakanv
> So does this mean that we need to come full circle and become worse and
> being better due to claiming to feel worse?

Usually when people begin kicking up a dust, the solution is to stop kicking–
in this case I think that means to avoid making claims, and focus instead on
doing great work!

------
peterwwillis

      Recently I found this note on my desk at home. It says “I HAVE NO IDEA 
      WHAT I’M DOING”. I don’t remember writing it, but it was in my house
      on my desk in my handwriting, so I obviously did.
    

He might want to seek some psychiatric help if this persists.

    
    
      So what did it mean? Was it a cry for help? A product idea? A topic 
      for a blog post? Or could it be an idea for a conference talk?
    

The card was a cry for help. This talk is a cry for attention.

    
    
      I’ll begin by showing you some compelling evidence that I have no idea 
      what I’m doing.
    

Well, he definitely proved it with all the completely asinine comparisons in
the rest of his talk, but this one is the best:

    
    
      If you only take one thing away from this talk, make it this: beavers are
      idiots. They have no idea why they’re building these huge structures; they just
      blindly do it.
    

Really.

 _" One of the primary reasons beavers build dams is to surround their lodge
with water for protection from predators." [...] "On land, the beaver's short
legs and wide body made them slow and vulnerable to their enemies. However,
unlike most of their historic predators, beavers are excellent swimmers. As a
result beavers evolved to have a strong preference to remain in or very close
to the safety of the water. The need for safety is the primary reason beavers
build dams to create ponds."_ \--
[http://www.beaversolutions.com/about_beaver_biology.asp](http://www.beaversolutions.com/about_beaver_biology.asp)

Sounds like they have a pretty good idea why they build dams.

    
    
      But enough about me. As you’ve seen, I frequently find myself in situations
      where I don’t know what I’m doing, and I usually hit a brick wall and 
      feel disappointed. But it’s not just me! You have no idea what you’re doing
      either.
    

Don't go projecting on us, buddy. Most people, when faced with a challenge
they're not immediately sure how to solve, will go read a book, or take a
class, or ask someone who does know what they're doing. Lying about being able
to write a book when you have no idea how in order to make money is not
"impostor syndrome", it's merely being an impostor.

Dunning-Kruger does not explain or justify a total lack of forethought.

    
    
      All of these animals look remarkably like something in their environment, 
      but none of them has any meaningful understanding of why they look that way. 
      They don’t know what they’re imitating. The stick insect doesn’t know anything 
      about eucalyptus; that’s just what it looks like.
    

Says who? You, the expert? I'm pretty sure an animal who _lives on a goddamn
plant and looks just like it_ probably realizes that it's a plant, and that it
looks similar, and that if it wants to eat, it should use that plant in order
to hunt, so it can live.

An interviewer asked Richard Feynman to explain how magnetism works. He
explained that it was a force that interacted with certain things. The
interviewer asked, but why? Richard's answer was a long way of saying "just
because, you moron."

You don't need to understand every layer of the onion. Every layer has another
layer, and once you understand every single of them, and grok quantum physics
and multiple dimensions and relativity and whatever else affects that onion's
properties, that won't change that you need to cook that onion until it's soft
before you add in meat to get the flavor out of it. If you know how to cook
it, you know what you're doing.

It's not that the author has no idea what he's doing. He's just an idiot.

~~~
pcthrowaway
Not only have you missed the point of this author's talk, you've also missed
the point of Feynman's answer, which served to demonstrate that the question
being asked did not have a simple answer that could be succinctly constructed
in a way that does the whole story justice. He wasn't saying 'don't try to
understand magnets, just use them' he was saying 'I can't answer that question
in a satisfactory way without first explaining all of Physics'

The author of this talk is not abnormal to do things without remembering them.
I write things down all the time only to come across them a year later with no
recollection.

It must be nice to be so self-assured of one's intellectual superiority
though. Most of us have no idea what we're doing, after all.

~~~
peterwwillis
The basic meaning of 'knowing what you are doing' is "to be aware of through
observation, inquiry, or information of an action, the precise nature of which
is often unspecified".

This is _completely different_ than what the author (and other commenters) are
suggesting, which is that one should have a completely in-depth understanding
of all aspects of a given idea as far as human culture is capable of
understanding.

If you are walking, you know what you are doing. If you are reading, you know
what you are doing. If you're commenting on a web forum, you know what you are
doing. You are not confused. You know what typing is. You know what the words
you want to say are. You know what you intend to say. This is knowing. This is
doing. That's it. _That is it._

Most of us, except for maybe the mentally handicapped or the catatonic, know
what we are doing. There is no big secret or mystery or hidden understanding.
It is not correct to suggest that the majority of people do not comprehend the
actions they take. Most people comprehend their actions, even if
subconsciously in many cases.

If you watch the video, Feynman gets pissed off. He's not pissed off because
he can't answer it, because he could just state "I would have to explain all
of physics to you for you to be satisfied." He's pissed because this person
doesn't even know what they're asking for.

This author doesn't know what he's talking about when he says he doesn't know
what we're doing. But that has nothing to do at all with the rest of us.

The best comparison I can make is to say that most of us don't know _why_ we
do anything. There is seemingly no purpose to the universe, or why any of it
does what it does. Yet there is completely obvious purpose to everything.

I drink because i'm thirsty. Why am I thirsty? Because my body needs to be
hydrated. Why hydrated? Because it's made mostly of water. Why water? Continue
that logic train until you run out of ways to explain why the universe exists.
Nobody needs to know why the universe exists. But we do know when we're
thirsty, and why we drink, which is what we're actually doing, so we do know
what we're doing, and why.

We do know why we do things, and what we do. Anyone telling you different is
selling something.

