
Developer’s deceptability test - mnmlsm
https://hackernoon.com/developers-deceptability-test-168b6c0b533e#.12gj2rvw0
======
valoox
My main concern with this is that reading a piece of opinion is not the same
as analysing a proof: emphasis and rhetorical devices are not some obscure
trickery which should immediately trigger a reaction, but an integral part of
conveying a message. Apparently, this:

> So yes, developers and architects also make their decisions with basal
> ganglia instead of thinking rationally. Usually it is simply a reflection on
> the previous experience. What is experience if not a sum of formed habits?

Should be immediately called as bullshit by someone 'firm with reality'. As a
statement of fact, that is correct, as no supporting evidence is brought. But
as part of an unfolding reflection, i.e. a way of exposing an idea to the
reader before arguing and/or building on it, I find it hard to call it 'plain
bullshit' on the spot, even if this is certainly a weak point of any
argumentation built on it. To consider the entire piece entirely invalid at
the first arguable sentence assumes a linear, deductive construction of the
text which is not very representative of how actual arguments are built (and
what makes them either strong or weak)

------
jiehong
Almost didn't finish reading this…

However, after reading this, I'm unsure of the real value of this text. It's
quite generic, gives you no references to improve your score…

TL;DR: the plausibility of things is not always easy to recognise, and we all
make mistakes along the way.

