It feels to me like "science" has become something of a religion unto itself. We started out with the well and good ability of science and engineering to understand some things and produce revolutionary useful goods. Now it seems like other fields where such principles aren't really applicable have attempted to borrow the trappings of science in order to co-opt the trust that people have given it. The only time a phrase like "trust the science" starts to seem necessary is when this scheme has been found out, and somebody is trying to preserve it.
Many of the big society-level issues that we grapple with are more properly questions of economics than science. It's more about how we choose to value various courses of action and potential consequences against each other, and there's rarely a clear, obvious, or simple answer. "Science" can only give us an estimate of what the results of a particular course of action might be, it cannot compare once against another and tell us with certainty which one is better.
"Trust the science" is usually a rhetorical weapon used by a side that is attempting to show one particular potential outcome as the worst thing imaginable that must be avoided at all costs, but in reality there are rarely things that bad. I'd like to have a world where we can look at the actual science and economic costs of all choices and rationally debate exactly which road to take, but it sure feels like we're only moving further away from that world.
The issue with estimates are expectations. While nobody acknowledges it, you're not actually asked for an estimate, you're being asked for a quote.
The difference is when you're asked for a quote, you're asked how much you will be charging, with the expectations that you'll be willing to eat into your own margins to give a lower quote. That's why it's a negotiation, where you negotiate how much extra effort, time and headcount you're willing to give, how much tech dept you're willing to take, etc., for the privilege of getting their business.
If you see it for what it really is, you'll see that it works pretty well actually. The business gets more out of you for less to them. It was never about having an accurate timeline or helping with planning or prioritizing, and always about negotiating a better contract with the dev team.
Now keep in mind that the "business" in this case is a person who need to report that through their amazing prowess of administration and management, they personally managed to get X feature out during their last review cycle at Y cost with impact Z. This person will not need to deal with developer satisfaction, retention and performance. They will not need to deal with the impact the lower margins they pushed for had on the next feature delivery, or the continued maintainance of the systems. And if the dev team had to lower the quality too much in order to meet the quote they put out, that will be 100% their fault, the "business" will know not to use them for their next contract, or they'll expect the dev team to take on fixing all the issues at their own expense once more.
“Complexity can be tamed, but it requires considerable effort to do it well. Decreasing the number of buttons and displays is not the solution. The solution is to understand the total system, to design it in a way that allows all the pieces fit nicely together, so that initial learning as well as usage are both optimal. Years ago, Larry Tesler, then a vice president of Apple, argued that the total complexity of a system is a constant: as you make the person's interaction simpler, the hidden complexity behind the scenes increases. Make one part of the system simpler, said Tesler, and the rest of the system gets more complex. This principle is known today as "Tesler's law of the conservation of complexity." Tesler described it as a tradeoff: making things easier for the user means making it more difficult for the designer or engineer.”
― Donald A. Norman, Living with Complexity
> “We’re all just big, complicated bags of emotion walking around.”
This has been the most important discovery from my startup journey, and the topic on which I now place the greatest focus.
I was in the YC batch of winter 2009 – the one that included Airbnb. It was a small batch, so we all got to know each other pretty well.
There was something that really made the Airbnb founders stand out from the rest in that batch.
It wasn't that they seemed to have the best business idea; as has been widely written about before, PG and the other YC partners thought their "eBay for space" concept was stupid and would soon fail, then they would hopefully move onto something more promising.
But for some reason, everyone just assumed that these guys were on a sure path to huge success, and in the batch voting on the most promising startup just before demo day, they won by a huge margin.
I didn't grasp this at the time, but over my own startup journey I realised that the factor that made them seem so promising, and the one that held me back and all the other companies that didn't make it, was emotional strength and stability [1].
The Airbnb guys just really seemed to have their shit together emotionally. Not in any bulletproof, infallible way; they had their weaknesses, and made mistakes like everyone else, but they had a unique ability to cop the hits, learn the key lessons and bounce back better from every challenge and setback, and thus they kept growing and progressing at an astonishingly rapid rate.
I, on the other hand, whose business concept was considered by some others to be at least as solid, was far more sensitive and emotionally fragile, and I would become increasingly scarred by setbacks and criticisms, and paralysed by fear of further torment.
Though we battled on for five years, I became physically and mentally exhausted, and ultimately had to step away to let my co-founder and a new CEO to take over.
In the six-plus years since then, it's been my primary focus to overcome all my deeply held traumas and unhealthy emotional/behavioural patterns, and to become as grounded and rounded a person as possible.
And as my healing journey has progressed, any ambitions I held to achieve business success on par with the Airbnb founders has faded, and been eclipsed by the realisation that in order to do _anything_ well – from running businesses and leading social/political movements, to simply having successful friendships/relationships, a healthy family life and a physiologically healthy body – a healthy emotional foundation is of prime importance.
And as I methodically work though my emotional baggage, all those key aspects of my life - career, family/friendships, and physical health - have steadily improved, but my ambitions and visions of a desirable future have also significantly changed from what they were when I entered YC.
Exactly what that means for my ultimate career/life outcome is still very unclear, and to me, these days, not especially important.
But one thing is for sure; whereas I'd initially hoped that getting into YC would put me on a path to building a "unicorn" tech company, the way it ended up changing my life has turned out to be far more profound.
[1] The other thing that made them stand out was that they were by far the most nice and supportive to everyone else in the batch, which I've also since learned is a sign of emotional roundedness and wholeness; when you really have it together yourself, you have plenty of positive energy to share with others.
Many of the big society-level issues that we grapple with are more properly questions of economics than science. It's more about how we choose to value various courses of action and potential consequences against each other, and there's rarely a clear, obvious, or simple answer. "Science" can only give us an estimate of what the results of a particular course of action might be, it cannot compare once against another and tell us with certainty which one is better.
"Trust the science" is usually a rhetorical weapon used by a side that is attempting to show one particular potential outcome as the worst thing imaginable that must be avoided at all costs, but in reality there are rarely things that bad. I'd like to have a world where we can look at the actual science and economic costs of all choices and rationally debate exactly which road to take, but it sure feels like we're only moving further away from that world.