> and it probably drove him crazy that every morning when he came in, I was there standing in the kitchen ready to tell him about all the mistakes he made yesterday
(Emphasis mine.)
His compulsion to start every morning by enumerating through a list of grievances undermined a relationship. He systematically alienated the person doing an important job for him, apparently fully aware of that person's shortcomings-- i.e., the contractor getting defensive and not owning up to problems. Yet allowing the job to continuing through these periodic grievances was a tacit acknowledgement in the story that Ousterhout thought the work was decent enough.
Then, he uses hyperbolic metaphors to describe what he apparently sees as the only possible outcome if he were ever to slip up:
> Because if there's anything at all when you're giving in that you can feel bad about later, you're nuking the relationship - you're creating scar tissue with yourself, and that will build up to the point where you wreck the relationship.
(Emphasis mine.)
(And he ended up wrecking the relationship, regardless!)
Yikes! Who in the world could live up to this model?
I think a much more workable and reasonable approach would be to reflect on what fuels our own compulsions and shortcomings. To just make up an example-- if I were arguing a point with a contractor every morning in an attempt to convince the five year-old version of myself that I'm important enough to not be abandoned, I should be aware of the fact that I'm doing this.
Armed with that knowledge I'd be able to skip at least one morning and go treat myself to some waffles.
(Emphasis mine.)
His compulsion to start every morning by enumerating through a list of grievances undermined a relationship. He systematically alienated the person doing an important job for him, apparently fully aware of that person's shortcomings-- i.e., the contractor getting defensive and not owning up to problems. Yet allowing the job to continuing through these periodic grievances was a tacit acknowledgement in the story that Ousterhout thought the work was decent enough.
Then, he uses hyperbolic metaphors to describe what he apparently sees as the only possible outcome if he were ever to slip up:
> Because if there's anything at all when you're giving in that you can feel bad about later, you're nuking the relationship - you're creating scar tissue with yourself, and that will build up to the point where you wreck the relationship.
(Emphasis mine.)
(And he ended up wrecking the relationship, regardless!)
Yikes! Who in the world could live up to this model?
I think a much more workable and reasonable approach would be to reflect on what fuels our own compulsions and shortcomings. To just make up an example-- if I were arguing a point with a contractor every morning in an attempt to convince the five year-old version of myself that I'm important enough to not be abandoned, I should be aware of the fact that I'm doing this.
Armed with that knowledge I'd be able to skip at least one morning and go treat myself to some waffles.