This 1975 essay by Gerald Weinberg explores the delicate balance between honesty and kindness when delivering potentially painful truths. Weinberg argues that truth-telling isn't simply about stating facts, but also considering the impact of those facts on the recipient. He introduces the concept of "egoless programming" and extends it to general communication, emphasizing the importance of separating one's ego from the message. The essay provides a framework for delivering criticism constructively, focusing on observable behaviors rather than character judgments, and offering suggestions for improvement instead of mere complaints. Ultimately, Weinberg suggests that truly helpful truth-telling requires empathy, careful phrasing, and a genuine desire to help the other person grow.
The blog post explores the limitations of formal systems, particularly in discerning truth. It uses the analogy of two goblins, one always truthful and one always lying, to demonstrate how relying solely on a system's rules, without external context or verification, can lead to accepting falsehoods as truths. Even with additional rules added to account for the goblins' lying, clever manipulation can still exploit the system. The post concludes that formal systems, while valuable for structuring thought, are ultimately insufficient for determining truth without external validation or a connection to reality. This highlights the need for critical thinking and skepticism even when dealing with seemingly rigorous systems.
The Hacker News comments generally praise the clarity and engaging presentation of the article's topic (formal systems and the halting problem, illustrated by a lying goblin puzzle). Several commenters discuss the philosophical implications of the piece, particularly regarding the nature of truth and provability within defined systems. Some draw parallels to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, while others offer alternate goblin scenarios or slight modifications to the puzzle's rules. A few commenters suggest related resources, such as Raymond Smullyan's work, which explores similar logical puzzles. There's also a short thread discussing the potential applicability of these concepts to legal systems and contract interpretation.
Mathematicians are exploring the boundaries of provability using large language models (LLMs) and other automated theorem provers. While these tools can generate novel and valid proofs, they often rely on techniques too complex for human comprehension. This raises questions about the nature of mathematical truth and understanding. If a proof is too long or intricate for any human to verify, does it truly constitute "knowledge"? Researchers are investigating ways to make these computer-generated proofs more accessible and understandable, potentially revealing new insights into mathematical structures along the way. The ultimate goal is to find a balance between the power of automated proving and the human need for comprehensible explanations.
HN commenters discuss the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the article's exploration of concrete examples in Ramsey theory and Diophantine equations. Some debate the philosophical significance of undecidable statements, questioning whether they represent "true" mathematical facts or merely artifacts of formal systems. Others highlight the practical limitations of proof assistants and the ongoing search for more powerful automated theorem provers. The connection between computability and the physical universe is also raised, with some suggesting that undecidable statements could have physical implications, while others argue for a separation between abstract mathematics and the concrete world. Several commenters express appreciation for the article's clarity in explaining complex mathematical concepts to a lay audience.
Summary of Comments ( 27 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43335679
HN commenters largely discuss the difficulty of delivering hard truths, particularly in professional settings. Some highlight the importance of framing, suggesting that focusing on shared goals and the benefits of honesty can make criticism more palatable. Others emphasize empathy and tact, recommending a focus on observable behaviors rather than character judgments. Several commenters note the importance of building trust beforehand, as criticism from a trusted source is more readily accepted. The power dynamics inherent in delivering criticism are also explored, with some arguing that managers have a responsibility to create a safe space for feedback. Finally, several users note the timeless nature of the advice in the original article, observing that these challenges remain relevant today.
The Hacker News post titled "How do we tell truths that might hurt? (1975)" links to an essay by Gerald M. Weinberg exploring the complexities of delivering difficult or uncomfortable truths. The discussion in the comments section is fairly robust, with several commenters engaging with the core ideas presented in Weinberg's essay.
Several commenters appreciate the essay's nuanced approach to truth-telling, acknowledging that it's not simply about blunt honesty but about considering the context, the recipient's capacity to process the information, and the potential consequences. One commenter highlights the importance of understanding the listener's "frame of reference" and tailoring the message accordingly, echoing Weinberg's emphasis on empathy and understanding. This commenter uses the analogy of a doctor delivering a difficult diagnosis; a skilled doctor will deliver the truth in a way that is both honest and supportive, considering the patient's emotional state.
Another commenter focuses on the concept of "egoless programming" mentioned in the essay, extending it beyond the realm of software development to general communication. They argue that detaching one's ego from the message allows for more effective communication, as it reduces defensiveness and promotes a more open exchange of ideas. This aligns with Weinberg's argument that focusing on the problem, rather than assigning blame, is crucial for productive conversations.
The idea of "truths that might hurt" is also discussed in relation to power dynamics. One commenter points out that the power differential between the speaker and the listener significantly impacts how a message is received. They note that criticism from a superior can be particularly damaging, even if well-intentioned, highlighting the need for those in positions of power to be especially mindful of their communication style.
Furthermore, some commenters discuss the importance of feedback and its role in personal and professional growth. They acknowledge that receiving constructive criticism, even if painful, is essential for improvement. One comment emphasizes the value of creating a safe environment where individuals feel comfortable both giving and receiving feedback without fear of reprisal, suggesting that this fosters a culture of continuous improvement.
Finally, a few commenters offer specific examples of situations where they have struggled with delivering difficult truths, demonstrating the practical challenges of applying Weinberg's principles in real-life scenarios. These examples range from interpersonal relationships to professional settings, further illustrating the universality of the essay's themes.
In summary, the comments on the Hacker News post generally reflect a positive reception to Weinberg's essay. The discussion expands on the essay's core ideas, exploring the complexities of truth-telling in various contexts, including power dynamics, interpersonal relationships, and professional environments. The commenters largely agree with the importance of empathy, understanding, and creating safe spaces for open communication when delivering difficult truths.