Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> Unfortunately, it turns out that "fake it til you make it" doesn't work with some problems that are seemingly unsolvable (at least by the approach they took).

IOW, it turns out that "fake it til you make it" doesn't work if you don't actually make it.



sort by: page size:

> the real problem is that you tried to solve an extremely ill-conditioned problem

This makes it sound like you're saying just not to solve problems when they're too annoying, but I somehow don't think that's what you're trying to say.


> got quite stuck in the best way to implement the same. I still kind of having a wavering mind on the right implementation which holds me back from moving forward

Perfectionism is holding you back.

Forget about writing the perfect solution. Start writing any solution, and start now. It doesn’t have to be perfect. You could probably start writing one and then adjust it to be better in all of the time spent pondering a perfect solution that never comes to mind.

Forget about “best” and “perfect” because, as you’ve seen, they only result in you producing nothing at all - Which is far from perfect.


> "It's already happening, so give up on it." I'm sure it works out great for taking action and solving problems.

It's an observation & prediction, not a problem solving attempt...


> It's not supposed to be perfect. It's just a solution to that problem.

It's frustrating to have to come up with solutions, however effective, to problems that should never have existed in the first place.


> I get the sentiment, but 9/10 you won't actually understand the problem until you actually work on it.

Yes, but the "work on it" should be designed so that you progress in that understanding. Too often it does not.


> You might propose something and after 12 days of working you might discover it was mathematically not going to work

This is perfect though! In two weeks, you discovered the wrong thing. That's as valuable, IMO, as finding the right thing. The goal I find in my work is to try and fail fast... in other words, discover as quickly as possible whether or not a particular solution is feasible or not.

For truly complex issues, I have found that it often can take upwards of three failures before you discover the 'right' way to solve complex problems. You might have worked in an environment that didn't allow for failure and/or changing of dates. That definitely sucks.


> Everything being easy and just working is what we intended

The problem being that if it doesn't just work, people just shut down.

To me it's almost a double edged sword. If I have to make something work, I learn about how it works, and I can solve problems if they happen.

If it just works, it's magic, and I have no idea why the magic stopped.


> The problem is when one can't really explain why the simpler approach didn't work.

Another benifit I have found is that in studying the problem to understand why the simpler approach doesn't work, you find out that it can actually work.


> Seriously. How many times have you crashed out on a knotty problem and awakened with a clear solution?

It's the opposite that is usually happening to me: I go to sleep thinking I finally solved some problem. When I wake up, literally the first thought is a clear counter-example on which the solution does not work. It's frustrating.


> I don't think anything happens right the first time.

This is irrationally pessimistic.

Nothing is perfect, but there is a huge, meaningful difference between slightly flawed and completely flawed. It doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to be good enough.

Many things _can_ be done decently well the first time. Often times it just takes a small cultural mindset shift, and some minor improvements to the approach.


> Whenever you look at a problem somebody’s been working on for a week or a month or maybe years and propose a simple, obvious solution that just happens to be the first thing that comes into your head, then you’re also making it crystal clear to people what you think of them and their work.

I've been successful with a different approach.

Ask "What happened when you tried X," where X is a simple option, instead.

It implies that you think X could have been tried, and opens the door for an explanation for why it didn't work.

If X wasn't tried (and I am surprised how often it was not), then you find out. No chance for misunderstanding, except from the most defensive types.


> but you have to make them think it was their idea.

The best way I've found to do this is to them you don't understand something and have them explain the solution to you.

Plus it's humility practice -- you might even turn out to be wrong!


> You cannot know if a solution is viable unless you actually implement the solution. So you won't know if you're right or wrong until it is too late.

It is certainly possible to sometimes know when a given idea cannot work.

> There are no good ways to approach wicked problems in general, because each has its own complications.

You are guessing, necessarily. That people are generally speaking not able to stop guessing, and realizing that they are guessing, is a lot bigger of a headwind imho.


> don’t try to look smart. Try to solve the problem.

Then see if there's a better way to do it that looks smart.


> There are still too many half-baked ideas that turn out to be mistakes afterwards (...)

Care to point an example?


> But if you concoct a novel problem that isn't found anywhere on the internet and confront them with it, they fail absurdly.

Can you give an example?


>The problem is that his approach isn't going to yield great results.

Its worked so far.


> It's so hard to find real problems if you spend 90% of your time finding problems.

> Having a job is a great fix.

My experience differs: it is very easy to find real problems, and it is possible to implement a decent solution for at least some of them. But: many of the problems that various industries have are in my opinion self-inflicted because of their structures. What is hard is convincing potential customers that your solution would help them.


>You come up with an idea, TEST, see if it works, evaluate and so on.

Sadly it's not so simple as most 'tests', papers etc. are crap even if they look reasonable on first glance.

next

Legal | privacy