It doesn't make sense.

I stole this, I changed two words:

People work with one set of ideas about how the software is. Everything they do, be it experimental or theoretical work, is informed by, and framed within, that set of ideas. There will be some evidence that doesn't fit, however. At first, that evidence will be ignored or sabotaged. Eventually, though, the anomalies will pile up so high they simply cannot be ignored or sabotaged any longer. Then comes crisis.
13 Things That Don't Make Sense - Michael Brooks.

To me, this is a pretty good explanation of software development, although of course, not in all cases of software development.

It's also a pretty good reason why things like agile, devops, devs, bdd, etc have come about.

We do approach things with a set of ideas and we do frame things with that set of ideas in mind.

We stick to our own ideas, even though some of our ideas have been born out of others' ideas and thoughts and words and we've blindly made them our ideas and thoughts.
- For more on this train of thought refer to Leprechauns of Software Development or various kinds of certification.

When we have ideas that we have actually conceived it can be a good thing because we all have different experiences, we all have different thoughts, we can all add something.

I think the problems occur when we don't let go of theses ideas (when beneficial) and learn from others experiences and listen to others ideas.

A lot of time we don't conceive ideas together for something we are supposed to be working on together.

What's wrong with us?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Make sense to you?

Continuing with the excerpts from 13 Things That Don't Make Sense The next paragraph starts with the sentence:

Crisis, Kuhn said, is soon followed by the paradigm shift in which everyone gains a radically new way of looking at the world.

Does it? Not for software development, not as much as needed.

In the context of software development the sentence would read:

Crisis, Kuhn said, is soon followed by a attempt to throw more people at, work longer hours to stem and follow the procedures that caused the crisis in the first place until the next crisis arrives.

What's wrong with us?

Total awareness of conditioning

How do I free myself from my conditioning of the culture in which I was born? First, I must be aware that I am conditioned; not somebody telling me that I am conditioned. You understand the difference?

If somebody tells me I am hungry, that’s something different from actually being hungry. So I must be aware of my conditioning, which means, I must be aware of it not only superficially, but at the deeper levels. That is, I must be aware totally.

To be so aware, means that I am not trying to go beyond the conditioning, not trying to be free of the conditioning. I must see it as it actually is, not bring in another element, such as wanting to be free of it, because that is an escape from actuality. I must be aware. What does that mean?

To be aware of my conditioning totally, not partially, means my mind must be highly sensitive, mustn’t it? Otherwise, I can’t be aware.

To be sensitive means to observe everything very, very closely; the colours, the quality of people, all the things around me. I must also be aware of what actually is without any choice. Can you do that?

Not trying to interpret it, not trying to change it, not trying to go beyond it or trying to be free of it; just to be totally aware of it?

Jiddu Krishnamurti - The Awakening of Intelligence

I'm supposed to be negative?

So I've overheard recently  (over the last year or so) things like: 'It gets tiring being negative all the time and pointing mistakes and people flaws.'

And it confused me.

Is that what I'm supposed to be doing?!

Crap!

I've been doing it wrong!

Should I be negative?

Should I be pointing out flaws in peoples work?

Should I be pointing out flaws in peoples ideas?

Should I be stating that people are doing shoddy work?

Am I there to break things?

Am I there to find the breaks?

I thought I was part of a team and we worked together on creating something.

I thought I approached things differently and could add valuable input because of that.

I thought we were solving a problem and approaching it from different angles.

I thought I was there to provide information.

I thought  we evolved together.

Did I think wrong?

Right and wrong are situational: The Magic Of Metaphor

One of the books I'm currently reading is The Magic Of Metaphor by Nick Owen, I'm approaching the halfway mark and a few passages have stood out and I wanted to share them so here is one to start with.

This is from the section called Pacing and Leading.

Perceptual Positions
Right and wrong are situational.
In the appropriate situation, nothing is wrong.
Without the appropriate situation, nothing is right.
What is right in one case is not what is right in another.
What is wrong in one case is not what is wrong in another.
Primary source: Nick Hindley
General source: Taoist tradition

In the testing arena,in development and in life there are a lot of people and organisations who will state that you must do things this way, it has to be done that way and it should be done like this. All nonsense. Work out what works for you, try different things, experiment, get things wrong, get things right, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? They will both provide a learning experience, take the lesson and move on.