So I have been watching my 15th month old son learn and grow, one thing I have noticed is that he seems to learn and figure things out by being imprecise. Hmm like when he tries to stack cups he puts one on top of the other but he doesn't seem to be precise about it, sometimes they don't stack they topple and fall, sometimes they do, sometimes they do but are not exactly stacked on top of each other,sometimes they do stack and then fall. Is he purposefully being imprecise? Is he working out the boundaries of stacking? Is he just learning? Is it because he just doesn't understand what stacking is? Does he just have no assumptions or illusions? Does he even know what a cup is? Is it just one object on another object? I need someone who knows loads more about philosophy/psychology to give me some pointers.
Now I've been thinking about how this applies to software testing...black swans! Black swans? Yes....Black swans.... Well Simon Morley blogged about black swans and Michael Bolton too...(lots of references on Developsense. - and Abe Heward (thanks for the nudge to Abe's blog Simon) Damn I think they've already forged this path... (bizarrely - oh sugar...I'm now thinking about Michael Bolton and Simon Morley doing a 'Duke of Edinburgh' style backpack hillwalk..exploring? paths? hills? hunting for black swans? who knows....nuts yes, but at least there wasn't a vortex in sight!)
..I must admit I haven't read the Black Swan book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb...That's shame on me I know....gosh there's so much I want to read...(well actually that's a question I'd like to pose to Michael Bolton if I get the chance (or any tester for that matter), how do you choose what to read? Do you schedule time for reading? How do you retain what you've read? - If Matt Heusser hasn't interviewed Michael yet can someone pass the questions on)
Anyway, From what has been written about black swans I believe a 'Black Swan' is 'a rare event that is unexpected and inexplicable, has extreme consequences, but, in retrospect, appears to be easy to anticipate and explain' . So what I'm trying to say is can being imprecise (amongst other things) catch a glimpse of a black swan? I think it might....
My son, also got his finger caught in a train toy, you can push a button on top of the train, I think your supposed to put the train driver on the button and the wheels go round on the train. He is fascinated with wheels, so what he does is he tips the train upside down and pushes the button to see the wheels go around. He also then tries push the wheels while they are moving, but sometimes he misses the wheels and his finger goes in the gap between the wheel and the wheel arch but the wheel still goes round (because he's still pushing the button on the top) and he gets his finger caught...Is this being imprecise? Is it a combination of things? not sure...is it a black swan?...I think so....
Ok, so not only have I got all the context people pinging my poor brain cell (I think it may be withering) I have now got James Bach doing it (or doing it twice)....I think the thing that he's bellowing at me while he's pinging is this: De-focus = lots of change. Ah-ha is that what my son is doing when he's stacking...just doing lots of change..Oh and now I've got a black swan lurking around..
'Doing loads of unnecessary stuff that's inexpensive' - I'm still not sure that's being imprecise , isn't that just the de-focus part? but it could be being imprecise couldn't it?....like bashing the keyboard any way with anything....that's being imprecise isn't it? or hitting in between keys? Clicking not quite where you're supposed to.
Ok, I just did a 'bounce' with Simon Morley(@YorkyAbroad) on Twitter I think one of the key things is having a purpose for being imprecise.
I have thought a bit more about this...and am I just trying to describe fuzzy logic?
UPDATE: Hang-on if I have a purpose for being imprecise isn't that focused? What I'm now thinking is that being imprecise could be focused and defocused, but also it depends on what is meant by 'being imprecise'. Arghh..So I probably need to define it. . Also, could I be fooling myself that being imprecise really matters, and that black swans are just going to happen whatever, by reducing one black swan increases another? Or is it just not being imprecise but just freedom, Sounds a bit muddled...cue Bateson and again something else to re-read.
However, I think the essence of what I'm trying to say is violate and deviate from percieved models.
What do you do when your defocusing?
Off-blog questions:
How do you choose what do read?, when do you read it? How do you retain what you read?
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI think you touched on the idea of boundaries with your son's learning - I think children do that a lot - they use boundaries to help understand what works and what doesn't in different situations. That type of learning - fail fast and improve/re-try - is classic good tester fodder - basically children are hardwired to learn by trial-n-error and imitation - with that being some sort of feedback loop for a while in their development.
So, I think you can see or recognise lots of testing insights just by observing children - especially when they're trying to work something out!
I think the focus-defocus heuristic comes into its own when you want to shake things up - you're stuck in a rut (mental constipation!), so try something else - a different tactic and see if that gives some different insight (release!) It's like asking for a second opinion or a fresh pair of eyes on the problem - someone comes by and asks a question that unlocks part of the problem for you. The focus-defocus idea (whether applied individually or as a group) is then a guide to help go from zoom-lens focus to fish-eye focus (using a camera analogy.)
My interest in black swans and testing is around assumptions and how they can lead to trouble - I'm writing a post for this now. Everything seems obvious in hindsight - but hindsight can also be limitting (the extreme failure case may or may not be foreseen - usually not - as Gladwell says in his article on the challenger disaster, risk homeostasis can be a factor why seemingly reducing the risk in one part of a system does not reduce the overall risk...) and that's when the black swan comes round the corner and dumps a custard pie in your face!
I like your train of thought in these areas - I think we're fairly aligned - maybe we should do a transpection sometime.
Cheers,
Simon
You can defocus with this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.testalways.com/2010/07/05/find-bugs-and-patterns/ :)
@Simon
ReplyDeleteLost my previous reply...
But, I think observing children is really useful for me, they don't seem to have the preconceptions/beliefs/assumptions that adults do. They seem to soak up everything and learn and fail fast. A colleague of mine mentioned to me a while ago that children can distinguish monkeys faces, where adults can't...We as adults filter out what we believe is not important, or what we believe to be irrelevant to us.
I'm really interested in scanning, how we testers scan software when we 1st get it. Do we filter stuff out instantly, I would love more videos of testers doing the ever popular tester challenges, I hope to post me doing the cybersecuritychallenge soon...
Now the trial and error thing, I explored this in one of my previous blogs, and I'm thinking it's more than that..I'm thinking about analysis here. (hey we don't want someone trying to automate that :) )
Also, I think defocusing can be more integral than just a kickstart (although it can be very effective then), do you have to wait until your stuck to 'shake things up'?
Thankyou for comment, information, help and pointers and would look forward to a transpection!
Thanks,
Peter
@Eusebiu
ReplyDeleteMany Thanks for reading my blog and commenting. I'll give your challenge a go tonight!
I'll try and get defocused, but I don't want to limit this to input boundaries...
Peter