Humans over time have acquired the skill to use a linear scale. Radio Labs aired a talk which explained about experiments done with children and some tribes who have not been exposed to linear numbers. The experiments suggest that we are conditioned to use numbers in non linear scales. It is easy to express differences in ratios than linear count between them. The experiments have also been replicated on animals and found that they also understand differences in ratios than the count in between.
We are accustomed to say that the difference between 1 & 2, 11 & 12, 1001 & 1002 are all same. When we project these numbers side by side as countable items like trees or birds in a picture; every one will immediately spot the difference between 1 & 2, most will spot the difference between 11 & 12 given some time to count and people will struggle to find the difference between 1001 & 1002 unless the images are arranged in neat grid with enough time given to count. The results of an experiment with Amazonian tribe who had not much formal education is here. In short, it illustrates that people will be inclined to choose their scale to be logarithmic instead of linear one. Musical scales are non linear where the frequency doubles every octave. Like music even the colour frequencies of VIGBYOR is non linear.
We deal with numbers day to day and most of the working force have spent significant amount time in school playing around with numbers which were in linear scale. Deep inside us we still carry what we inherited from our ancestors and are well suited to deal with ratios. May be that is why our ancestors designed the musical scale to be non linear. “The Da vinci code” novel also talks about golden ratio which is observed every where in nature and that is non linear.
In software development I have observed this is true when it comes to estimations. Instead of mapping estimates to days of effort it is more easy to represent it in Fibonacci series (the ratio is 1.6 or golden ratio in fibonacci) or Log base 2. Trying to fit in a linear scale has created more misunderstandings between team members as each one had a different picture on where to place an estimate on a linear scale. I have observed dissonances in estimates from people even when using logarithmic or fibonacci, that dissonance will increase manifold if we use a linear scale. If we try to deal with numbers in ratios in day to day life then may be we can get lots of advantage by using our hard wiring inside.
In most of the work places, interviews are the entry barrier to become a part of an organization. The general tendency of anyone to approach an interview is to do it like an examination. An evening or two of preparation especially if it is a technical job and some search on the net for answering typical questions gives an illusion of being prepared for an interview. It is easy to get through examinations with an overnight of preparation as only the factual accuracy of the answer matters.
Interviews in my opinion are more of discussions than question answer sessions like exams. For technical jobs, the interviews will be centered around the sound understanding of the fundamentals and application of that knowledge rather than checking the memory of first page search result answers for the questions. If the attitude and approach towards a day job is inclined towards continuous learning and improvement, then that may help a lot at an interview than an overnight preparation. In other words we should be able to meet an employer on a flight journey, conference or social events and stumble on a job offer without any preparation.
Being employable is analogous to being physically strong. Just like how one should exercise every day to be fit and strong, the learnings and applications every day at workplace helps in strengthening our capabilities. It will also not come to us in a few days, it is a long and continuous process which should become a habit.
Lots of success stories show us that the early adopters of new techniques and methods are able to stay ahead of the competition and the rest plays a catch up game. There are many companies and individuals today who consistently assess, try and adopt new technologies. There is also a significant effort involved to be on the cutting edge. The adoption is a time consuming process and the adopters are at the mercy of the fallibility of the new technologies or process. During the format wars of VHS and BetaMax, BetaMax adopters had to suffer the failure of that format. A stand-up comedian Steven Wright pointed out that “The second mouse gets the cheese”, making fun of expensive early adoption.
De Havilland decided to make commercial jet aircrafts with many firsts like comfortable seating, large windows, pressurized cabins. They came up with a great plane “Comet”, the world’s first commercial jetliner. It also flew very high which was also one among the firsts but metal fatigue caused the planes to crash. Crashing due to metal fatigue was one of the firsts as well, the other companies like Boeing got the lessons from Comet’s failure and produced better designs. After the failure De Havilland struggled to catch up and eventually became defunct in just 12 years after its state of the art jetliner made its first commercial flight.
The story about Comet is not that early adopters fail, we should always back early adoption with enough financial/human resources, tolerate risks & fail safe; above all a strong need with significant business gains. Businesses backed with strong research departments; the culture of trying, assessing & using new techniques & methods; a good vision about the future will continue to make early adoption look easy. We should be careful enough not to be on the bleeding edge as it looks like an easy job from the success stories on the other side.
Novi's 