[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Eugenia Gabrielov

Let me try to clarify this a bit before things get argumentative - giving assistance generally has the prerequisite of a request to help, to guide, to advise. Remember, suggested solutions are just that...suggestions. None of us can fix anybody else, but I think Tristan is suggesting that it's ok to provide constructive criticism even if you yourself have had problems in the same realm before.

In fact, in some cases, experience with a problem personally makes advice more valuable.

To address Tim's question, it's first a matter of identifying that there's a problem. Can I perceive something as being a problem, while the person responsible for it sees nothing wrong? Of course; so it's implicit that I'm referring to my own opinion that a problem exists. Having decided that there's something wrong, I will consider that I may not be appropriately qualified to address it. Maybe I've got problems of my own that demand my immediate, undivided attention. If that's so, then so be it—maybe I can enlist other assistance, maybe I'll just decide to forget about it. But that's not an automatic choice.

So, when I do go ahead and offer assistance, it's because I think that I've got something of value to add. Now, if I've established that something is wrong, and further, that I can make a useful contribution, and that I'm not busy with something more important, isn't it a question of "why not assist"? I know, sometimes people want to be left alone in their misery—I can empathize with that. But on the other hand, if they're complaining about it on ChiefDelphi, or look like they're struggling with it in the pits, I'd have to say that it's a safe bet that they're open to the idea of assistance, in some form or another.

As an example, the fact that my car's oil pressure gauge fluctuates for reasons that I don't quite understand does not disqualify me from offering advice on oil pumps. Why? Because despite the apparent lack of competence, I'm actually quite experienced with how oil pumps work—the fact that I have an unresolved (yet related) problem of my own doesn't necessarily prohibit me from applying what knowledge I do have. This is the sort of thing that I take issue with—exemplified in Cody's statement that "[he] definitely won't correct someone else's problems until [he has] fixed all of [his] own". It's too dogmatic, too rigid, and seems to me to support the idea that only the learned masters with no gaps in their knowledge are qualified to make pronouncements about the way things ought to be. Sure, the assistance of a master might be great—but in the absence of such a person, isn't it better to rely on the experience of someone who's at least familiar with the problem, and despite some gaps of knowledge, has a good grasp of what's going on? And even in the presence of a master, it is inconceivable that I might still have something to add? After all, surely we can accept that other perspectives can lead to creative solutions.

Similarly, Genia's example of constructive criticism is quite appropriate. Again, someone who's had their own problems, or who is currently dealing with their own problems might be just the person to make an appropriate observation. If they hold their tongues, will their past mistakes be repeated in others' work? Learning from your own mistakes is good, but learning from someone else's is often better.

Also, if someone doesn't like my proposed solution to a problem, then they're usually under no obligation to follow it. I don't pretend to offer unilaterally correct advice; what I give is presented in good faith, and with some measure of competence, but with no warranty, express or implied.

I realize that imposing myself in a situation, and providing unwanted advice may not endear me to people in general. And for the most part, I would avoid this, to limit conflict. But in certain situations, such as when I'm performing the role of a robot inspector, I feel that it's more important to offer the advice, wanted or not, because it will simplify matters on the whole. On several occasions, I've walked past a pit, and noticed something amiss. Sometimes it was a rule violation, sometimes a safety hazard, sometimes a potential failure mode waiting to happen. Whatever it is, when I'm wearing the robot inspector hat (figuratively ), I can either deal with it then and there, and risk the ire of a team that didn't want to hear about it, or deal with it later, as the team undergoes their inspection and finds out that there's a problem, or when someone gets hurt. For everyone's sake, it's easier to find and fix the problem in advance, rather than hope that it will be discovered in time to prevent whatever calamity is imminent.

So, maybe that explains better what I couldn't really convey in the previous, shorter, post. It's not about promoting conflict, or an air of superiority; it's about efficiently solving problems in general, rather than limiting my efforts to only those problems which directly affect me. In so doing, it seems to me that I can make more effective use of my knowledge, and improve other peoples' experiences, rather than just my own.