The Dangers of Being Right (a lot)

[IKE]

Many persons withing FIRST are quite strong academically. This can be demonstrated by an abundance of top rated schools, high percentages going on to further education, and numerous other examples. A large part of this is the persons pursuit of knowledge and/or being able to score high on tests and thus provide the "right" answers to the challenges we see. I would imagine that if you were to do a statistical analysis, many FIRST persons and those on CD would be above average in most academic metrics. These persons are often "right" when asked questions that have a right answer.

So you might be thinking, "Congratulations captain obvious. We already know this." Well, there is a huge risk with being "right" a lot. The risk is that you build a general confidence (or paradigm) where you think you are always "right". This attitude can be very dangerous and off-putting. It is most notably showcased in philosophical debates wherre there is not "a" right answer, but possibly many depending on small details of your goals and targets.

I bring this up because FIRST is intentionally vague in a few key areas that often bring forth much debate (as it should). I won't reharsh these areas at length as there are basic threads that sprout up every year (roles of a mentor, COTS, GP, competitiveness...). These tend to be philosophical areas with many "right" answers (and many wrong ones too) I personally think that is one of the greatest things about FIRST is the choose your own adventure aspect of it.

Back to the meat of this thread. To those of you that are often right (+90% of the time). Be careful! It is a heavy burden. Not only can this blind you to others opinions, but it can also blind others to your knowledge base. This I will call the assumed expert position. Others may come to you for your ideas rather than trying to form ideas of their own. Others may assume you are always (huge difference between always and often), and in turn endanger themselves when you give an innaccurate piece of advise (i.e. someone coming to me for grammar advice or IKE said you can join different metals, so that is why I tried to weld aluminum to steel).

So how to handle it. (I am inserting my opinion here) Be open to others opinions. Even if they are wrong, they may spark some greater solutions. Understand the difference between philosophical and technical questions (how should we organize our team vs. will this motor lift this arm in 2 seconds). Let Philosophical be that, and help state teh pros and cons of those positions. Technical questions can usually be answered in 1 of three ways. Feasible (or within the rules), Not feasible (breaking the rules), and Feasible, but I would advise a "better" way (gray interpretation that may rely on an equally gray interpretation from inspectors). State your confidence level on things you may be uncertain about (I think this weld looks good, but I am not a welding expert).

Anyway, feel free to use this thread to showcase examples, debate, or tell me I am full of it and you are right 110% of the time...

P.S. This was one of my Favorite Interview answers given to me by a college student when asked, "What is your greatest weakness?" he followed up with, "I am almost always right" which I followed up with my typical response, "How has this proven to be a weakness?" I use that to seperate the B.S from those with actual insight. If you ever plan to use the "I'm a perfectionist, or I am too hard a worker" be prepared to get grilled if they are an expereinced interviewer. Those can be real faults, but most interviewees use them as reverse compliments to themselves, and thus fail my interview process (by fail I mean I find a better candidate, so everybody but 1 ends up failing).