TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Chesterton's Fence: A lesson in second order thinking (2021)

205 点作者 ensocode超过 1 年前

30 条评论

jldugger超过 1 年前
I manage a highly complex AI service, and from time to time make config changes, and part of that duty is config cleanup -- removal and simplification. This is a necessary job in the past I have found copy-pasta where settings overrides for one environment are incorrectly copied to a similar one, leading to bad customer experience. As a personal policy, before submitting the cleanup PR, I go back in git history to when the config was introduced to understand why it was done the way it was, in case I am missing something. I call this &quot;paying the Chesterton Tax.&quot;<p>Usually its fine, though once in a while the original author gets annoyed at second guessing their work long after it was considered settled. One recent curious example was when I found a specific setting was applied for one out of a set of many similar subservices; when asking around for why only one of them got it when the current data suggested all subservices would benefit, a senior &quot;architect&quot; got annoyed with me asking questions. As best I can tell: the project was shelved after a few months when the architect solved the primary issue and got bored with it &#x2F; delegated the polishing touches to a junior engineer who went on maternity leave shortly after. Which is a fine enough explanation for me to proceed, but nobody&#x27;s eager to admit such social causes.
评论 #38666626 未加载
评论 #38667482 未加载
评论 #38666735 未加载
评论 #38666632 未加载
dang超过 1 年前
Related:<p><i>Chesterton&#x27;s Fence</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36234973">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36234973</a> - June 2023 (1 comment)<p><i>Chesterton&#x27;s Fence</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=31553665">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=31553665</a> - May 2022 (13 comments)<p><i>Chesterton’s Fence (2020)</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30070757">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30070757</a> - Jan 2022 (142 comments)<p><i>Chesterton’s Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22533484">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22533484</a> - March 2020 (85 comments)<p><i>The Fallacy of Chesterton’s Fence (2014)</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13063246">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13063246</a> - Nov 2016 (26 comments)<p><i>The Fallacy of Chesterton’s Fence (2014)</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11743965">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11743965</a> - May 2016 (2 comments)<p><i>Taking a Fence Down</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9745149">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9745149</a> - June 2015 (42 comments)
reedf1超过 1 年前
The issue with Chesterton&#x27;s fence is something of a meta-problem in conversation and politics in general. It is the ultimate thought terminating cliche. If you accept it as given it allows you to build walls faster than you can investigate their removal, and by the time you have investigated it, they are building walls around your original position. It&#x27;s an argument for inertia, fine in its basis, but over applied it becomes &quot;Chesterton&#x27;s big fucking infinite barrier&quot;, instead of a simple fence.
评论 #38665214 未加载
评论 #38664878 未加载
评论 #38664894 未加载
评论 #38669854 未加载
评论 #38667240 未加载
评论 #38667273 未加载
评论 #38666380 未加载
评论 #38678522 未加载
评论 #38666813 未加载
评论 #38664783 未加载
评论 #38666152 未加载
评论 #38665225 未加载
评论 #38666951 未加载
jimnotgym超过 1 年前
I had an interesting case of this recently.<p>A predecessor seemed to have a series of processes, each of which seemed to be dealing with the errors created by the previous process. However, their notes made it clear that they thought that the mistakes had an external cause, blaming &#x27;the system&#x27;. I felt that I could remove all of the steps and replace them with a correct first step. As an advocate of Chesterton&#x27;s fence, I found it hard to simply accept that my predecessor had built a fence around a phantom, but it seems to be the case. By not finding any reason for the fence I kept hunting for the same phantom. This is the limitation of the model, the erector of the fence may have been wrong.
评论 #38665069 未加载
评论 #38665397 未加载
评论 #38665912 未加载
评论 #38664955 未加载
评论 #38665677 未加载
评论 #38665005 未加载
skybrian超过 1 年前
Interpreted properly, it&#x27;s an argument in favor of curiosity. There&#x27;s always a temptation to cut corners, to react without investigating.<p>In casual conversation, nobody has to do homework, but you should be wary of arguments you can make off the top of your head.<p>Ironically, bringing up Chesterton&#x27;s fence and not doing any research is a rather common move. But I try to value curiosity even when I&#x27;m not actually curious enough to do research at the moment.
joe_the_user超过 1 年前
<i>Second-order thinking is the practice of not just considering the consequences of our decisions but also the consequences of those consequences. Everyone can manage first-order thinking, which is just considering the immediate anticipated result of an action. It’s simple and quick, usually requiring little effort. By comparison, second-order thinking is more complex and time-consuming.</i><p>This seems like an arbitrary distinction. Just any consequence is the product of a chain of events. Throw a rock to break a window? That can be roughly described by the sequence &quot;flex muscles, aim at window, impart velocity to rock, hit window, break window&quot; so you could say really simple things are &quot;second order thinking&quot;.<p>Sure, the point &quot;there&#x27;s a benefit to thinking ahead&quot; remains but the article seems to dress up simple things as deep epiphanies.<p>Edit: Also, Chesterton&#x27;s fence itself <i>is</i> a deeper point. It&#x27;s the &quot;second order thinking&quot; buzzterm that seems misplaced here.
评论 #38667966 未加载
rafaquintanilha超过 1 年前
There is a lot of misinterpretation about this concept, which tends to reduce the problem to a &quot;conservative vs progressive&quot; debacle.<p>A modern equivalent of his thought is the Lindy Effect [1], where every day a non-perishable thing survives (an idea, a technology, or in the original example, a Broadway show) adds another day in its expected survival.<p>Simply put, the longer one thing lasts, the longer it is expected to last. The fence is his metaphorical way of saying that what may be holding a change (thus, a fence) may have its reason and its strength is positively correlated with its lifespan.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lindy_effect" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lindy_effect</a>
cubefox超过 1 年前
A very similar thing applies to taboos in society. Various things were taboo in the past, often in various cultures, while recently people have made efforts to get rid of them. If we don&#x27;t understand why these taboos existed in the first place, we may make a serious mistake.
评论 #38667886 未加载
kqr超过 1 年前
I always liked the framing that Charles Darwin basically worked with the current forms of life as one huge Chesterton&#x27;s wall: This is what species look like -- how the hell did they get that way and why?<p>We can use his techniques to work with the little fences we find. I wrote some examples here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;two-wrongs.com&#x2F;lessons-from-evolution" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;two-wrongs.com&#x2F;lessons-from-evolution</a>
mmaunder超过 1 年前
Another approach is to temporarily remove the fence and the gate and monitor the effects. This is far less work than doing an organization-wide audit to first determine why the fence and gate exist.<p>Chesterton&#x27;s Fence leads to the ossification of large organizations. Determining why the fence exists can be so much work that it&#x27;s easier to just leave it be and move on or go and work somewhere nimble.
评论 #38666230 未加载
评论 #38666356 未加载
评论 #38666220 未加载
评论 #38668447 未加载
评论 #38669024 未加载
评论 #38666330 未加载
评论 #38669732 未加载
renewiltord超过 1 年前
Indeed, and here[0] I apply Chesterton&#x27;s Fence to the issue of widespread unlicensed operation of gasoline lines:<p>&gt; <i>Gasoline is a dangerous and volatile substance. There are numerous incidents of people being harmed by incorrect use - not just the operator but also bystanders - and millions of dollars in facility damage occurring due to insufficient training. There is a reason why Oregon requires Class C UST Operators and above have training regarding emergencies. We should require more training, not less. Industrial substances need high standards. Within this calendar year we have been reminded of this repeatedly: train fires and derailment, the OceanGate submarine, the recent train bridge collapse carrying hazardous materials.</i><p>&gt;<i>Gasoline can be fatal if consumed, is a known carcinogen, and is harmful to aquatic life so it needs regulation. Here is a safety sheet to warn you of the dangers</i> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lasierra.edu&#x2F;fileadmin&#x2F;documents&#x2F;risk&#x2F;safety&#x2F;safety-data-sheet-training-form.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lasierra.edu&#x2F;fileadmin&#x2F;documents&#x2F;risk&#x2F;safety&#x2F;safety-...</a><p>&gt;<i>It&#x27;s important that we treat this substance with respect. Licensed operators should be the only ones handling it routinely. But of course, there&#x27;s no surprise that Big Oil would like to socialize the risks and privatize the profits, speaking nothing of the job losses this will cause.</i><p>0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36481984">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36481984</a>
haswell超过 1 年前
On the subject of habit change, I think the author makes some interesting points, but there’s a failure mode lurking here.<p>Sometimes unhealthy habits did form for a reason, but trying to understand those reasons isn’t always necessary or even helpful, and can seriously hold a person back from making positive life changes. Some habits are inherited through conditioning, and the original factors are long lost memories.<p>I think the potential failure mode is a kind of Learned Helplessness. Here’s this thing that I do, and I don’t understand why no matter how hard I try. If I wait to change until I understand, I might never change.<p>In these cases I think it’s most important to evaluate whether the habit is indeed something that I don’t want, and leave it at that while I go about making the effort to change it.<p>Time and time again, I’ve found that the thing stopping me from doing the thing that I know I should want to do - is thinking about it too much. It’s possible to get trapped in thought processes that go nowhere because the habit itself doesn’t actually make rational sense.<p>It’s often not until I’ve started to make a change that I realize why I was doing the old thing in the first place.<p>When the fences are internal&#x2F;psychological, I think there’s more latitude and just jumping in and trying new things can be incredibly useful.<p>Understanding the function of unhealthy habits can absolutely be helpful, and habit replacement is most effective when you understand what you’re replacing, but don’t let a lack of understanding be a fence of its own.
eviks超过 1 年前
Examples as practically silly as the principle itself, which can&#x27;t help you decide since inaction also has risks and second order and other effects (cue historical example of a natural disaster because some fences stood in the way)<p>&gt; The original employees who helped the company grow initially notice the change and realize things are not how they were before. Of course they can afford to buy their own sodas. But suddenly having to is just an unmissable sign that the company’s culture is changing, which can be enough to prompt the most talented people to jump ship. Attempting to save a relatively small amount of money ends up costing far more in employee turnover. The new CFO didn’t consider why that fence was up in the first place.<p>What if the change the original employees notice is the hiring of the new CFO??? Should the entrepreneur not have done that? Has he even thought of that? In what world can you be so precise in you understanding of any organization to tie some stupid snacks to turnover in your group of most talented people?
dav1ch超过 1 年前
I think the Chesterton&#x27;s fence parable falls short of pointing out the logical conclusion. The fence should have a plaque on it explaining exactly why it was erected and giving the reader enough information to decide if it&#x27;s still necessary.<p>And when we build new things, we should also leave a trail of explanations for our decisions.
评论 #38669040 未加载
leobg超过 1 年前
&gt; the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”<p>Criminal law often does the opposite. There seems to be the illusion that “to understand all is to forgive all”. And so prosecutors and judges often feel like they should not understand the perpetrator too much, lest they cannot punish him.<p>It’s a remnant of “guilt” being defined as “acting in one way when you could have acted in another”. So it becomes imperative to prove that the perpetrator really “could have“ acted in another way, but inexplicably chose not to.<p>In other words, the people who put up the fence must have been stupid (ideally not human) for us to be able to say that it should be taken down.
cjbgkagh超过 1 年前
It seems that many here are missing the point.<p>Chesterton&#x27;s fence is about the laziness of reformers that fail to understand at a minimum why a fence (rule) was placed there in the first place. It is noted that all humans are lazy and only some are reformers.<p>The core problem is that society maintains itself so if you break society it&#x27;s very hard &#x2F; impossible to fix because the broken thing must now fix itself and sometimes it can&#x27;t. At best there is another functioning society waiting in the wings that can take over at worst it&#x27;ll take a very long time for civilization to relearn what it once knew.<p>If the rule was and remains effective then the negative consequences for why the rule was there will be absent and if the reason is forgotten then the negative consequences would have been absent for a long time. The more effective the rule the more absent the data. This makes it a bad idea to use absence of evidence in support of removing rules, especially given such a heuristic would support removing the most effective and long standing rules first - which is a terrible idea.<p>There can be enormous lags and noise in consequences. The negative consequences may not be felt for generations, long after the reformers have died, not only why the fence was placed was forgotten but why the fence was later removed is also forgotten. Cultural behaviours have evolved alongside people and evolutionary pushes are weak and noisy but given enough time can yield pretty good results.<p>I think a core part of traditionalism is that wisdom that is built up over generations can be greater than what a single smart person can learn in their lifetime, and much more than what average people will on average learn in their lifetimes. Trying to optimize society on what a single person can learn in their lifetime would be like doing machine learning using at most a single epoch.
projektfu超过 1 年前
Having worked for a &quot;flat&quot; organization that grew past 200 employees (cf. Dunbar&#x27;s number) and was on its way to a thousand, hierarchy did indeed form and it was often like a shogunate, although without the peasants.<p>But orgs with clear org charts often have hidden political hierarchies as well. It would be nice if you could count on your supervisor and expect your supervisees to do as you ask, but a formal hierarchy is only effective if it&#x27;s actually enforced and other hierarchies are suppressed. In practice, the formal hierarchy can become the tool used to enforce the goals of the alternative hierarchy.<p>Chesterton&#x27;s fence makes sense in a deliberative process but old fences are often just in the way. In a lot of ways, the default position on this front is mere obstructionism.
DaveFlater超过 1 年前
The purpose of Chesterton&#x27;s Fence is what it does.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...</a>
TaurenHunter超过 1 年前
I&#x27;ve read this quote recently of GK Chesterton sounding like a revolutionary as opposed to conservative.<p>From Orthodoxy:<p>&quot;All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are.<p>But you do not.<p>If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change.<p>If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post.<p>If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution.<p>Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post.&quot;
williamcotton超过 1 年前
The essay is called “The Drift from Domesticity”. If you’d rather not be downvoted in this discussion my recommendation would be to read the damn thing!
upofadown超过 1 年前
Every successful open source project needs at least one participant that is willing to tirelessly point out why things are the way they are when others enthusiastically propose that they will change everything. Understanding an existing system is much harder than starting a new project.<p>I have observed that this also applies to open standards as well...
IshKebab超过 1 年前
This feels like one more in a long list of well-intentioned advice that ends up being used to justify bad practices. In this case, never refactoring.<p>Others include:<p>&quot;premature optimisation&quot; (never worry about performance)<p>&quot;Unix philosophy&quot; (programs can&#x27;t do more than one &quot;thing&quot;; where &quot;thing&quot; means whatever I want it to)
评论 #38665538 未加载
评论 #38665386 未加载
评论 #38665458 未加载
评论 #38665234 未加载
评论 #38667303 未加载
perilunar超过 1 年前
Those seeking to dismiss Chesterton&#x27;s Fence should find out why Chesterton&#x27;s Fence was created in the first place.<p>- - -<p>Fences are rarely built for no reason at all; the question is not &quot;is this fence necessary?&quot; but &quot;is this fence <i>still</i> necessary?&quot;
studentrob超过 1 年前
Unpopular opinion: This conflicts with SV&#x27;s &quot;disrupt everything&quot; mantra.
评论 #38665321 未加载
评论 #38667622 未加载
snagglemouth超过 1 年前
Very insightful. IMO this is exactly what leads to many engineering teams to want to re-write a system from the ground up instead of trying to fix existing systems. They underestimate the complexity and assume the problems with the current system were the result of poor skill quality, rather than confronting complexity and nuance that they also aren&#x27;t expecting. So they promise a rewrite in a couple months, a couple months turns into 6, they get pressure from management to wrap it up and ship the new thing, so they rush and they do. Then that system sits there for a couple years until a new batch of engineers comes and argues that the system sucks and the answer is a rewrite from the ground up. Rinse and repeat.
Jolter超过 1 年前
That’s certainly a bunch of words. I think they could have made their point in an article half as long.
ignoramous超过 1 年前
Well, sometimes you have to tear down the fences to bring about meaningful change based on first principles. Otherwise, we are only empowering the gatekeepers who have all the incentive in the world to persist with the status quo.<p>See also: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;a16z.com&#x2F;politics-and-the-future&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;a16z.com&#x2F;politics-and-the-future&#x2F;</a>
评论 #38664538 未加载
评论 #38664439 未加载
评论 #38665221 未加载
评论 #38664475 未加载
jofla_net超过 1 年前
I guess this could fall under Big Picture vs. Detail Oriented thinking.
bee_rider超过 1 年前
Chesterton will have to contend with our time honored tradition of tearing down fences. It might be the case that any particular fence is important, but being a culture that tends to tear-down fences has the second-order effect of being more adaptable.<p>&gt; Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. […the lamppost is taken down but it turns out the lamppost was good…]<p>Poorly placed lampposts waste electricity and attract bugs (making the area worse off, and messing with their biology). They also have a maintenance cost. We should make a habit of tearing down lampposts. We should at least not maintain lampposts if there’s no articulated reason to have them there.<p>The robed figure and the town share in the blame. The robed figure should, if he wants us to keep up the lamppost, be able to present a punctual argument to keep it. On the other hand, the town shouldn’t rely on some old robed figure to go around cryptically warning of the importance of lampposts, the town should have an office of public works that documents why the lamppost was made. Angry mobs are just a dumb way of making civic infrastructure decisions. By having a well-exercised, well-documented process for tearing down lampposts, the town will completely circumvent the problem!<p>&gt; Take the case of supposedly hierarchy-free companies. Someone came along and figured that having management and an overall hierarchy is an imperfect system.<p>[…]<p>&gt; Without a formal hierarchy, people often form an invisible one, which is far more complex to navigate and can lead to the most charismatic or domineering individual taking control, rather than the most qualified.<p>[…]<p>&gt; It is certainly admirable that hierarchy-free companies are taking the enormous risk inherent in breaking the mold and trying something new. However, their approach ignores Chesterton’s Fence and doesn’t address why hierarchies exist within companies in the first place.<p>But there are tons of companies, we don’t have the choice of removing the fence or not. It is more like, we have a blueprint of a farm, and it includes a fence, which some suspect might be unnecessary, maybe even harmful. So let’s try a batch of farms without that fence. Then, document whether or not it worked out in the form of case-studies. Bam, the fence is no longer mysterious.<p>These second order effects are often too hard to guess at from first principles. Let people try tearing them down, and see what happens. We don’t need fence protection services, we need a strong middle class and safety net so that people can try building that fenceless company, fail, and land on their feet.<p>We see this in governance too, the US was set up to run 50 permutations of an experiment. Just have each state try their thing, and then observe that Massachusetts’s plan worked out best and copy them.
评论 #38665034 未加载
评论 #38668655 未加载
hedora超过 1 年前
When I first heard this, it came up in an engineering discussion, where pulling out + replacing the thing was much lower cost than figuring out exactly what the person that implemented it was smoking.<p>Since the cost of removing + reinstalling a gate is also much lower than the cost of Chesterson&#x27;s proposed historical wankery, I assumed I was getting an all clear to do my job.<p>I&#x27;ve also encountered this sort of wrong-think when trying to deal with planning commissions in the SF Bay Area.<p>Anyway, the Simple Sabotage Field Manual goes into more detail if you&#x27;d like to implement Chesterson&#x27;s Fence. It worked well in WWII, so I guess they were on to something. Page 28, points 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are all good generaly ways to put the article into practice. If you&#x27;re in a management position, the next section, points 11-13 are also good approaches. However, the entire 36 page book is worth a careful read:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;SimpleSabotageFieldManualStrategicServicesProvisional-nsia&#x2F;page&#x2F;n31&#x2F;mode&#x2F;2up" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;SimpleSabotageFieldManualStrateg...</a>
评论 #38664836 未加载
评论 #38665436 未加载