Separate the Idea from the Person


Two people can disagree deeply and still work well together. In one meeting, they may be fully engaged in a serious discussion about a design, questioning assumptions, challenging each other, and trying to arrive at the best solution. Later, the same two people can step out for coffee and talk about something entirely different, with ease and comfort. Humans are capable of this kind of compartmentalization, but it does not happen by default. It requires a conscious shift in roles and intent.

What makes this work is the ability to separate the idea from the person. When both individuals understand that a disagreement is about improving the outcome and not judging capability, the conversation becomes sharper without becoming personal. I have experienced this with a mentor. Our early interactions were distant and unaligned, and it took deliberate effort to build that separation. Over time, the disagreements became more productive, and the relationship became stronger. There is, however, a risk. If taken too far, compartmentalization can turn into polite avoidance, where real issues are never addressed. And when those walls eventually break, the emotional spillover can be intense.

This is where many engineers, especially early in their careers, struggle. A single piece of tough feedback can feel personal, and that feeling carries into every conversation that follows. Some become defensive. Others withdraw. The challenge is not the feedback itself, but the inability to move past it into the next interaction with a clear mind. This is not about becoming friends at work; it is about maintaining clarity across contexts. Tenet #2 — Meet People One Step Away from What They Know. Start from where they are, engage with the idea, and leave the person intact.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking Systems, One Mistake at a Time

Image
I’ve broken more things than I’ve built — and that’s exactly why this blog exists. Over the years, I’ve learned that the most valuable lessons rarely come from perfectly executed plans. They come from the quiet moments after things break — when you realize what you missed, what you assumed, or what you could have communicated better. Most of those insights seem obvious in hindsight. This space, Obvious in Hindsight , is my running log of those realizations — from building reliable systems at scale to learning how people, teams, and code all fail (and recover) in similar ways. I’m writing to understand — out loud. Why I’m Doing This Every engineer I respect shares one thing in common: they remember what they got wrong. Not because they’re proud of the mistake, but because they learned something from it that documentation never could. This blog is where I collect my own version of those reminders — along with some movie quotes. Each post will tie back to one of my core tenets ...
Read more

Why Now Matters More Than the Idea

Image
Years ago, I proposed building a large data warehouse that captured how our creators structured their content. Everything. The semantics. The syntax. The patterns. Which HTML tags appeared together. Which musical octaves worked in combination. Which ad-tags influenced consumption. It was a massive idea. It was also far ahead of its time. The cost was high. The ROI was unclear. We didn’t know what we would do with the data. The idea made sense, but the timing didn’t. Five years later, things changed. GenAI arrived. Personalization matured. Analytics became deeper and cheaper. Suddenly, the same idea became useful. Now we had models that could learn from the patterns. Now we had creators who wanted insights. Now we had consumers who expected smarter experiences. The idea didn’t change. The world around it did. And with that, the timing flipped from “not now” to “why aren’t we doing this already?” It reminded me that ideas don’t win on its merit alone. They win when why , why now , and ...
Read more

Optimize for Being Less Wrong

Image
The brain learns in uncomfortable ways. When you repeat something you are already good at, very little changes inside. The wiring stays the same. But the moment you make a mistake, something shifts. The brain is agitated. You feel annoyed. Embarrassed. Restless. That discomfort is not failure. That is learning starting. No errors. No rewiring. The fastest learners are not the ones who avoid mistakes. They are the ones who make many small, high-quality mistakes and correct them quickly. LLM tools understand this instinctively. Tools like Claude, Cursor, or Cline don’t try to look good. They don’t protect their ego. They optimize for one thing only — being less wrong next time. They reduce their loss function again and again, billions of times. They don’t feel shame when they fail. They don’t slow down to preserve confidence. Humans do the opposite. We avoid mistakes. We repeat what feels safe. We do what makes us look competent. And that is how talented people plateau after yea...
Read more