In this blogpost I cover some insights on being critical on your own ideas and how this can be found in political systems like democracy and linkin its relevance to software engineering.

I recently explained RiskStorming to a psychology expert. He gave me two things to ponder on:

1. Don’t call it a game. There is nothing funny about RiskStorming. This is a strategy building framework. Don’t sell it short.
2. He told me a story which stayed in my head for months after.
   In Israel, after World War II, for whatever idea or change the government wants to bring, there is alway at least one voice or one party who takes the complete opposite side of the argument. A party that will rigorously attack bad-thought-out-ideas or arguments that aren’t logical or even dangerous. Especially “it will be fine, let’s wait it out”, -sentiments would be vigurously debated.

This story stuck with me. It made me think differently about Risk Analysis and Management. Not only is it important during Software Engineering, the underlying principles hold true for just about anything:

It is exceedingly difficult to look critically on our own ideas. We often rely on others to challenge our assumptions and call us out on our blind spots.

Over the years, I’ve heared so many metaphors describing software engineering. From football teams to building a house to skateboards to cars and whatnot. The following made a lot of sense to me…

Loyal Opposition

What Loyal Opposition is to democracy is probably the best way to, in layman’s terms, explain what Risks, QA and testing does for software engineering. Loyal Opposition is the correct term of what my friend described about the political situation in Israel. This system is a fundamental part of democracy and used in many countries around the world. In Belgium, my own country, cripplingly so. (But that’s a different blogpost)

Loyal Opposition is having a party or role within the system which is consistently critical about the ruling party’s policies.

Loyal Opposition, among other things, helps to:

1. Hold the ruling party accountable
2. Prevent overreach by providing checks and balances
3. Hold Robust Debate
4. Representation of Minority Views
5. Peaceful Resolution
6. Policy Improvement

Sounds familiar? It’s not just in software development, governmental or scientific circles that we have these structures.
I’ve looked into books, articles, mentors to find out what in the human psyche makes us prone to believe and trust our own solutions so much and too rarely apply critical thinking? Could we do without these structures? Why do we have Testers/QA people? Why do we have auditors? Why are “Critical Thinking”, “The 5-why’s”, “Scepticism”, “Ritual Dissent” and, yes, “RiskStorming” a thing?
I started calling them Critical Inquiry Systems and while there is plenty to be read around the subject, but I haven’t found the source that structurally explains our struggle and why we have it.

Why do these Critical Inquiry Systems come across so… counterintuitive? Annoying even?

My search turned up the next couple examples:

• Confirmation Bias
• Cognitive Laziness
• Emotional Attachments
• Social Influence
• Complexity

Critical Inquiry costs time, energy and emotional & cognitive labour to do well.

While I’m still not happy with the result, as I was hoping to uncover a strong underlying psychological effect or at least some kind of model, I’m reassured that we’re on the right path: Building tools that make Critical Inquiry better & easier. Critical Inquiry is tough. It’s exhausting and requires a wide set of skills and capabilities. You can do it yourself, on your own ideas but everyone who has sat down with a friend, explained their conundrums and gotten their friend’s invested advice or questions will tell you: a good friend is worth their weight in gold. Even if you don’t always want to hear what they have to say.

That just doesn’t sound like “you”

I want to help those friends. I want to help those friends become even better at providing honest, critical, feedback.
RiskStorming is a powerful tool to challenge assumptions and identify blind spots. It offers tools, vocabulary and systems that people can use to communicate and spark ideas.
My mission is to keep on developing tools for people to think critically about their own or others solutions.

Want to start on your RiskStorming Journey? Find out more here: RiskStormingonline.com
We’re building a new RiskStorming deck. Want to give your two cents? Get in touch!

Follow us on Linkedin