Hacker News Reader

Comment by Holybeds | Hacker News Reader

> if a method consistently fails to be implemented correctly by a large segment of projects, I put the blame on the method myself.

I have heard that sentiment many times but it doesn't really make sense to me.

If a doctor tells patients that going for a run a few times a week is a good way to increase their stamina, but most patients are too lazy or busy to do it, do you blame the method of running then?

Or do you mean that the method should be designed in a way that only companies who will succeed will adopt?

By your standard, is there any successful method to this area?

View on HN

Yes, I would blame the choice of the method if most patients are too lazy or busy. A good choice would instead work for busy and lazy patients or would convince them to be less lazy and/or busy :) Multiple options should be offered depending on the patient.

I've given actually a similar example regarding the "eat well and do sports" advice. It's not bad advice, it is correct, but it's not working for a large segment of the population, causing massive problems for health care and later (or now?) society.

Instead of cheap advice maybe the doctor should prescribe physical therapy with a specialist where the patient can be educated on the what and the how. Or the appropriate gov organisation should ban or heavily tax soft drinks and crappy foods and make good, healthy food affordable and available.

If a doctor tells patients to go for a run a few times a week with no additional resources and training advice, the doctor just set the patient to fail. Because they will train ineffectively getting little benefit for a lot of effort. Some will get injured from overdoing it. Others will stop improving after just few weeks and then end in frustration.

If a particular method is not compatible with duties and needs of a normal employed person with a familly, then that method constitues a bad advice for such person.

> If a doctor tells patients that going for a run a few times a week is a good way to increase their stamina, but most patients are too lazy or busy to do it, do you blame the method of running then?

Yes, if a medical intervention largely fails in real-world practice, whether or not it is through non-compliance, that's a strike against it as an intervention. On which is more successful in practice, even if worse in the ideal case of perfect compliance, is a better intervention.

Similarly, a development methodology which fails with real world orgs, even if the failure is due to “incorrect” implementation, is a worse methodology than one which produces better results in practice.

Yes, that shows that 'telling patients to go for a run' doesn't work

Reply on news.ycombinator.com