6 ms·
Cannot cite Chesterton's fence too often. In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a princi
by emil-lp 18d ago
Cannot cite Chesterton's fence too often.
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which 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."
—
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_Fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
Related:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38653711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38653711
- throw8484949ii 18d ago> a fence or gate erected across a road. Except in many cases it is your responsibility to ask. If something has indefined legal status, and no documentation, it is a major red flag. Very often corruption, drug or people trafficking or other shady stuff. If you want gate in middle of the public road, show the paperwork! Or I will call authorities!
- saghm 18d agoThe responsibility to ask is literally the point of Chesterton's fence in my mind; when something looks out of place, and you think it doesn't make sense, you need to ask and learn about it. Sometimes the fence genuinely is unnecessary, and you can then proceed to dismantle it, but other times it might be useful for surprising reasons; it might be a mitigation for an issue that would require a much more time-consuming fix; and it might sometimes genuinely be unnecessary. The point of finding out this information is that the correct action is different for each of them; taking down the fence is fine if it's genuinely useless, and leaving it alone is necessary if it's genuinely useful for reasons you didn't anticipate. In the middle ground where there's a better solution that would take more time, the correct action depends on the answer to a follow-up: is replacing the fence the most important use of my time right now? I've experienced all three of these situations before (and both possible answers to the follow-up in the third case), so I've found this framework helpful for how to deal with the fences when I come across them.
- lazyasciiart 18d agoYes, Chesterton clearly hadn’t started working at a job where he was responsible for the security or accuracy of a process. “Then Marge calculates the late penalties by hand and enters them into the system? It’s fine, she … has a method?Really?”
- hinkley 18d agoChesterton was talking about politics (public policy). And 'responsible for security or accuracy' well, have you heard of politics? If you haven't, don't look it up, it will just depress you.
- wat10000 18d agoThe point Chesterton is making isn’t that you leave everything alone. It’s just that you find out why something is there before you take it out. Find out my Marge calculates the penalties by hand. You may find that the program gets it wrong, in which case taking her out of the process would be a disaster unless you fix the underlying problem first. Or you may find that it’s completely pointless and you can go straight to using the automation. It’s not that you ignore it and leave it forever, just that you find out what’s going on before you start taking the axe to things.
- hinkley 18d agoHow you ask the question matters just as much as whether you should ask it. Impressionable ears are everywhere and asking 'is there icecream in the house?' means that everyone is about to get a bowl or be upset.
- NoItsDanger 18d agoI’ve always liked Chesterton’s Fire. Maybe there’s a reason you’re on fire. Until you can say for sure, I will not put it out. I will just be here roasting these marshmallows on your burning flesh. :)
- gwerbin 18d agoWhat a ridiculous misrepresentation of the principle. In fact isn't that a good illustration of the principle? The fence is just sitting there, maybe it's annoying or slows you down but it isn't actually an acute problem or an emergency. All the more reason to not just rip it out without taking the time to understand why it's there.
- nswango 18d agoMy version was Chesterton's Facehugger. Something which, as soon as you discover it, you should immediately respond by trying to remove it, without asking questions about where it came from or what its purpose might be.
- gwerbin 18d agoDo you have a real practical example of this? I have never encountered a real one that didn't turn out to be a fence in hindsight.
- nswango 17d agoI have encountered many. For example if you find a password in plaintext in source control, you don't assume the person who put it there had a good reason, you assume they were deeply misguided.
- misalliance 16d agoAs a counterpoint, being useful is not always a sufficient reason to resist changing. Historical design can be also be flawed or just accidental.