Living in the Toyshop

Like most people I enjoy winning, which means in theory, I enjoy playing. I sometimes call what I do tinkering, but really I'm just trying to understand what things I can do well enough to see the possibility of winning. Two things I've come to understand about how I approach the world center on this concept of playing to win.

A) I am very quick to dismiss the value of something I can't see a way to win with. I have to constantly check myself. Am I bucketing something into won't do because I don't yet have the basic skills to at least play passably, or have I truly reasoned out why there doesn't seem to be a benefit to putting effort into it.

B) Winning isn't always about the highest/fastest/most amazing; it's often a simple "Thanks". For me a win is all about realizing some reward. It could be a better outcome than an opponent, or it could just be just accomplishing what I set out to do, like improving font accessibility. Playing with this platform until I figure out how to "win" was great.

When I'm performing at my best, life really is a Toyshop. Rows and rows of things to try, maybe I'll like the toy and want to buy so I can keep playing, or maybe I'll put it back and pickup something else. The key for me is to be honest with myself about why I pick the Lego Set over the Revell Model. Is it because it's easy; because I can get more overall value; is it habit. There's not a truly wrong answer most of the time, but there may be a less optimal one I'm falling into.

This is My Aisle

I like to define things relative to what I know. Software for me made sense in the terms of a basic internal combustion engine. There are a fixed set of inputs, outputs and control mechanisms. These variables will either enable the ICE to rotate and create power, or not. They can determine how much power is created. The can shape the power measures of torque and horsepower.

Classic combustion engines are a fairly simple contained system, allowing me with play and practice to understand how to operate the ICE. When it's not working as expected I know how to walk the system from Fuel, to Spark, to Air, to the finer details of mixture and timing. Modern engines are much more complex, involving sensors and computers, taking significantly more play and practice to model, but they are still contained systems that can be mapped, modelled & therefore understood.

Software systems can usually be thought of in a similar fashion. If you map and model the inputs, controls and outputs, you can utilize, debug and alter the system with relative ease. The burgeoning field of ML is an exception to some degree, but even for systems that utilize ML, you can still map the bounds and rationalize how the system receives inputs and produces outputs.

I understood that I could do software, because it was in the same aisle as all the toys I'd become comfortable with. It was mostly deterministic. With my predilection for winning, repeatability was key.

I'm Not Afraid of Dolls

Open ended play, like a pretend Tea Service is innately challenging for me. It's not that I lack imagination, rather there's no set end point. I can define bounds like time blocks, but that's akin to abandoning play, not winning. Modern video games often fall into this arena for me. I can play The Legend of Zelda on NES because there is a set path. There are dungeons, there are treasures, and they can be completed.

When I played World of Warcraft I certainly had fun, but I found myself loosing interest when I failed to find what I wanted to get out of it. That's a me problem. I struggled to build the scenarios in me head that would equate to accomplishment. There were too many variables, to many outcomes. For me it was un-mappable.

Is This Winning

My list of weaknesses is long. I'm good at a lot things I try, but there are some rough edges that require continual sanding. Some people would call this "being overwhelmed" and that's an apt summary. For me it really comes down to my ability to understand the toy I'm about to play with. I can't know everything, but I want to know enough so I can play. I want that path to the outcome I'm seeking.

There's the contradiction. Play is a multifaceted word. The basic OED definitions of "engaging in an activity for enjoyment and recreation" doesn't really match with what I think Play should be. Play for me should really emphasize the "to bend or be bent...pliable" definition.

When I am getting things right-ish, I allow myself to play without the need for outcome. Like rolling a marble on the table in front of my. I can enjoy it's sound, the light and color, and I can enjoy the recreational aspects. Most importantly however I can let it take me where it wants to go. I allow it myself to cede direction to the act of play. The outcome is determined by my pliability, not my pre-ordained goal.

Finally

This is hard. Especially in a professional environment. The space for open ended play is approaching zero. Intrinsically I understand the value, but it is difficult to place an EO on tinkering for it's own sake. To me that's a sign of a truly good leader. Someone who fully understands that to build and grow a team, you need to allow the team truly play.

One of the fundamental signs of a healthy team is when there is enough shared trust to just let things play out. It can't always be a 20 mile forced march sometimes it needs to be a short ramble to wherever it leads. I need to remember this bot for myself, and for any team I'm leading or working with.

QOTD

“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.” ― Anais Nin