Category Archives: Thoughts

UX: Do you know what is the conception of your product?

Accidentally was passing by this relatively old article Lean UX: Getting Out Of The Deliverables Business (March, 2011). I find it worth reading anyway, as well as, and even more, the comments to it.

It provoked some thoughts about the process. The very essence of the lean/agile approach is to reduce the time, amount of documents, and costs, according to this article. But my personal impression (and as far as I can judge an impression of some commenters) is that reducing time of conception development we, instead, are increasing time of endless iterations in the quest for the same very conception.

That is, “agile” is a great tool for those who don’t actually know what is the product they are developing right now. When we don’t have proper and comprehensible conception, we are forced to search it, and for this search “agile” approach is really a solution.



Selfishness of the Groups (or) How I am sick and tired of idiots preaching “social Darwinism”

Today I was passing by just another yellow article Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows. It seems nowadays it has become fancy to consider “selfishness” and “co-operation” in terms of “social Darwinism” dragging the Game Theory in, just in case.

First of all, it seems some people don’t understand that artificial opposing “selfishness” to “co-operation” is pure fight of the totally abstract Good with the same abstract Evil.

The team of “scientists” just figured out that the dominance of purely egoistic traits would bring a species to an extinction! My sincere congratulations! They have plumped down something quite obvious and, generally speaking, correct in the guise of the great outcome or their “research”, whereupon some “journalist” devised a pompous headline “Evolution does not favour selfish people”.

Let’s start with the fact that the dominance of purely selfish traits really would have led to the extinction of species, as well as the dominance of purely altruistic ones. And it must be noticed that the latter would do much faster, because individuals lacking most powerful of all instincts — self-preservation instinct — would have died in droves “for that guy” before they could give birth to offspring.

Second, it doesn’t come to some people’s mind that considering a group of individuals (in general, any size – family, country, nation, race, species) a single organism we, right in front of our astonished eyes, can observe a transformation of “co-operation” of individuals in a group to a group selfishness. In other words, group begins behaving like a single selfish organism against other groups. A high-level self-preservation instinct, if you will.

Third, altruism is not equal co-operation as well as individualism is not equal egoism, and moreover: cooperation has nothing to do with compassion (if someone is an a great desire to discuss this, see Stanford Prison Experiment (at least it is something about real people behaviour), those people have demonstrated exceptional level of cooperation in punishing other group).

The very notion of “selfishness” is used in this yellow article in absolutely anti-scientific sense. It has a pure populist pseudo-moralistic meaning there. Science is concerned with clear concepts, which an author of any scientific work initially determines, whereas the authors of this article are concerned with ecclesiastical images coming from above.

This article has nothing to do with science, it is totally religious moralistic opus. So let’s don’t confuse.


Socialism VS free market

The thought in response to the article What To Do When Markets Fail?

I think it’s the main mistake to assume that the market is rational. IMHO, any socialistic undertakings sooner or later will fail exactly because they are a try to rationalize the market. That is, socialistic management is the maximum expressed idea of ​​rational governance. Free market itself is not rational at all.

I am surprised why there are so few people today (I don’t mean average citizens, but thinkers) who are trying to find some 3rd way taking into account the mistakes of both theories.

We can clearly see that once a social/economical order with its dominating theory (“socialism” or “free market”) leads to a decay, the crowd of “thinkers” immediately rushes to chant the opposite one.

The chart with Nobel Prizes looks impressive. But I am aware at least of one Nobel Prize winner Robert Aumann (2005). In some sense I consider the game theory to be that 3rd way, because it takes into account the real people behaviour (unlike socialism, which is idealistic by its nature) and offers real methods, that allow directing this behaviour to the right course (as opposite to full uncontrollability of the free market).


By replacing the idea of “god” with “society” secular humanist isn’t getting less religious fanatic

I am sick and tired of moralists and ethics.

Ancient Greeks were wise connoisseurs of the human nature. Since the men were badly in need to compete they were able to invent Olympic Games in order to channel this “dark” energy in a safe direction.

Profound lack of human nature understanding by the modern humanists leads to the utopian and tyrannical ideologies and multimillion sacrifices in the name of the idea. “End justifies the means” is their motto, that means we are allowed to be anti-humanistic today for the sake of the “better future” for society tomorrow. It’s a delusion. And it’s just another kind of religion.

Society instead of God.

Equality and Better Future instead of Heaven on the Earth.

Civil Sacrifices instead of Religious Sacrifices.

To solve the problem we (humanity) have, first, to realize where it lies. If one knows that one’s congenital “morality” is just the same instinct like any highly developed animal has – the instinct of preservation of our own species, one will be able at least to try learning how to use our only advantage of being rational and thinking creatures to form a morality beyond the simple biological instinct.

Everything else is just another form of religious delusion.


Who wouldn’t love to talk about morality?.. Here I couldn’t resist either

Have you ever thought about the fact that morality is the distinctiveness of human just because among all the animals only human is in need of acquittal in own senseless atrocity?

If morality is something taken for granted and inherent to our species why we pay so much attention to it? Doesn’t it look odd that we have to educate each other in this matter through all our life? It seems, we can learn many “inherent” things much more faster and effectively.

One man has helped another (not to mention “member of different species”)! Hero! We’re all excited and stunned!.. Why? He has just demonstrated our inherent, trivial quality.

We are most aggressive and cruel species, not most moral and compassionate. But we love talking how moral we are, and especially discussing whether other species have morality or not. They are allowed not to have, because they are not so pointless and uncontrollably cruel.

Aggression and hypocrisy are our true inherent qualities, dear humans.


Well, Steve passed away a year ago…

3 years ago I left my job and… it would not be truth to say started my business, because I really didn’t know what was waiting for me, what I had to do and how it will all develop. So I just started some other life.

My family never understood my dubious affairs, so it wasn’t surprise to hear from them something like “Just make sure it’s safely”. Needless to say I wasn’t sure.

I don’t know what my enemies said because I am not usually interested in what they think.

I had a pleasure to get rid of some “friends” and “partners” during this time. It’s funny, but some of them were continuing to ingeminate I have no chance for success even after I became buoyant.

I also had a great opportunity to get added evidence that I have true friends as well. But I still had a big problem: no one expressed his belief in my success, and even in a solid reason of my actions. The true friends love you as you are. Succeed or not. They had not changed their attitude to me. But as for me they also showed a great indifference to what I was trying to do.

No, I don’t want to blame them. They supported me, didn’t let me to starve to death, and said they love me anyway. But I must admit there was no one who really gave me what I need – encouragement of what I do. Maybe they just didn’t understand this well enough…

So, Steve did it: “Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma – which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of other’s opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

Thank you, Steve. I still miss you.