if you've been doing this job for very long at all you know that intelligent people disagree this isn't true just in politics it's not true just at the holiday meal table it's true in our professional lives and it's even true when we have loads of data loads of information to inform us where we could you know reconstruct all of the relevant information out of that uh out of that data we still can have strong disagreements and some of this is because of one of the fundamental kind of assertions that we make on this podcast that the vast majority of our work is based on the fact that we have a lot of data and we have a lot of information about trying to predict some future if any of us had the ability to predict the future we probably wouldn't really need to work very much at all or at least a lot of our work would be diminished but of course we can't predict the future so much of our work is about trying to shape the future shape the future and shape it in a way that is in alignment with the way that the future is designed for us and that's the purpose of our work and our evolution evolution evolution evolution evolution evolution evolution evolution evolution with the way that the future is already shaping itself. In other words, we have external and internal influence. The external influences are the ones we can't really control and the internal influences are the ones that we can. And today we're going to talk about a little bit of kind of light armchair philosophy to help you navigate conversations about what should happen next. What should we do as a team, as a company, as a family, or even just yourself? What should my next decision be? And the critical term here that I want you to focus on is the word should. You've probably mentioned this on the show before, but should has an implication. Should implies that there is some value to your decision. That is, there is a decision that you could make, or there's some number of decisions, perhaps an infinite number of decisions that you could make that would lean towards you shouldn't. They would lean towards undesirable. And then there are another infinite number of decisions, obviously not practically infinite number, but there's a large number of decisions that you could make that would lean towards desirable, that would lean towards something that whoever is... Is defining desirable would choose. And so today's episode is entirely about the philosophy of defining that should criteria. How do we determine where we land on should? It's important to note that all of these frameworks, all of this philosophy we're going to talk about today only exists because of the uncertainty of the future, right? And, so the dealing with that reality is what these philosophies aim to accomplish. And before we go any deeper, I do want to mention that we are going to tie this back to practical advice as we go. So don't tune out. This is not going to be all heads in the clouds kind of stuff. We're going to tie this back to how it might actually play out. Let's say if you're an engineering manager on your team, uh, the, the, this kind of mental model is practically relevant to you. So, um, you know, don't this, this isn't a philosophy podcast. We talk about philosophy in light of how it can impact your engineering, uh, either your engineering career or your engineering leadership career. I want to make these kind of bigger concepts that otherwise maybe you wouldn't be engaging very often. Uh, I want to bring those into a more practical, uh, perspective. It's kind of a warmup. Um, before we talk about today's sponsor, I want you to think about how you determine what you should do. For example, how did you determine, uh, that you should listen to this podcast, right? That you, that's that this is how you should spend your time. Now, many people are probably going to answer that. Well, it's not necessarily what I should be doing, but it's what I wanted to do. I want, I want to, uh, encourage you to recognize, uh, that your brain does not really differentiate between should and what, right? You're, uh, you know, what you determine as what you should do is as far as your brain is concerned, incorporating what you want to do. All right. Uh, you, you never are going to do something that you have calculated. You shouldn't do. All right. That's, that's kind of a special definition of should in this, in this case, there are things that we do that we know we shouldn't do by some, uh, some particular decision-making algorithm, but our decision-making algorithm had more information. It had more inputs, maybe our impulses, uh, and some other bits of information or, or emotion were brought into that should that our brains ultimately made the decision on. So, uh, understanding that, you know, we're not going to talk through all of those complexities. We're going to talk about a really specific narrow type of should in today's episode, a narrow set of philosophies, um, that can help inform more of those, uh, kind of intentional decision-making is what we'll call it rather than, uh, you know, trying to, trying to describe behavior. That's not really what we're trying to do in this episode. Instead, I want to give you tools for decision-making, uh, these philosophies or philosophical frameworks will help you understand how to make those intentional decisions less intuitively or less impulsively. And instead, uh, you'll be a bit more equipped for those decisions. We're going to talk about a sponsor and then we're going to come back and talk about these three different decision philosophies. One of the things we're going to talk about in today's episode is the importance of being able to update your thinking, being able to adapt your thinking to new realities. Now, when I say website builder, unless you've been listening to this podcast for the past couple of months, uh, you're probably immediately are thinking limited control. You probably have this, this kind of mental model of what a website builder is. Maybe yours is like mine was where I thought of the early days of the internet. I thought of the early days of the internet. I thought of the early days of web development. I was slicing up Photoshop files or something like that. How about a node based builder that lets you add full stack JavaScript code to any site that you own? Well, with Wix Studio, you can spend less time on UI coding, hosting and security and more on the custom logic and functionalities that truly matter. And it's not going to be that big code mess that was spit out by those old website builders that you're probably remembering. Instead, you get to, you develop in your preferred coding environment online and a VS code based IDE or locally through a GitHub integration. Neither way with Wix Studio, you're deploying in a click. You can extend and replace hundreds of powerful business solutions and custom built features with APIs and integrations. And when you need to speed things up, Wix Studio's AI assistant is on hand to generate tailored code snippets, troubleshoot bugs and retrieve product answers in seconds. All of that is neatly wrapped up in an automatically maintained infrastructure, which is a great tool to use for your business. So if you're looking for a developer that's ready to go, you can get started with Wix Studio. You can get started with Wix Studio. You can get started with Wix Studio. You can get started with Wix Studio. You can get started with Wix Studio. Thanks again to Wix for sponsoring today's episode of Developer Team. We're talking about decision making philosophies. How do we decide what we should do? Should is a word that, um, many times it comes up in moral discussions, right? How should we behave? Uh, if you are a parent, then you have this conversation with your child. You shouldn't do that. Or you should go and apologize to that other, uh, to your friend, right? And, uh, if you're like me, you may have experienced your, your child, uh, you know, coming back to you and saying, well, why, why should I do that? And the answer to that question, uh, is dependent on your philosophy. So that's what we're talking about is, is how do you determine these shoulds? And we're going to shy away a little bit from moralism or, or moral discussions here because, um, in most of the cases that you're going to face, uh, you know, in, especially if it's in, you know, within a project or something like that, and you're probably not going to be facing those, but that certainly is not out of bounds for discussion when it comes to your career. Uh, you know, should I join this company or not is going to depend on your framework for how you determine what you should or shouldn't do. But largely speaking, and, and this is going to, uh, you know, dumb down a lot of our decision-making concerns, but, uh, there are some kind of practical positions that you can take when you're looking at, uh, what you should or shouldn't do. And, and specifically, uh, when you're thinking about the, uh, the future of a given entity, okay? An entity in this case might be you and your career. An entity might be a team, a company, uh, maybe a report of yours, or maybe it's a project. Maybe it's a service that you build, right? It could be any particular thing you're, you're trying to decide what is the future of this thing. What should we do with this thing? Or what should we do with this person or this group of people? I had to think about it as kind of a noun. What is the ultimate, uh, timeline for this? So we're going to talk about these three philosophies. Philosophy number one, it's called ontology. Philosophy number two is teleology or sometimes teleology. We're going to use teleology. And philosophy number three is dynamism. Dynamism, right? Ontology. Ontology is concerned with what a thing intrinsically is. The characteristics of that thing. Uh, if you were to look at it on its own in isolation, what is it? What is it composed of? Teleology is concerned with what is the purpose of the thing or what is the outcome that the thing produces, right? Uh, teleology is in some ways, uh, kind of the balance to ontology. Um, you can arrive at or, or find out about ontology through teleology, right? Because if you're looking at how something is used and in what ways is it used most functionally, uh, this might become your definition for what the thing is. But generally speaking, someone who, uh, is heavily on ontology would likely say the intent of that thing, right? The, the creator's intent for that particular, uh, you know, item, that service, right? So hopefully you can already start to see that there might be insights gained when you, uh, look at a particular thing, a particular team through this lens or through one of the other lenses. Maybe you've been looking through, uh, the lens of ontology at a team and you could be looking, uh, you know, you could gain some insight by looking through a teleological lens at the team. And the third is dynamism. The third is dynamism. Dynamism essentially, uh, identifies the changing environment, right? The changing, uh, intent. So, for example, that, uh, this team, the intent of this team. So that would be a teleological argument. The, the goal, uh, of, of this team is to provide feedback on, let's say grammar. Okay. And the, the goal of the team was to, you know, take in and provide this as a service to other teams. Maybe, uh, you send your writings to this team and they give you feedback on your grammar. And dynamism would be able to identify, would be able to identify that the role of this team may be, uh, it may be necessary to change the role of the team because of some, uh, external factor in this case, uh, the factor that grammar is fairly easily outsourced to something like, uh, an AI assistant or, uh, even something as simple as autocorrect. Ontology and teleology wouldn't necessarily provide, uh, that kind of, uh, change or intent of change where the ontological argument might say, this is a team of, uh, grammar specialists. Thus, we can draw our own conclusions and they should be acting like a team of grammar specialists. Right? Uh, the teleological argument would say the intent, the purpose of this team is X is to provide grammar, as a service to other teams, or grammar, grammar insights as a service to other teams, uh, that dynamism, uh, would look at both of these arguments and take in to account the changing landscape or the context, right? Dynamism is going to look at contextually what is true about where this, uh, you know, this particular, uh, where, where this team is located or, or what's going on around it. Now it might seem like, uh, you know, based on what I'm saying here, that one or the other of these three philosophies is better. In fact, I imagine that you probably think that I'm pushing you to only imagine that, uh, dynamism is the, is the right choice. But the truth is they are all in balance. They all can be considered important and useful for your situation. For example, if you were to use ontology to describe the case, uh, to describe the characteristics of your own skillset, right? It may be that you have accepted labels, uh, or incorrect ontology from, from past roles that you identified yourself by the title that you had rather than looking at what you actually are. And if you were to look at the ontology of your skillset, right? And if you were to look at the ontology of your skillset, what you're capable of, maybe, then you might be able to change. And this is the critical factor, change the purpose of your next role, change the purpose of your job such that the teleological definition, maybe you had previously determined that the goal or the purpose of your career is to become, you know, a senior, uh, or a staff engineer, right? And maybe you've determined that you actually are. Some other strengths. Maybe you want to shift your role into product. Well, now your teleological argument you previously made for your career has been being challenged, right? So now what, what you're doing is you're recognizing a couple of things. One dynamically, right? So bringing in some dynamism here, your situation may have changed. Maybe you lost your role. And so your role is to be a part of the process. Right? And so your previous ontological argument is now being challenged by the dynamic nature of reality, shifting reality around you. And this is where a lot of people actually struggle. They struggle to understand how that could be the case. Yesterday I was defined as this, right? That's ontological language. Yesterday, I was a senior engineer and today I am not. So what am I, right? This is a dynamic situation. You're going to be faced with dynamic situations in your career over and over and over and over. So what am I? This is again, you know, using an ontological, you know, lens to help you reestablish the next steps for your career. Or you could do the same thing from a teleological lens. Instead of looking at your skills and looking at your past role definitions to try to define what you are. Maybe you instead determine, okay, I don't really care what the skills are. I could acquire new skills, right? I don't really care, you know, where I live. I could move. I could change the definition, you know, the ontological side of things. I want to set, you know, a very clear purpose or outcome for my career. This would be using the teleological lens for your should. Now it's important that you understand this. This doesn't necessarily, you know, you could, you can use these frameworks in making decisions about business, right? So let's say you own a startup and maybe your startup's original goal was to help people understand, people understand the benefits of, let's say, installing solar on their roof panels. And you realize that, you know, and here's the dynamic side. The dynamism is going to come into play. You realize that the business is failing, right? You can't get people to convert and they don't really care too much, but you recognize there's a pattern. There's some trend in your data. And you sit down, you sit down and you ask yourself, okay, what are we good at? This is an ontological question. What are we good at? What can we do? Well, we're good at surfacing this data. We're good at finding and surfacing reliable data about solar, you know, in the transition to solar power. So what could we do? Maybe we could use this thing that we are good at, this ontological, understanding of our identity. We could use that to our advantage and instead change our purpose. We're going to change our intent. Our purpose, our outcome is no longer going to be, you know, let's try to convert people to solar, but instead we're going to provide, let's say an API, a data service to all of the solar companies out there to, to allow them to use it in whatever way they, they deem appropriate. Right? So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, We're even taught as software engineers to focus on the outcomes and all of the solutions can be changed, interchangeable. We can shift the solutions underneath. We could buy versus build decisions are all about a teleological alignment, right? You're trying to accomplish something. How you get there is less important than the outcome. But this is not the only way to make these intentional decisions. It's possible to change what you're trying to accomplish to take advantage of what you already have. And that is the ontological lens. And all of this is empowered by your ability to square with a changing reality around you. You don't want to just stick with a preconceived notion of who or what you are, who or what your team is. If you have a charter that doesn't really serve. The, you know, your company's current goals, then you're putting your team at risk by continuing on the same charter. So using dynamism can help you understand, okay, what do we need to figure out? What kind of outcome should we shoot for? Or what are we already good at that we can redefine our charter around? Ultimately making good decisions. You know, you're probably not going to end up making a better decision by knowing about ontology. Versus teleology. Instead, what I'm hoping to do with these frameworks for you is, is help you understand that there's probably more flexibility in your decision-making than you realize. Not only is there more flexibility, but you're probably making more assumptions about what a good decision is than you realize. If you can start to put some understanding, some framework of thinking around some of those assumptions, it will help you understand. How to remove or change the assumptions themselves and ultimately find a better pathway to your should. Thank you so much for listening to today's episode of developer T. Thank you again to today's sponsor Wix studio. If you think website builders mean limited control, then you probably have a stuck ontological definition of website builders. Think again with Wix studios developer first ecosystem, you can spend less time on tedious tasks and more. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. to you and your customers. You will develop online in a VS Code-based IDE or locally via GitHub. You can extend and replace a suite of powerful business solutions and ship faster with Wix Studio's AI Code Assistant. All of that is wrapped up in an automatically maintained infrastructure for total peace of mind. You can work in a developer-first ecosystem by heading over to wixstudio.com. Thanks again to Wix Studio for sponsoring today's episode of Developer Team. If you enjoyed this episode, and you haven't done this yet, okay, I'm not asking you to leave a second review. If you've never left a review for Developer Team, please take a moment and leave a review. The most impactful place to do this is iTunes. This is a huge help to help other engineers like you find and decide to listen to Developer Team. Ultimately, this is the best way you can help us out. Second best way is if you haven't yet subscribed, just click subscribe. It's a very easy thing to do. What it will do is it will keep you informed. It will remind you when a new episode is out. One of the things that happens very often is people forget that this podcast exists. I know it sounds crazy, but they forget to download episodes, and then they get behind. If you want to stay up on the episodes of the show, the best way is to subscribe. Thanks so much for listening, and until next time, enjoy your tea.