EN 
DE After hours of brooding and trying, despair triumphs over developer pride. The dejected software developer slouches, shoulders slumped, to his colleague to explain his problem. The colleague casually glances at the code listing, spontaneously points to the error, and in doing so, simultaneously pokes into the open wound of our developer ego. "What a stupid, careless mistake," "This had to happen to me," "My God, am I blind?" flashes through our minds. Have you ever experienced this?
The analogy of blindness is quite apt. The astonishing thing is that precisely where we have developed the greatest routine or are intensively engaged with a subject, the probability of making incredibly stupid mistakes increases. However, in this case, it's not a visual impairment, but rather a phenomenon of our brain.
It has the in most cases very helpful ability to fill in missing information without us being aware of it. That's why we can understand people who mumble or swallow syllables. We recognize friends even when they dye their hair or shave their beards.
The brain is a system with redundancies.
Dear men, while this is about software development, I can also provide the perfect explanation for why you only recognize your wife's or girlfriend's new hairstyle after very clear clues. The reason lies in the fact that our brains focus on essential features in order to react quickly. As soon as they can associate a perception with a previously stored experience, they ignore further detailed information from the sensory organs and work with the existing internal representation.
Software developers who have been working on a task for a long time, and husbands, therefore, have the same problem. They don't see what is, but rather a mixture of reality and previously stored information. The more intense and concrete their inner image is, the more it determines their perception. This effect is insidiously amplified by our self-image: We are specialists who can no longer make such mistakes. It can't be what mustn't be. It is precisely this high level of competence and strong identification with our profession that is the cause of "incredibly stupid" errors. No reason for self-doubt, but certainly for caution. So how do we get out of this dilemma? We have to outsmart our brains.
Changing perspectives to overcome blind spots
The basic strategy is: change your perspective. There are several ways to do this. The quickest is usually to explain the problem to a colleague. They generally have a different view of your work, which increases the chance of finding the error. But don't worry. They're simply "blind" in a different way than you. This way, everyone has the opportunity to be both the rescuer and the one seeking help.
Very often, the solution comes to you while you're describing your problem to someone else. Simply switching roles from developer to storyteller or illustrator changes your perspective, and blind spots become visible as if by magic. Sometimes it also helps to just get up, walk around, and get some fresh air. Or you could call your wife and fix that hair-related blunder. Afterwards, the world and the software look completely different.
Seven tips to combat blind spots: Request yours now!
I welcome your suggestions at denkanstoss@microconsult.de.
Peter Siwon
Experiment: The blind spot
Draw a dot approximately 1 cm in diameter on the left side of a sheet of paper and a square about 5 cm to the right of it. Place the paper on the table in front of you. Now close your right eye and focus on the square with your left eye while slowly moving your face closer to the paper. You will notice that the dot disappears at a distance of about 25 cm.
The reason lies in the fact that, in this position, our pupil projects the image of the point onto a part of our retina that lacks light sensors, as this is where the optic nerve enters the eye. Nevertheless, we don't simply see nothing, because our brain, based on its experience, plausibly fills in the gap.
Now draw a bar to the left and right of the dot and repeat the experiment. The dot disappears again, and we "see" a continuous bar. Since the dot no longer exists for the brain, it assumes the line is continuous because, based on experience, it assumes the continuity of perceived shapes. So we don't see what is, but what seems plausible to our brain.
Optical illusions also rely on the fact that we see what we know, not what we actually see. For example, our brain automatically completes broken lines or compensates for perspective distortions. You can find more information in my web tips.
Please continue the following number sequences in a meaningful way:
1) 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 ………….
2) 1 1 2 4 6 10 16 ……………
Most people have probably taken a similar test before. After a little thought, you've likely figured out the underlying order of the sequences and found the "correct" solution. But! Perhaps many aren't aware that there are infinitely many meaningful continuations for each of these number sequences. The "correct" solution has far more to do with the test taker's assumptions about the test designer's motives than with the reality of number sequences.
The solution could just as easily be:
1) 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 …….
2) 1 1 2 4 6 10 16 10 6 4 2 1 1 2 4 6 …….
Further information
Training & coaching
MicroConsult Training & Coaching on project management
MicroConsult training and coaching - overview
Food for thought:
Column by Peter Siwon about the human side of project work
Peter Siwon: Systemic project management
