# Focus on the Good Parts DevFeed: [Focus on the Good Parts]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Marc Brooker Published: 2020-09-02T00:00:00Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Marc Brooker's Blog](), [Marc Brooker's Blog]() Topics: [Software](), [coding](), [data]() Tags: [insights](), [learn](), [research](), [software](), [technical](), [writing]() ## AI overview The article argues that excessive skepticism can prevent software engineers from learning when they read research and other technical content. It recommends looking for valuable ideas, insights, analyses, and data while still checking whether claims are well supported, and warns against relying on social proof or comment-thread opinions before forming an independent understanding. ## Source excerpt Focus on the Good Parts Skepticism and cynicism can get in your way. Back in May, I wrote Reading Research: A Guide for Software Engineers, answering common questions I get about why and how to read research papers. In that post, I wrote about three modes of reading: solution finding, discovery, and curiosity. In subsequent conversations, I've realized there's another common issue that gets in engineers' ways when they read research, especially in the discovery and curiosity modes: too much skepticism. The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. (from Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World) I could blame it on comment thread culture, racing to make that top comment pointing out errors in the paper. I could blame it on the low signal-to-noise ratio of content in general. I could blame it on poor research, poor writing, or incorrect data. But whatever is to blame, many readers approach technical content with their first goal being to find errors and mistakes, gaps in logic, or incomplete justifications of statements. When a mistake is found, the reader is justified in throwing out the whole piece of writing (unreliable!), the authors (sloppy!), their institutions (clueless!), or even the whole field (substandard!). It's also a perfect opportunity to write that comment or tweet pointing out the problems. After all, if you found the author's mistake, doesn't that make you smarter and better than the author? This approach gets in the way of your ability to learn from reading. I'd encourage you to take a different one: read with the goal of finding the good stuff. Dig for the ideas, the insights, the analyses and the data points that provide value. Look for what you can learn. I'm not suggesting that you don't carefully approach wha