Skip to main content

Joking With Jerry Part 3


This is the third part of the transcript of a conversation about the relationship between joking and testing. The jokers were Jerry Weinberg (JW), Michael Bolton (MB), James Lyndsay (JL), Damian Synadinos (DS), and me (JT).

See also IntroPart 1 and Part 2.

--00--

JW: There's another kind of joke that I think has a tremendous parallel to testing. I don't know if people still do this but when I was a kid this was done all the time.

Somebody might ask you "how did you find these bugs? It looks like magic." And you say "well it is magic." And then you tell them there's a secret phrase you have to say in Sanskrit and if you do that then you discover things. You have to memorise it because you have to get it exactly right. It's three words in Sanskrit. The first word, and you repeat after me, "Owah"

All: Owah.

JW: The second word is "Tagu".

All: Tagu.

JW: And the third word is "Syam".

All: Syam.

JW: OK, now say them all together:

All: Oh what a goose I am!
Coincidentally, my wife got me a Valentine's Day card this year with a picture of a goose that she thinks looks like me ...

MB: "Tana" also works, "Oh what an ass I am!"
...  she hasn't yet sent me a card with picture of a backside wearing glasses on it.
JW: It's like testing. People write something and they think they're saying one thing but it's saying something else to the computer. I don't know what those jokes are called, but I think it's a wonderful model for testing yourself.

How do you respond when you've been a goose, and saying things where you didn't know what you were talking about or what you were implying. How do you handle those responses when you are the tester?

DS: A woman walked into a bar and asked the bartender for a double entendre. So he gave her one. Is that a dirty joke?

JW: Only if you have a dirty mind. It's like that joke about the guy who goes to the psychiatrist. And he shows him a picture of a triangle and asks what he can see and the guy says "I see two people making love." So he shows him a square and asks again and he says "two people making love". Shows him a perfect circle and he says again "it's two people making love" and the psychiatrist says "all you see is these dirty things" and the guy says "you're the one who's showing the dirty pictures."

MB: I know one similar to that. A guy goes into a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist says "we're gonna see how your mind works". And he says "what is it that a man does standing up and a woman does sitting down and a dog does on three legs?" and the guy thinks for a minute and says "shakes hands".

The Psychiatrist says "Hmm. What does a dog do in the back yard that you might not want to step in?" and the guy says "digs a hole." And the psychiatrist says "Aha, right. So when you wake up in the morning and you look over at your wife, what round hard part of you is sticking out of your pyjamas?" And the guy says "my head".  The Psychiatrist says "interesting."

The guy says "so what's the story with me, doc, am I weird or something?" And the psychiatrist says "no you're perfectly normal, but you wouldn't believe the weird answers I've been getting."

JW: So here's a question for you guys.  If you were interviewing for a tester and you have a number of candidates and they were all similar but one of them had a much better sense of humour would you choose them as a better tester because they had a good sense of humour?

DS: All other things being equal somehow? If that were the only factor that were distinguishable between them, then yes.

MB: A tester is someone who knows that something can be different. In that respect testers and comedians are exactly the same. It's a difference in perspective. It's that joke that I have in the chapter in The Gift of Time, the Steve Wright joke about the guy who says "your socks don't match" and I say "yes they do, I go by thickness."


When a tester can see that other dimensions exist, that to me is the essence of what testing is: the capacity to see things from a different angle. It's essential to comedy and it's essential to testing.

DS: are there degrees? Might you test their sarcasm meter. Sarcasm is a type of humour that is perhaps a bit more nuanced that just a joke.

JW: That's a good point. I think you're on the right track when you said "other things being equal", because they're never equal. But they may trade off one another, I mean how many years of experience is worth how much sarcasm?

JL: I think that if I was interviewing for new team members and found that somebody was funny I would see that as being a little bit of extra grease to how the team works. Because it's good to have levity in the team.

However,  if it was just two, me and one other, and I found him or her extremely funny, I don't know that that would be the thing that I would want to do.  Not because I wouldn't enjoy it but because I think that we'd be too similar and I don't want people that are similar to me in my test team if there's just two of us.

MB: What about if they are funnier than you?

JW: Also, there is such a thing as diversionary humour, people who, when something is really serious, they make jokes to distract from it. That's not the kind of humour you're looking for.  Testers need to face up to what is going on, which may not be pleasant although it might be funny or embarrassing or whatever. But they need to deal with it, take it in, maybe say "Oh shit".

I have run across testers who hide from people. They have a difficult situation and they don't know what to do about it so they won't report it and they'll hide. The whole point of testing is not to hide anything.  So that would be a kind of humour I would not value. But generally speaking I'd like someone who can take what life gives them, make a joke of it, and then move on and deal with it.

DS: There's a book I read during improv training, Truth In Comedy by Del Close and that phrase itself is extremely interesting because you've often heard that "from pain comes comedy" and many comics had horrible childhoods, or adulthoods, and from that pain they draw and make comedy and there's a lot of truth in it. One of the tenets of improv is not trying to be funny, but be honest and true and support of your fellow improvisers and humour will come from it.

A good example of that is if you think about the hardest you've ever laughed. It's probably not at a joke but it's probably telling stories amongst your friends that are based in reality, based in truth. Usually these cause the most genuine deep laughs, those stories that are based in truth and sometimes that comes from pain.

JT: I was listening to a podcast which I really recommend called the Comedian's Comedian. It's an interview with a comedian - not for them to make jokes - but about them and their methodology for creating jokes.

This week, the comedian who was on was suggesting that, as an art form, comedy isn't as well respected as film, or writing or the stage and he cited as an example the fact that you make a film about an atrocity and it can be seen as a great piece of art but you start joking about an atrocity and get asked "how on earth can you joke about that?" It's just not given the same weight. It got me to wondering is that similar with testing?

JW: I often quote Oscar Wilde to people in our business: "Life is too important to be taken seriously."
In passing, according to Quote Investigator, Wilde didn't actually quite say this.
And people get really serious when developing some product. I've worked on projects where we were developing stuff where human lives were depending on the software and it's easy to fall into this overly serious mode of things. It's not a creative mode.

When we were putting people into space we had lots of jokes about what would happen if this bug happened or that one, or if a person was left up there in a horrible situation where they can't come down. But you have to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean that you have to be able to make a joke out of the whole thing.

DS: One thing that James Thomas talked about in his EuroSTAR presentation and does it often on Twitter is to take an idea and put it through a mental wringer and come out with at least three different variations on a theme. And you do these puns, these series. Comedy comes in threes and you do three puns in a row. That process of thinking what if, what if, what if and challenging and twisting ideas ... First off, I love it, I told you that before and I love to follow along on Twitter when you do these, but I think that that thought process is very similar to something that testers frequently do.

MB: Rule of three!

DS: Yes, and twist ideas. We talked earlier about turning something on its ear.

JW: For half a century I've criticised people's attempts to make programmer and tester aptitude tests and people are still selling these things.  You look at these tests and they're exactly wrong in my opinion. They're a bunch of multiple choice questions, single answer questions.
Reading this back, I remember that I designed a joke advert for a tester job a few years ago.
We developed tests for testers where we give them a question and four or five possible answers and their job is to give a reason why each of the five answers could be the answer. They're all right, but what's the underlying truth of each one? And people who can do that are likely to make good testers.

Another form of comedy is inversion. I had a client a few years ago. We asked whether they did technical reviews as part of their test process and they said "oh yes, we regularly review software". I asked whether they reviewed all software and he said "pretty much; almost all of it."

And I caught the word almost and I asked specifically which things didn't he review and he said that once in a while they were late delivering the software and they don't have time for review.  And I said "why is it that the software is late?" and we went and asked a few people and they all said the same thing: "it was because we had errors in it that we couldn't fix". So I said "what you're telling me is that you review every piece of software that comes out of here except the errors, that's what you just told me."

And that's a joke, right, and it tells me a lot about what I'm dealing with. And like that "Oh what a goose" business, they realise they've been really stupid and they've got things backwards. I told them that they'd improve their process immediately if they stopped testing they stuff they'd been testing and only test the things they haven't been testing.

Some people respond very well to that and other people are offended and you know you can't keep them as clients because you're not going to get anywhere.

JT: That puts me in mind of something Damian said earlier on. Where he said you test for a month and find nothing.  I know that if I went to our Dev team and said that we'd tested their builds for a month and found nothing, that would get an enormous laugh.
Fortunately, the Dev Manager has a great sense of humour.
MB: Laughter is the sound an epiphany makes.

JW: Do you know the programmer's national anthem? "Ohhh" You all know it, you know all the words, and that's the epiphany. And I just add that word "shit" to it, and get "ohhh shit" and we've got the whole way to deal with it.

I went into computing because when I was 11 years old I read an article that told how computers wouldn't make mistakes. Now I've recently figured out something that I hadn't really thought through before: computers rarely make mistakes but they do so many things so fast and even a rare mistake gets repeated millions of times in a second.  So that the effect can be worse than doing something by hand but only making a mistake every once in a while.


I read this article and it said [the computer] was a thinking machine. They were called "giant brains" in those days. I'd never seen a computer and I didn't know anybody who'd ever seen a computer but I just decided that's what I wanted to work with: I found a way that I could do things without making a mistake.  Well, I was 11, what did I know? What did anybody know? It was what people believed in those days. And some people still believe that.

Y'know, I get this with clients. They tell me that they've got some program, that they're doing some analysis, and they say "our objective is to minimise our costs" and I say "well go out of business and you'll have not costs at all".

They say "you don't understand" and I say "apparently you don't either, because you've got your objective and clearly that's not your objective." You can avoid making mistakes by just making one big mistake, just go out of business. You can avoid making programming errors by not writing any programs, except the one error of not writing a program when that would be the thing to do.

So maybe that's where the sense of humour comes in. People who are so afraid of making a mistake and looking stupid, maybe they won't do a good job. Something to think about...

MB: I'd like to offer a benediction that Mark Breslin, who was the creator and founder of Yuk Yuk's in Toronto where I worked for a long time, used to end the shows on a weekend on Friday and Saturday nights with:

"Ladies and gentleman tonight we've been through a lot. You know in this world there's an awful lot of pain and sorrow and hurt and suffering but the amazing thing about comedy, the amazing thing about comedy, ladies and gentlemen is that it can take all that pain and that hurt and that suffering and by some almost mystical transformation turn it into something very, very, very ... cheap"

See also IntroPart 1 and Part 2.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ideal Test Plan

A colleague pinged me the other day, asking about an "ideal test plan" and wondering whether I could suggest something. Not without a bit more information, I said. OK, they said. Who needs the plan, for what purpose? I asked. Their response: it's for internal use, to improve documentation, and provide a standard structure. We work in a medical context and have strict compliance requirements, so I wondered aloud whether the plan is needed for audit, or to show to customers? It's not, they replied, it's just for the team. Smiling now, I stopped asking questions and delivered the good news that I had what they were looking for. Yes? they asked, in anticipation. Naturally I paused for dramatic effect and to enhance the appearance of deep wisdom, before saying: the ideal plan is one that works for you. Which is great and all that, but not heavy on practical advice. --00-- I am currently running a project at the Association for Software Testing and there is a plan for

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually

69.3%, OK?

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "What percentage of our test cases are automated?" There's a lot wrapped up in that question, particularly when it's a metric for monitoring the state of testing. It's not the first time I've been asked either. In my

Why Do They Test Software?

My friend Rachel Kibler asked me the other day "do you have a blog post about why we test software?" and I was surprised to find that, despite having touched on the topic many times, I haven't. So then I thought I'd write one. And then I thought it might be fun to crowdsource so I asked in the Association for Software Testing member's Slack, on LinkedIn , and on Twitter for reasons, one sentence each. And it was fun!  Here are the varied answers, a couple lightly edited, with thanks to everyone who contributed. Edit: I did a bit of analysis of the responses in Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 2 . --00-- Software is complicated, and the people that use it are even worse. — Andy Hird Because there is what software does, what people say it does, and what other people want it to do, and those are often not the same. — Andy Hird Because someone asked/told us to — Lee Hawkins To learn, and identify risks — Louise Perold sometimes: reducing the risk of harming people —

Testing is Knowledge Work

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "We need some productivity metrics from testers" OK. I'd like to help you meet your need if I can but to do that I'll need to ask a few questions. Let's start with these: Who needs the metrics? Is there a particular pr

My Favourite Tool

Last week I did a presentation to a software testing course at EC Utbildning in Sweden titled Exploring with Automation where I demoed ways in which I use software tools to help me to test. Following up later, one of the students asked whether I had a favourite tool. A favourite tool? Wow, so simple but sooo deep!  Asking for a favourite tool could make a great interview question, to understand the breadth and depth of a candidate's knowledge about tools, how they think about an apparently basic request with deep complexity beneath (favourite for what task, on what basis, in what contexts, over what timescale?  what is a tool anyway?) and how they formulate a response to take all of that into account. I could truthfully but unhelpfully answer this question with a curt Yes or No. Or I could try and give something more nuanced. I went for the latter. At an extremely meta level I would echo Jerry Weinberg in Perfect Software : The number one te

Trying to be CEWT

I attend, enjoy, hopefully contribute to, and get a lot from, the local tester meetups and Lean Coffee  in Cambridge. But I'd had the thought kicking around for a long time that I'd like to try a peer workshop inspired by MEWT , DEWT , LEWT and the like. I finally asked a few others, including the local meetup organisers, and got mostly positive noises, so I decided to give it a go. I wrote a short statement to frame the idea, based on LEWT's: CEWT ( Cambirdge Exploratory Workshop on Testing ) is an exploratory peer workshop. We take the view that discussions are more interesting than lectures. We enjoy diverse ideas, and limit some activities in order to work with more ideas. and proposed a mission for an initial attempt to validate it locally on a small scale. Other local testers helped to refine the details in usual the testing ways - you know: criticism, questions, thought experiments, challenges, comparisons, mockery and the rest - and a list of potential at

Fail Here or Fail There

The First Law of Systems-Survival, according to John Gall, is this: A SYSTEM THAT IGNORES FEEDBACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF TERMINAL INSTABILITY Laws are all-caps in Systemantics . Not just laws, but also theorems, axioms, and corollaries. There are many of them so here's another (location 2393-2394): JUST CALLING IT “FEEDBACK” DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY FED BACK There was a point when I realised, as the capitalised aphorisms rolled by, that I was sinking into the warm and sweetly-scented comforting foamy bathwater of confirmatory bias. Seen, seen, seen! Tick, tick, tick! I took the opportunity to let myself know that I'd been caught in the act, and that I needed to get out of the tub and start to challenge the content.  Intervening at that moment was congruent: I was in a context where I would accept it and prepared to change because of it. Of course, I enjoyed the deep irony of nodding along with Gall when he talked about

Testing and Words

  The other day I got tagged on a Twitter thread started by Wicked Witch of the Test about people with a background in linguistics who’ve ended up in testing. That prompted me to think about the language concepts I've found valuable in my day job, then I started listing them, and then realised how many of them I've mentioned here over the years .   This post is one of an occasional series collecting some of those thoughts.  --00-- In The Complete Plain Words , Ernest Gowers notes, acidly, that: What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas. It surely sounds trite to say it but our choice of words can make a significant difference to how well our message is understood, and how we are judged. We choose from amongst those words we know, our lexicons . The more my lexicon agrees with yours, the greater our chance of us achieving a shared understanding when we converse. But lexic

Use the Force Multiplier

On Fridays I pair with doctors from Ada 's medical quality team. It's a fun and productive collaboration where I gain deeper insight into the way that diagnostic information is encoded in our product and they get to see a testing perspective unhindered by domain knowledge. We meet at the same time each week and decide late on our focus, choosing something that one of us is working on that's in a state where it can be shared. This week we picked up a task that I'd been hoping to get to for a while: exploring an API which takes a list of symptoms and returns a list of potential medical conditions that are consistent with those symptoms.  I was interested to know whether I could find small input differences that led to large output differences. Without domain knowledge, though, I wasn't really sure what "small" and "large" might mean. I prepared an input payload and wrote a simple shell script which did the following: make a