[sandesh247]

Less than five years ago, this term was used to describe what my team was doing. The criticism was correct, and my team did change its ways.

At the time, I was unaware of this term, and the explanation given to me was the "misunderstood" one, as explained in the article.

Since that incident, I, too, have pointed out patterns of "cargo culting" as/when I identified them. Not too many, but definitely more than a couple. More than once, I've repeated the same explanation. I've even used the "misunderstood" explanation as a fun anecdote to share at gatherings (both work, and social).

While I don't think less of the original person for referring to my team as a cargo cult (they were sincere in their criticism), the article will definitely stop me from using the misunderstood version of events as the "true" origin of the term. It will change the way I speak about it, even if I refer to this term in the future.

For that, I am grateful.

[lolinder]

I agree that the article was really interesting and useful in fleshing the origins out into a full human story rather than a single cute anecdote, but what the article describes doesn't really change Feinman's story, it just adds to it.

Cargo cults exist(ed), and like most religious systems throughout history they hinged on a belief that performing certain rituals would have effects on the real world. Some of them did, in fact, see the trappings of the European colonizers as a form of ritual and attempt to recreate the techno-rituals by creating effigies of the European technology.

Nothing in that story is fundamentally disagreed with in TFA. So while it's really helpful to be able to give more life to a previously glib anecdote, the metaphor is still very apt.

The main takeaway for me is that cargo cults were really not any different than most polytheistic religions (and therefore most religions) throughout history in viewing ritual as essentially a technology through which to access good things [0]. But I'm afraid that any new term derived from that insight would be even more problematic for trying to distill an even larger swath of human experience into a single phrase.

[0] See Bret Devereaux's Practical Polytheism series: https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collections-practical-polythei...

[BlueTemplar]

I love how this article embraces the complexity of the phenomenon : at least one time, not only """cargo culting""" actually worked, it even did so for a logical reason !

> In one unusual case, the islanders built an airstrip and airplanes did come. Specifically, the Miyanmin people of New Guinea hacked an airstrip out of the forest in 1966 using hand tools. The airstrip was discovered by a patrol and turned out to be usable, so Baptist missionaries made monthly landings, bringing medicine and goods for a store. It is pointed out that the only thing preventing this activity from being considered a cargo cult is that in this case, it was effective. See A Small Footnote to the 'Big Walk', p. 59.

[rayiner]

You’re making the world worse, not better. First, you’re perpetuating the idea that anybody should be offended by anything like this. You’re never going to meet an actual Melanesian cargo culter, and nobody else should take offense to this phrase.

Second, you’re impairing your own ability to communicate with doers because most smart people know what the term “cargo cult” means from Feynman.

[throwingrocks]

> most smart people know what the term “cargo cult” means from Feynman

Unsure which group you’re in after making this generalization

[michaelt]

Sure, people should be more thick-skinned.

But if I'm pulling out the 'cargo cult' metaphor, it's because I'm about to criticise someone for unquestioningly repeating things they've seen elsewhere, without understanding the details.

So if I repeat some nonsense urban legend as fact, in order to criticise them for taking nonsense urban legends as fact - that's going to make me look kinda dumb. Even if it is an urban legend I heard from a nobel prize winner - I can't criticise the mote in my brother's eye until I've removed the beam in my own eye.

[galactus]

Do you believe that language should remain unchanged, or that it should evolve only for reasons beyond conscious intention?

[skywhopper]

You clearly didn’t read the article. Feynman didn’t know what cargo cults were, he repeated misinformation from a movie that incorrectly dramatized real practice. And further, his “cargo cult science” definition doesn’t match the modern-day “cargo cult programming” definition.

The point is that the metaphor is not just oversimplified and misinformed, but means conflicting things and is overused to the point that is meaningless.

[scotty79]

I don't know. Nuanced, more accurate version is way less useful tool of communication than the popular one. Ultimately origins don't matter. Things mean, what they mean now for most people. If it's useful meaning it will be retained and passed on. It it's useless it will be transformed into something more useful or dropped from the language.

[_DeadFred_]

So you refuse to use a common in your domain communication concept because? Who does that help? Do you make sure not to use the following 'problematically sourced' terms either?

"Grandfathered in" comes from the "grandfather clauses" in post-Reconstruction U.S. laws that allowed white people to bypass literacy tests and poll taxes for voting if their grandfathers had the right to vote. This excluded many Black Americans whose grandfathers had been enslaved and could not vote. This seems like a way more problematic term to use especially when you use it in public facing policies (such as keeping old pricing levels) that apply to your potentially black customers. That could actually be offensive. But it's not because that isn't how normal communication works. People don't go looking to take offense, they take offense when offense is given. Though I would happily expend the brainpower to replace this one.

"Rule of thumb" claimed to come from an old law allowing a man to beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. This saying comes from normalized misogynist physical abuse in our society. Again, this one should go way before cargo cult.

"Cakewalk" originates from the 19th-century practice of enslaved Black people performing exaggerated dances that mimicked European ballroom styles, often judged by plantation owners. Winners were sometimes awarded a cake. This one is just straight up racist and should go way before cargo cult. Especially to represent something being 'easy'. I can't imagine it feels 'easy' to dance funny to entertain your violent owner. The only 'easy' thing was that is was a brake from the slave driver out in the field. You know what, f' using that term (damn I just reversed the point I was making on myself on this one but f' this term).

Heck English itself is problematic/racist at it's roots with it's tendency of saying the french sourced word is proper, and the non-french version is low class. When are we going to take back English from the imposed by violence for French conquerors French influences?

The world is already exhausting. Adding in this level of constantly self policing our thoughts/communication that, in the end, leaves us poorer with less tools for communicating concepts is lose/lose. If something makes people feel bad, yes we should change it. But going looking for reasons to be upset about things and reducing our vocabulary/communal communication over 'researched' outrage is a net negative and seems an Orwellian dumbing down.

[esperent]

> the article will definitely stop me from using the misunderstood version of events as the "true" origin of the term

That's absolutely fair and if that had been there point of the article, I'd be 100% behind it. I love learning new things about words and phrases. Etymology is my jam.

But no. That wasn't the point of the article. It's saying "you are wrong, you should feel bad, you're not allowed to use the thing you were wrong about anymore". I generally fall quite far on the left, politically. But when people talk about "woke nonsense", this is the kind of thing where I find myself agreeing with them, much as I did a couple of years ago when we were all socially pressured into renaming our "master" branches to "main" branches.

[pyrale]

> "you are wrong, you should feel bad, you're not allowed to use the thing you were wrong about anymore".

I didn't remember reading that in the article. Just as a second-check, I've re-read and none of what you say appears in the text. You're building a strawman.

> you're not allowed to

Specifically about this part, we're talking about someone writing on his blog about something he took the time to dig into and sharing his opinion. There isn't much the author can do to be less prescriptive, besides shutting up.

This trope of interpreting every counter-cultural opinion, in every form, as "the powers that be want to gag us" is a way of saying that you won't hear even the smallest dissent.

[Aeium]

I disagree with the last sentence.

If you have some terminology you don't like, provide an alternative.

Main is fine.

But like what is the alternative to cargo cult provided here? It's a very concise representation of a pretty complex idea.

"You are valuing the ritual associated with an outcome instead of the outcome."

Is that my alternative?

Main is more concise than master. But how do I boil that down without saying "cargo cult"?

[vincnetas]

Did you also managed to rename "scrum master" ?

[api]

The best example of this jumping the shark is “LatinX” which was greeted by howls of laughter and genuine offense by Latin people. Latin. There is already a non-gendered word in English because English is not a gendered language. Spanish is, and trying to make it not is… colonialism? What are you going to do redesign an entire language spoken by hundreds of millions of people? To avoid offending… is anyone actually offended?

This stuff isn’t harmless either. It helps push people toward the far right by making them sound reasonable.

[CRConrad]

> ...much as I did a couple of years ago when we were all socially pressured into renaming our "master" branches to "main" branches.

Hey, at least it's two letters -- 33% -- shorter.

[skywhopper]

That’s definitely not my read of the article. Are you saying you are offended by someone researching this phrase and then suggesting it’s not a great metaphor for multiple reasons? Do you understand you are the one getting mad about what you think someone said, when they didn’t?

Also, “main” is far better name than “master” for the primary branch of a git repo for lots of reasons. Did it hurt anything to change the default? Why are you so attached to the old name? If anything it made our automation code better to stop having hard-coded assumptions of what the main branch was called.

[kelnos]

So what you're saying is that you agree with the underlying message, but because it was presented in a way that offends your sensibilities, you're going to ignore it and continue to use a phrase derived from something that's incorrect and never existed?

And really, you're bothered by the idea that 'main' is a more neutral name for the default branch of a git repository, and want to cling to 'master', when that term has traditionally been used to describe someone who enslaves other humans? Really? You're that attached to something like a default branch name in a VCS? Or you aren't, but because it sounded like people were trying to make you feel bad about yourself for using 'master', you're just going to be obstinate and own those libs?

All that seems kinda spiteful and petty. You do you, I guess.

[mnky9800n]

What were you doing that was cargo culting?

[splwjs]

social engineer: actually here's a personal anecdote loaded with goodguy words that inform you about how the thing I want you to think is correct.

engineer: interesting. what problems has it helped you solve

social engineer:

[sandesh247]

Our team was refactoring the codebase to follow ML pipeline best practices, but not enough attention had been paid to problem/task formulation, label quality etc.

[ForHackernews]

Maybe we can all agree to adopt the equally apocryphal parable of the monkeys and the ladder[0] as a cute just-so story to criticize blindly following established practice without good reason.

[0] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-ex...

[Maken]

The monkeys and the ladder are a valid metaphor for a different scenario. In the cargo-cult case, the ones who started it were copying others without understanding what they were doing and why is was not working. In the monkeys and the ladder case, the monkey did understand the problem and developed a valid solution for it, and then they keep applying it long after the problem had disappeared. So, the cargo-cult metaphor refers to stick to procedures and best practices as if they were religions precepts, while the monkeys-and-ladder metaphor is about maintaining unnecessary technical debt.