Before getting my driver’s license, I remember thinking manual gearboxes were an anachronism. Why on earth would someone want to row their own gears when automatic boxes could do it for you? Because it’s worse, and worse is charming.
This affection for worse repeats all over. People buy and adore expensive Swiss mechanical watches, even though a cheap Swatch will keep time better and requires no maintenance. Range-finder cameras take fiddling to adjust focus that auto-focus cameras have long since obsoleted. Vinyl records and tube amps still have lots of hardcore fans.
We come up with all sorts of justifications for this affection for worse. Manual gearboxes give you more control. Mechanical watches are about the craftsmanship. Range-finders have great image quality in a small package. Vinyl on tube sounds warmer. It’s mostly bullshit. Endearing bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless.
My pocket psychology take is that we love anachronisms because they’re imperfect. Like humans are imperfect. We form relationships with people who are flawed all the time. Flaws, imperfection, and worse are all part of the human condition. Tools that embody them resonate.
It’s hard to engineer this, though, but it’s worth cherishing when you have it. Don’t be so eager to iron out all the flaws. Maybe those flaws are exactly why people love your product.
sfmitch
on 12 Sep 13I can’t tell if the author is serious.
Manual transmissions are a LOT less expensive and get better gas mileage than automatic transmissions. Less convenient, sure. But, worse?
Records DO sound better than CDs. Less convenient, sure. But, worse?
A skilled photographer CAN take better pictures with a manual camera vs fully automatic camera. Less convenient, sure. But, worse?
I still don’t know if the author believes what he wrote.
I was going to go on but I don’t think there’s any need to.
David Kawczynski
on 12 Sep 13You like the sound of records better than CD’s. A CD can more closely replicate what is recorded. What you like about vinyl is the noise floor. The distortion of the noise floor is that ‘warm’ sound you love. It’s a preference not a fact. Read this.
Have you driven an automatic lately? I have an Audi A4 which has the ‘manual’ or automatic option. I can’t do it better than the computer. I have tried. Maybe a straight manual is better but I doubt most people are skilled enought to tell.
Zack Siri
on 12 Sep 13I think what he means is instead of following and doing the latest and greatest all the time realize that people like old shit too even if its less convenient than the latest and greatest. I think what he’s trying to say is classic is classy too so don’t get caught up in the next fad.
Jeff
on 12 Sep 13I just think ‘worse’ was not good word choice, even though it was probably intentional, ‘worse’ to mean ‘not the best’.
The choices of how and why you ‘interface’ or use a physical object, can come from so many places. It is o.k. to be emotionally tied to a watch, or a film camera because of how it works or that it’s old or that your grandfather owned it. It’s o.k. to enjoy the feeling of control that comes from driving a car with a manual transmission. His point is that imperfection is o.k., but ‘ease of use’ and ‘convenience’ aren’t the only factors in choosing or experiencing or enjoying things we really care about. Cotton candy is messy, but sometimes it’s awesome. Running barefoot on a sandy beach sucks in some ways, but I love that soreness in my calves and ankles the next day. People make fun of the ‘character’ of my high-maintenance 1931-built home, but I’m never going to get my wife to move out of it because she loves it.
I think Mark Twain said something like ‘when we lose all of our illusions, we are no longer alive.’
[ On a side note: Personally, I have few doubts that some CD’s I’ve heard sound better than LPs. With some, you hear too much of what I’d call a ‘digital sample’ sound, and those treble tones are tinny, don’t sound like you’d imagine the artist intended. Whereas the same song on a 33 1/3 LP just flows. Some CDs sound more true, however. Maybe my emotions are controlling those impressions, but that’s o.k. with me. ]
Andreas
on 12 Sep 13I think what is missing here is that its a matter of art, feeling. There is no artistic feel in a digital watch. There is no art in a digital camera. Its an engineer that takes the picture for you. Wheres the fun in that? Who pays 10 million for a picture made i photoshop? Digital is worthless, analog is real.
Jeff
on 12 Sep 13@sfmitch hit it on the head.
That said, using the excuse that this “worse is better” relates to software couldn’t be more wrong. Fixing something that clearly needs to be addressed (like allowing branding of Basecamp or custom fields in Highrise) should not be ignored because somehow “worse is better”. Changing legacy interfaces, in general, is a bad idea. Not adding necessary features is lazy.
Brandon Adams
on 12 Sep 13I’d recommend reading up on the development of the automatic transmission, it’s actually very interesting, and there are lot of different designs. It’s a fundamentally different way to convert torque than with a manual transmission.
Until one of my friends educated me, I thought an automatic transmission was just a machine that selected gears and operated the clutch for the driver.
Nigel
on 12 Sep 13People who listen to music with their eyes/intellect prefer digital over analog. People who listen with their ears/heart, prefer analog.
anshin
on 12 Sep 13“Because it’s worse, and worse is charming” is a bad start. Saying that it’s worse is disingenuous, and saying that worse is charming is an inaccurate generalization. Manual shifting is a skill that drivers hone; it’s a matter of pride. It’s about a success, not better vs worse.
While a digital watch may keep time better, a well-made watch has a certain level of craftsmanship, and there’s a form of love involved in care for a watch, or any other device of that requires upkeep. We become attached to cars we drive because of the experiences with those cars. A watch can be a device used to keep time, but it can also be a very personal item.
There are similar truths to the other examples. Andreas is spot-on. It’s about art, craftsmanship, etc.
It may be true that flaws can be endearing, but you’ve stretched your examples to fit your conclusion—that’s the wrong order.
I agree that it may not be best to iron out every flaw.People can become attached to processes, but your approach to this subject leaves a lot to be desired.
Erik
on 12 Sep 13This is very much an engineer’s perspective. “Worse” here really means “more simple”while the flip side is greater complexity. However, there is always a cost to additional complexity. Mechanical and digital intermediaries increase the complexity of systems. Even though, on the whole, to the “average” user the result might be greater ease of use or a higher efficiency factor of some kind, there will be individuals who are acutely aware of some specific item that was lost in the compromise.
I don’t ride a fixed gear bike. There are a lot of hills around here. I want my 21-speed. However, I understand the desire for a bike that I could fully maintain and repair on my own. For my purposes my more complex bike is clearly “better” because it has an improved feature-set, but I also have $100 / year to spend at the bike shop for maintenance and repair.
Everything in design is a tradeoff and bigger / faster / more features isn’t always the right answer for EVERYONE. Just because the majority adopt it, doesn’t make the minority “wrong.”
Guillaume
on 12 Sep 13I don’t think it is a love for imperfections, but something closer to nostalgia or simply refusing new things. Lot of people refuse to adapt and manage to find a reason to justify it.
For books vs ebooks, I frequently hear “I love too much the feeling of touching paper”. Even from ecologists who hate seeing trees being cut, they won’t give up their love for real books over digital ones. I’d love to hear them bring the argument that the kindles might not be ready yet and they would rather wait a bit to see how it is going to evolve. But no, this does not even enter the debate. There is actually no debate. Changing old habits is just too hard.
Chuck
on 12 Sep 13I would’ve agreed with you on the manual transmission bit until Baltimore was hit with an unexpected snow and ice storm a few years ago. Traffic stuck for hours. I took side roads and started in 2nd gear… never got stuck, even when I stopped to help push stranded SUVs and pickup trucks. I was in a Corolla with bald tires.
GregT
on 12 Sep 13How People React To New Stuff
Younger than 20: it was always there. No big deal. 20-40: cool amazing new thing. I love it! 40+: I might like it but I will never really trust it.
milkman
on 12 Sep 13might as well throw sailboats into that mix as well : )
David Andersen
on 13 Sep 13‘Worse’ in all these cases is a matter of preference, not cosmic fact. Every choice we make is about making tradeoffs. People value these tradeoffs differently.
David Andersen
on 13 Sep 13For example, I’m driving my first manual ever (a GTI) and it’s by far more fun to drive than any automatic I’ve ever had. The increase in fun is worth the decrease in convenience.
Richard
on 13 Sep 13Perfect != Best. Great post.
Mark
on 13 Sep 13So Microsoft Project and Salesforce are more “human” than Basecamp and Highrise?
Jamie
on 13 Sep 13I drive manual transmission because I know when and how to shift. A computer doesn’t have to do it (or predict) on my behalf. I want to understand why you can’t start driving in 5th gear. I want to feel the car struggling in 2nd.
I also take photos with a camera that allows aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and exposure adjustment. I want to learn why the settings do what they do. Why do I choose f/2 instead of f/8? If a computer does it for me it might look better, but I understand less.
It’s not necessarily that “worse is human.” More like “the less we do and understand ourselves, the less human we become.”
Devan
on 13 Sep 13Put me in with those who are questioning the seriousness of the author.
First and foremost is my aversion the use of the the word ‘worse’. I’d put it to you that my automatic transmission is ‘worse’ than my own mind, hands and feet when it comes to downselecting a gear because there is a hill coming up ahead. It is also ‘worse’ at using engine braking to slow my down gradually because I can see an obstruction a long way ahead.
Auto focus cameras are ‘worse’ than me when I am trying to focus on a small bug that is further back in a cluster of flowers wafting around in the foreground.
A tea bag thrown in a cup is much ‘worse’ than a properly brewed cup of tea. Is standing in line, waiting for a barista to make you a cup of coffee ‘worse’ than throwing a teaspoon of Nestle instant coffee in a cup and covering it in hot water?
When I slam an open G5 chord on my Les Paul, my solid state guitar amp sounds fizzy and full of artifacts. It is ‘worse’ when compared to my 30 year old tube amplifier. Solid state does a terrible job of emulating electrons jumping from plate to plate.
I still shave with a safety razor. Blades are far cheaper and the actual shaver will last a lifetime. Surely it is ‘worse’ to clutter up landfills with cheap plastic throwaway razors? Do we really need triple blades and self cleaning razors with batteries that vibrate them? THAT to me is the bullshit factor.
Yes people are drawn towards imperfections and flaws, but do not discount that people are also drawn to the comforts of nostalgia and tradition.
I LOVE the ritual that goes with wet shaving with a safety razor. It is almost a meditative retreat for me in the morning to lather up and go through the motions. Akin to a Japanese tea ceremony.
I love the resonance felt deep inside my chest of a tube amplifier a LOUD volume. I delight in the unpredictable and organic overtones and harmonics and the feel of moving air that I cannot get from any other digital source.
Taking longer, or making more effort to accomplish something is not always ‘worse’. Often times, it is the journey and not the end result that really counts.
Give me ‘worse’ any day. I am happier.
David
on 13 Sep 13I actually found this post quite intriguing. My first reaction was to disagree, but the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced David may be onto something here. Something rather subtle and non-obvious.
David Wheeler is famously quoted as having said: ”.. any problem in computer science can be solved by adding another layer of abstraction”, and I’m sure we’ve all seen that in our professional (software) lives. I think it’s much the same with engineering-based technology more broadly; throughout modern society we see ever more complex “solutions” to problems, with ever deeper layers of abstraction that serve to further distance the user from the internal “goings-on” of the system.
I suspect the “affection for worse” that David identifies may be a response, subconscious or otherwise, to all that. Perhaps we quietly yearn for the time where we were not so abstracted from the internals as we are today; for a time where it was possible to have a broad understanding and grasp of how something worked. Simplicity comes at a price, and the price is imperfection.
Rather than following the mainstream trend to complex-ify and abstract, maybe the smartest players instead tap into the very human need to understand and to master, by selling less rather than more? I don’t think this simply nostaligia; it’s actually about satisfying unarticulated buyer needs.
Lastly, I agree it’s hard to engineer it – but I think being able to do so is a powerful source of differentiation for those who can.
Mark
on 13 Sep 13I understand fully what David was getting at, but I think it lacked thus payoff in closing out the analogy.
Work is worse, but it’s also more fulfilling. There’s a sense of achievement in a job well done. It’s a rush of endorphins the first time you’re able to launch a manual transmission off the red light without either stalling or revving the engine at 3,000 RPM before letting off the clutch. It’s the sense of nostalgia listening to old vinyl records and the appreciation of the uniqueness and exclusivity of a hand-crafted item.
I think it’s interesting that as life becomes more on demand and give it to me now convenient, the need for more real (or worse) experiences increases. Probably there’s a need in all of us, a soul if you will, that really resists or fears us becoming shallow and automatic.
Rodge
on 13 Sep 13Tube amps are worse? ...mostly bullshit? Stick to what you know David.
Charles Miller
on 13 Sep 13I like cricket. Cricket is obviously a far superior sport to baseball. And yet, millions of people like baseball! There must be some quaint, illogical, almost silly thing going on in their heads that makes them prefer baseball to cricket.
The act of arbitrarily dismissing the perfectly good reasons people might have to hold a preference in favour of “It’s worse, obviously they must like things because they are bad!” is just a way of closing yourself off from understanding what’s really going on.
Manual transmissions are the perfect example. I enjoy driving a manual because I enjoy driving. Automatic transmissions are only “better” in the sense that they take some of the act of driving away. If driving is just a chore you need to do to get from A to B, that makes the automatic better. If driving is something you enjoy doing, it makes the automatic worse because it takes something you enjoy away from you.
Everything is good and bad on multiple axes. If you just measure the one axis you care about and ignore the rest, you’re going to be frequently confused by the rest of the human race, and forced to come up with pat, vaguely insulting and utterly incorrect explanations of why they wilfully ignore the One Axis That Matters.
keeper
on 13 Sep 13Harmony of dissonace
JC
on 13 Sep 13“Flaws, imperfection, and worse are all part of the human condition.”
I am truly shocked about this utterance since I agree with most ideas I heard dhh speak on. However not on this one! I thought dhh had a higher view of man. This is why the majority of people still go around saying “I am only human”. I would just want to ask dhh, what his standard of perfection is and all those people that too often confess that they are “only human”? Too many people that say this have standards of omniscience, which is an impossibility and against man’s nature, so of course all humans will be regarded as flawed. But not to be omniscient is not the same as being flawed or imperfect. A standard of perfection must be based on human nature. Otherwise it is like saying that man is flawed because he cannot fly or lay eggs.
In addition from my interpretation of the dhh’s blogpost it seems like dhh holds an objective theory of values, which I myself hold. But I think that it is important to always remember to keep the context by asking yourself in regards to value questions: who is valuing and for what. This acknowledges the fact that all humans have their own purpose in life which sets the context for all their lesser goals and values. And also a human being is an integration of soul and body so some values as a mechanical watch can very well help a person’s self image i.e. soul. Notice here that a Swiss mechanical watch almost always tends to be associated with a clearly defined brand. And this brand if any good is associated with certain qualities, just like 37signals, since it stands for something (which is also why I am here). It is this that an individual buying a watch can identify with. Now the individual that wants to buy a watch, if he can afford it, will want more than a simple watch, he will want a watch that is an expression of himself and what he stands for. This is for example the exact reason for the importance of art in man’s life and why we like different kinds of art and why it has existed in some form as far as we know. In a way it can be said that we have different souls but they all need fuel. And they all get fuel by getting reinforcement of their own nature and what they stand for. This is why there are so many proud mechanical watch owners. There is more to the watch than meets the eye. The modern watches too often lack a strong brand since they do not stand for something which is no fault of the customers. So the answer is not psychological but philosophical. And it can be explained without flaws and imperfections.
Chris Puttick
on 13 Sep 13I’ll leave most of your examples to one side, but have to point out that there has yet to be an automatic gearbox that is better than a manual. It’s taken the current generation to get the same acceleration performance and they all still lose out on fuel economy; and if they also achieved the same economy, the auto gearbox would still be unable to anticipate, to change down because you are planning to accelerate rather than because you are accelerating. That alone makes it worse, albeit more convenient.
Patrick
on 13 Sep 13Dude, spend 10mins in an automatic then a manual 2008 Saturn Astra; you’ll wonder what the hell they were thinking building an automatic version of this car. Tiny engines and heavy cars are a really bad combo for automatics to deal with.
Juan
on 13 Sep 13I’m not sure that “worse” itself is appealing. I think it’s all about the love for tech we all share. Technology is beautiful, it’s like art. For some people analog is more appealing, whereas others prefer digital. Isn’t it wonderful how vinyl works? How analog photography works? Old movie projectors? Or a mechanical watch? The tech process behind these things is beautiful, it’s like magic, a celebration of human intelligence. At the same time, if you see close how digital stuff works, you’ll fall in love with it too. It has another type of magic: everything is data, like life on the universe, which is all made from software (DNA). Even if older tech is worse, it still got it’s appeal, and it adds value to our lives. Even if vinyl sounds worse than some modern tech, I still like to own a vinyl collection for the pure pleasure of this little machine working that particular way to please me with music.
J
on 13 Sep 13Quantization is a bitch.
Thorsten Claus
on 14 Sep 13Sometimes automatic = thoughtless… it’s when Windows is too smart for you and does stuff you don’t want. It’s the million clicks and no good picture. It’s thoughtless lead foot instead of torque and perfect rpm.
All examples of “worse” have a method, a defined process with predictable outcome if you use your brain, for great results. While automatic will get you good results—hopefully most of the time.
Petr
on 15 Sep 13I know I am missing your message with the following comment, but tube amps are still used not because of bullshit, but because they sound a lot better. Try playing a guitar on solid state amp and then on tube amp. Even non-musician will tell the difference. Tube amp somehow generates the right harmonic frequencies and also the level of dynamics is of a completely different order. (Author is a Mesa amp owner :))
foljs
on 18 Sep 13But if “flaws” are part of what makes stuff resonate and feel good to us, then aren’t those “perfect” items really imperfect by not having them? It’s a semantic argument, but I think it’s important.
For example, a CD (or mp3) is not “perfect” compared to vinyl. It’s just better in some regards. The problem with those analogies is that people confuse better in some regards (e.g ability to skip tracks easily) as better in all regards (“perfect”).
People forget important characteristics that might not be tied directly to the task at hand but add to the whole experience (like when people say product X is better than product Y, because it has “more specs”, but totally ignore the lesser coherence and the usability of the specs it has. Happens a lot with Apple stuff).
E.g a CD/Mp3 might be better because of “conveniently listening to music, skipping tracks, vibration correction, no crackle, better bass frequencies” etc.
But there are qualities adding to the experience of listening to music that people don’t take into account, like:
1) Vinyl is larger, so you enjoy the cover art more. 2) Vinyl offers a tactile experience some people like. 3) Vinyl makes skipping more difficult, so helps with the act of listening to full albums. 4) Vinyl was not easily copiable, so having an album meant more to its owner than what owning a CD or mp3 does today. And there was less choice too, so people had less fatigue from too much music.
Point being, see the whole picture and don’t forget the social/psychological aspect as if it’s not real.
Gabriel
on 18 Sep 13Why enjoy a delicious, home cooked meal when we can just stick an IV in our arm to service our nutritional needs?
I agree with the authors’s overall direction, but the adjectives are wrong. He seems to conflate “worse” with “less efficient” which in general makes sense within the world of technology and programming.
Humans are embodied being who enjoy aesthetic experiences. With any of the examples used by the author, efficiency is only one part of the experience. How these experiences make us feel, how they delight us or engage our curiosity and imagination, what they say about our identity and ethics… These are typically more powerful motivators than efficiency when it comes to deciding how to use our time and money.
I would be wary of classifying someone’s identity, ethics, or aesthetics as bullshit.
lcnkkogg
on 18 Sep 131
This discussion is closed.