mjang/imposterTW.txt

## imposterTW.txt
Discussion from WtD Slack

Bear with me, documentarians. I’ve a big thought to share, and I want to use separate paragraphs/entries so that people can respond to points separately. (Vs. me just dumping five paragraphs into one Slack message.)
I’ve been troubled by several aspects of a seemingly prevalent _imposter syndrome_ among a lot of documentarians. Well, more among the technical writers among us documentarians. And although I considered posting to the #career-advice channel, (or the meetpus channel becasue this is the subject of an upcoming presentation), I chose the #watercooler for a bigger audience.
While I’m certainly not advocating that anyone exaggerate their knowledge or deliberately mislead others into thinking we’ve more abilities than we do, it seems that the catchy phrase _imposter syndrome_ contributes to too many people short-changing themselves in discussions with others. And, very importantly, it contributes to the lack of respect for tech writers that we all rightly complain about.
When an engineer doesn’t know the details of a given technology/language/framework/whatever, they’re just not going to say, “oh, yeah, one more example of how I really don’t know what I’m doing; I’m just winging it all the time.” But far too often tech writers will do just that.
Such language definitely makes others pause at the thought of including a writer in their team/work if they don’t have to. After all, why invite someone who themself says, “oh, I can’t really do any of this.” And that hurts not only the individual, but the profession.
I’m interested in sparking a discussion because this seems to be a popular topic for documentarians, and I’m frankly at a loss as to why. We’re a mighty smart group, and an important part of our jobs and personalities is the ability to learn new things. That’s what we’re hired for. So why present that as a problem, and say that we’re imposters?
(done now :slightly_smiling_face: )

hey you touched a raw nerve with me here most definitely
I don't think I tend to do this. But I do think that it happens because technical writers don't code. Or at least don't write production code.

But engineers don’t write, and they don’t act like they’re incompetent because of it.

I definitely feel this way, especially with regard to the sheer amount of technologies that exist that I just don't even know how to start using. Plus the fact that my "technical writing" experience is in a completely different field, and well.

And for all the calls to understand that software requires equal input from many sorts of contributors, at the end of the day, code trumps everything
 but they *think* they can write
at least, the engineers that I work with do

they can do All The Things

writers exist only to take the burden of documentation off the shoulders of Real Coders
now here's where I should take a small break

yes,  - my point: engineers think they can, and they’ll learn to do so if they care. But the writers sometimes throw up their hands and say, “oh, I can’t do that” for the stuff that’s not their job to do.

and explain that I do not refer here to any individuals, and certainly not to all programmers

So it’s external pressures that cause many writers to feel this way?

but it's one dominant cultural model
well, not only do the writers throw up their hands
they are also, at least in some environments, encouraged to think of their contributions as lesser
Everybody Can Write, y'know?

Yes, that’s definitely true (that some environments devalue writers’ contributions). And I’ve been wondering if somehow (oh, I sure to hate to blame the victim) writers inadvertently contribute to that feeling.

It’s more of an inferiority complex than imposter syndrome, I think.
Which comes from being in terrible environments where writing is not valued.
And sadly those environments were quite a bit the norm for a long time.

I’ve seen some of the “I can’t do that” attitude on a spectrum: I feel that way myself for some things (like web services) but have also been frustrated by a coworker making the same declaration about accessing documents in GitHub

> but they *think* they can write

Any skill which is endemic in a culture is automatically undervalued.

Almost everyone in the Anglophone world thinks they drive cars much better than they do because driving a car is a near-universally-acquired skill in the Anglophone world. So it is, in effect, an _invisible_ skill. Everyone can do it, so it can’t be all that hard.

The other two endemic ‘skills’ that immediately come to my mind: writing and sex.

And, in my experience (and in the reported experience of pretty much everyone I know), people are nowhere near as good at either of these things as they think they are.

And they think they are better because ‘everyone’ can do it, so real mastery doesn’t look remarkable because, superficially, it looks the same as what everyone else is doing.

Love the “endemic skills”!

Maybe some of it is the question of where to draw the line in terms of specialization? It seems like some job postings ask for a writer who is also a graphic designer, and some job postings ask for a writer who can also write Python scripts, and once you’ve read enough of those, you start wondering at what point you can claim to have a full skill set for your position

Yes,  - I can understand how a writer could come to suffer an inferiority complex in bad environments. But that seems a bit distinct from how I understand the _imposter syndrome_ issue: thinking and acting as if one is so incapable at one’s own job (not others’ jobs) to the point that one is only impersonating a skilled professional. But perhaps I’ve not understood the term rightly. I’ll go look it up instead of making assumptions.

Separate to the problem of ‘endemic skills’, I was recently introduced to a new fallacy:

*The fallacy of transferable expertise*

It came over my transom via a tweet containing a screenshot from a book (seriously meta, I know). To wit:

https://twitter.com/bjorn/status/953778121764831232

The text transcribes thus:

> American-style libertarians abound on the Internet. Computer
> programmers are highly susceptible to the just world fallacy
> (that their economic good fortune is the product of virtue
> rather than circumstance) and the fallacy of transferable
> expertise (that being competent in one field means they’re
> competent in others). Silicon Valley has always been a cross of
> the hippie counterculture and Ayn Rand-based libertarianism
> (this cross being termed the “Californian ideology”).

And it comes from David Gerard’s recent book _Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain_, a careful critique of cryptocurrency that is worth reading for reasons completely unrelated to the nifty quote above.

Gerard’s day job is as a system administrator and he argues that system administrators and developers are, in particular, susceptible to this fallacy. (edited)

A term I’ve been looking for for years: “the fallacy of transferable expertise.”

From  excellent critique of cryptocurrency et al, Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTyAJCJU8AAu732.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTyAJCJU8AAu732.jpg

Hmm.. good point, - and it makes me think, “why aren’t engineers prone to those same thoughts?” They certainly can’t be experts in frontend, backend, security, all languages, all web technologies, all build systems, etc., etc. And yet, they don’t seem to feel as if they’re impersonating a real engineer.

Imposter syndrome does not mean openly admitting you feel like an imposter to people who might already think you are an imposter.  :smile:
What you’re describing sounds more like reverse-bragging, “oh I’m so bad at that…”
But that’s nitpicking terminology.  I do absolutely think that happens and tech writers often have a big problem with it.
And I again I think it’s a sort of awful survival tactic:  those engineers already think I’m an idiot and maybe I am an idiot so I’ll just admit up front I don’t know what I’m doing rather than challenging anyone and being PROVED an idiot….

I think tech writers have to be more honest about knowledge gaps, simply because it's more on display. If a dev doesn't know something, they can often fake it, or leave it until someone else picks it up. Writers have to get something on the page and then *ask people who actually know this stuff* if it's right. We're much more exposed.
Also, it's a well-worn tactic of tech writers to write something--*anything*--in order to get good feedback from devs (they will always correct you if you're wrong, but won't provide information to fill a blank page)

I think it might be the demarcation of the jobs? E.g. as a front end engineer, you're not necessarily expected to know C or Java. "Tech writer" is much more nebulous.

Also I think at least in the past in addition to tech writing being a low status profession in tech it was also considered low status in *writing.*  So the inferiority complex got doubled.

“low status in *writing*“? among who? maybe “real writers” of serious literature?

Right.  Despite the fact that tech writing always paid so much better than other writing professions, it was a hack job you did while you were working on your “real writing.” (edited)

> why aren’t engineers prone to those same thoughts?

I think engineers and sys admins are particularly susceptible to falling for the fallacy of transferable expertise for two reasons

1. The demographic and historical reason: most engineers and sys admins are straight, white, and male. They are used to being treated as if they are the centre of the universe and are used to being taken seriously no matter what they say.

2. The occuptational reason: engineers and sys admins work environments are structured and controlled and subject to relatively formal rules. Things either work or they don’t. And, once a broken thing is fixed, it tends to keep working forever. This can’t help but engender a conviction that you can understand anything relatively easily and make it work just as well.

likely so. And this is so highlighting my narrow viewpoint/perspective. So I’m pleased that you’re all sharing your perspectives.

> Despite the fact that tech writing always paid so much better in
> writing professions, it was a hack job you did while you were
> working on your “real writing.”

Not just tech writing.

The class-ridden, but mostly unspoken, social hierarchy of ‘real writers’ has only one High Status group: writers of mainstream literary fiction, and even then, said fiction best be about the internal moral lives of upper-middle-class, Anglophone, white people.

*Everything else* — screenplays, teleplays, journalism, advertising copy and instructional materials — is lowbrow at best, and hack writing at worst. (Can you tell that I *loathe* the Leavis’s and the Leavisite tradition and that *&^&%$ing awful book _The Great Tradition_?)

replied to a thread:
So now I’m starting to get it. And actually, I feel it the other way: as a technical grad without a lot of English/liberal arts studies, I feel so woefully uneducated. And whenever I have a few months between jobs (well, the very few times I’ve been able to swing it), I rush to the library to read some more classics that I feel are essential for me to even pretend to be semi-literate.

Also, finally.  I think there’s a gender aspect to this as well, with tech writing traditionally being a very female-dominated profession.  Women tend to use a lot of self-deprecating language, even when we’re supremely good at what we do, as a sort of shield against criticism:  they can’t call me dumb if I call myself dumb first and joke about it. (edited)
http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-culture/culture/longform/a35183/self-deprecation-humour-psychologically-socially-damaging/
ELLE UK
Is Your Sense Of Humour Psychologically And Socially Damaging?
When a little joke goes too far
http://elleuk.cdnds.net/17/18/1600x800/landscape-1493807809-gettyimages-646861758.jpg

Yes, - I agree that this is definitely a big factor. I worked with a woman who was very technical, and an excellent product manager who had a mechanical engineering degree. And yet she’d constantly say about technical issues, “oh, that makes my head explode!” I just wanted to shake her and demand she stop saying that. But it must have served her in some fashion. (edited)

(I note that most of my replies to this topic are qualified with “I think…” which is another female-speech habit I have had a lot of trouble breaking.  :grimacing: )
Oh dear, “several people are typing”

(heehee)

Just chiming in here, because this is a very interesting conversation. Though not female, I’ve definitely always been an introverted person and often have a self-deprecating sense of humor, will couch statements as questions or conditional (I think… if…?), and have trouble making hard stands with people I don’t know, or co-workers who are more senior.

Lately at work I’ve been put into situations where I need to be assertive and have a stance, and _be the writer_ - they hired me to do this job, so I should be the expert with regards to it, when talking to an engineer or the like. It’s helped a lot to be forced into these types of situations - helped drag me out of my shell a bit I think?

 — although ‘I think’ is absolutely a strongly gendered qualifier, I also over-used it (and other hedging language) when I was younger. I’m not sure how generalisable my cure is, but I was cured of it when I was put in command of a company of infantry.

Nothing like a bunch of young soldiers expecting you to know exactly what you are doing in every circumstance, because you are *the CO*, to cure you of hedging language.

Haha

OTOH, I've seen recent arguments to the effect that the "I think" qualifier is a good thing
nope, cannot cite source
but the argument is to the effect that it leaves more room open for differing opinions, more open conversation

“I think” is definitely good, in a contextual way… but the problem is those of us that overuse it, yes? “I think that you shouldn’t say this, because xyz” - do I think that, or is it fact and I’m trying to soften my statement?

i've got two thoughts:
1. technical writers benefit from acting from a position of less knowledge. i was reading an article by a digital ethnographer (Crystal Abidin; she's awesome, do check her work out) that i can't find at the moment that described working with the "influencer crowd" (think beauty instagrams), and that being in that (specially calibrated) position allows for a relationship where the subject matter expert would be much more willing to _coach_ the information seeker. this seems pretty similar to the relationship between the technical writer and engineer, where we're always having to seek the engineer's expertise and domain knowledge

Ooooo thats good.

2. I was also reading Richard Hamilton's _Managing Writers_, who had a chapter on the formal power and informal power of writers in a product team -- that we as writers usually have little of the former (formal power as structurally granted, i.e. can literally order people around), and need to garner more of the latter (informal power as getting people to trust you, be willing to volunteer information to you)

 dredging up my time in command again. Certainty in language is great for commanding others. But commanding others is not always great. In fact, most of the time it’s not great at all, it’s the opposite of what you are trying to do.

Qualifiers, among other things, can cast you and your speech as equal to, not in charge of, the people you are addressing. And that’s probably the way you want to come across, most of the time.

re: qualifiers, I tend to tack "yeah?" and "does that make sense?" on to the end of statements, which I'm increasingly noticing (and becoming annoyed by)

There’s probably not a rubber stamp solution to all of this. You have lots of things in play here - relationship dynamic (is someone senior), personal dynamic (is someone a more assertive personality), and actual content of the communication (fact vs opinion). If I’m a dominant personality, softening up my language might help people to hear me. If I’m very introverted, it might behoove me to be a little bit more clear and firm. If I know what I’m talking about, I should act so; if it’s a subject I’m flimsy on, especially if I’m talking to a subject matter expert, being more questioning and hedging around might be the way to make things smooth and learn.

The problem is that I imagine we aren’t all perfect at automatically doing all of this in our heads, and so we end up with over-assertive people who walk all over everyone else without realizing it, plus quiet people who don’t speak up when really they should…

(When I can,) I'll jump into chats with answers to technical Qs from Devs, QA, support engineers, and devOps sales types.
I (and most of my fellow writers) have become known as "go to" people in certain complex topics.
My boss has encouraged us to become "reverse engineers", and frequently, we find issues that devs haven't considered -- we can take a more holistic PoV to address various problems. (edited)
Nevertheless, I'd struggle to get to "Hello world" in Java or JavaScript.
Even with that limitation, I feel like an equal to (most) everyone in "Engineering" and "Support" who work on our product.
When I first started jumping into conversations, I made technical mistakes. I still make such mistakes -- but so does everyone else on the team.
(Yes, it's taken some hubris, but to me, that's how I overcome imposter syndrome.)

replied to a thread:
This is why I'm glad that we'll have a speaker at WtD NA on "Writing the Next Great Tech Book". I think we have documentarians here who are more qualified than devs to "write the book" on certain topics. (and a few of us have done so :slightly_smiling_face: )

For me, the sweetest way to answer a question -- is with a link to a doc section that solves the problem presented by a dev/support engineer/QA/etc. :slightly_smiling_face:

I'm way too late to the conversation,  - But something I've personally noticed is that there are a large number of defensive pessimists among writers - and defensive pessimism can play right into the imposter syndrome if displayed around people who aren't familiar with the personality type.

I've also seen evidence of  point #2 - There have been times that developers approached me, to approach their manager- because when THEY suggest something is "broken as designed", they're basically given the Product Manager version of "thoughts and prayers". When I (or the other writer) bring it up, everyone raises an eyebrow and starts investigating.

This conversation above is really good. One thing I'd like to add is that writers need to emphasize the importance of the knowledge and perspective that we do have. While we'll never have the same understanding of code and technical detail of a developer or engineer, the technical writer generally has a higher-level view of a project and knowledge of the user
we're more likely to see every module of a product than a developer that might specialize in one. this can mean that suggestions on the product that directly impact the user experience or business objectives are better received from a technical writer than from a developer.
however this all means that as a technical writer, you have to really study up on the use cases, business objectives, etc. of each project to make up for the gap of understanding on technical detail

I disagree with "While we'll never have the same understanding of ... technical detail of a developer or engineer".... (edited)
Perhaps we won't have the same understanding as an SME, I feel like I have to understand technical detail as well as devs / QA other than the SME. When I don't have that level of understanding, I feel like the quality of my writing is crap. (edited)

that's fair. "technical detail" is maybe not the right word. the understanding is always going to be on a different level. a technical writer might have a really strong understanding of the data or components that make up a product, without touching or being familiar with the underlying code

I know one of the big demands on us is an understanding of how to customize a product. For me, that requires understanding of

* Use cases
* How to customize code to meet those use cases (edited)
Frequently, I check use cases that a developer hasn't considered -- at that point, I can ask devs if they've considered the impact on other related code, etc.

Late to the conversation  started but I was finally able to demonstrate the true value of docs yesterday when I helped a senior UI developer and a tester who were struggling to configure a new integration. I happened to be looking over their shoulders at the time and pointed out the reason the configuration wasn’t working was because they hadn’t removed the `;`s in the .ini file (which are used to comment lines out) - something they would have known had they read the third line of my document!

I'm also late to this conversation, but can add that this imposter syndrome issue has long bedeviled tech whirlers in non-code fields as well.
I was senior TW at a engineering & manufacturing concern, and all of the TW, myself included, struggled with this issue. I was lucky enough that my having a background in interface design meant that I was able to help the main interface design engineer w/ QA as part of my documentation process. This reinforces the already-made point that the severity of imposter syndrome , internal though it is, can be deeply impacted by firm culture, as that engineer valuing my input helped the whole TW team.

Coming back this morning to say this conversation gave me a lot to think about last night.  A++ discussion, thank you all.

I think it’s interesting coming from the perspective of a developer-turned-documentarian. In some ways I’ve fought battles (and won!) to elevate documentation to first-class citizenship in my development ecosystem, but I also simultaneously feel a deep sense of imposter syndrome among _documentarians_. I don’t have a background in literature or anything that might obviously lead to a career in documentation. I have a background in development.
And so I might just be the rare developer who had that lightbulb moment so many in this community seem to strive for when working with engineers. My ability to speak engineer seems to have translated into being able to write effective documentation. (edited)
I would not consider myself to be the most qualified to do a lot of the documentation work I do, but I’m definitely the _most willing to give it a shot_. Perhaps the true measure of “qualified” in some circumstances is willingness to step outside your comfort zone and go for it. :slightly_smiling_face: (edited)