I just sat through a two day training/workshop session called "Design Thinking" during which we learned about techniques to interview stakeholders, and how to empathize with their needs and concerns (specifically without solving the problem at hand, or trying to solve it.) My perception is that I am closer to the problem than most of the other classroom participants, and I have more than enough experience to solve it by myself, without any help.
It was very difficult to follow the guidelines for the exercise and refrain from simply going ahead and solving a problem that I've solved many times before in a way that was familiar to me. In my view it would have taken less time to simply solve the problem than to engage in this seemingly "pointless" exercise, but I do think I understand better after taking the time to convince myself that those other points-of-view have merit and should be taken into account.
Maybe I simply have a case of the old Stockholm syndrome, but between you and GP, I think I'd rather have a more cooperative and acquiescent person on my project team, for the grade. Sounds like a bikeshed argument. First we said the choice didn't matter, that it was less important than the actual programming content of the class; now we're actively combating and making a big stink until someone does some argument dance about it, and convincing happens, so the justification for the specific choice is judged acceptable. (And I guess you've already dug in your heels by this point, and won't be convinced no matter what the reasoning offered.)
What would be your reasons for rejecting vi, specifically? It seems to me that we've actually rejected the idea that editor choice is unimportant; if it was so trivial and doesn't matter which editor, we probably wouldn't be fighting about it, nobody would mind the seemingly arbitrary decision. Nobody would ask for sound reasons to justify.
I don't like vi, but that's besides the point - I'd fight it exactly because I'd see it as a pointless restriction that indicates dysfunction, and I'd see that as reason to protest it in itself.
If the point of the course had been to learn vi, or the teacher had given a compelling reason for why specifically vi, rather than less specific instructions, then I might have accepted that if their reasons were good enough.
It was very difficult to follow the guidelines for the exercise and refrain from simply going ahead and solving a problem that I've solved many times before in a way that was familiar to me. In my view it would have taken less time to simply solve the problem than to engage in this seemingly "pointless" exercise, but I do think I understand better after taking the time to convince myself that those other points-of-view have merit and should be taken into account.
Maybe I simply have a case of the old Stockholm syndrome, but between you and GP, I think I'd rather have a more cooperative and acquiescent person on my project team, for the grade. Sounds like a bikeshed argument. First we said the choice didn't matter, that it was less important than the actual programming content of the class; now we're actively combating and making a big stink until someone does some argument dance about it, and convincing happens, so the justification for the specific choice is judged acceptable. (And I guess you've already dug in your heels by this point, and won't be convinced no matter what the reasoning offered.)
What would be your reasons for rejecting vi, specifically? It seems to me that we've actually rejected the idea that editor choice is unimportant; if it was so trivial and doesn't matter which editor, we probably wouldn't be fighting about it, nobody would mind the seemingly arbitrary decision. Nobody would ask for sound reasons to justify.