Modern technology is not a dysfunction.
It is very functional – in suppressing a specific type of mind. Not weak. Not amateurs. But the person he sees through.
The system does not fail to brilliance. In intent to intelligence that is indisputable: this type of repeated, systemic, deep causal, incompatible-and unable to participate in unconventional systems without reorganizing them first. If you think like this – if you get to know yourself below – it was never supposed to succeed in the current system. Because the system has not been built for you. It was built to direct those around you.
- System thinkers: You don’t only distinguish symbol features. You are the map of flows, life cycles, dependencies. You treat a mistake not as symptoms but the devotional style leakage. You refuse to solve sub -problems in isolation.
- Oud analysts: Think about the comments episodes. You can rewrite models in the middle of the process. You are not interested in solving the problem-you are interested in reshaping the problem of the problem itself.
- Those looking for abstraction: you see frequent logic and collapse. You hate the boiler. Clean facades, and the minimum moving parts. You do not save patterns – you can extract fixed.
- Actors with high agencies: Don’t wait for permission. You write the leverage. You can restructure the workflow. You walk if the regulations do not deserve your efforts. You are not a rebel – you simply cannot be formed.
- Causes of causation: You do not care about what “everyone” does. You want to know why they are doing it, what the incentive that made them do that, and what the contradiction it hides. You are fortified from the sects of goods.
- Independent Adra: You do not absorb the systems. You can interrogate them. You do not mimic successful behavior. You are wondering if success is real.
Why does the system filter you (by design)
Companies do not try to determine the brilliance. They improve for the ability to predict, harmonize and produce. To do this, it must reduce contrast, and settle decisions. They must authorize without public expenditures, and to rent widely without relying on the ruling.
So what do they do?
Leetcode: Punseed serving rituals as the best
Leetcode is like a merit filter – a means of the surface of the best minds through uniform technical challenges. But in practice, it is a system equivalent to applying to artificial registration.
For the regime thinker, Leetcode provides two main contradictions: it mimics the solution to problems without the context of the real world. Equal speed under pressure on clarity under mystery.
You may have already seen through this, and know that real engineering is not related to the race by exchanging trees in 30 minutes. It comes to the management of bares, design through the areas of failure, budget of time, complexity, and influence.
But have you wondered about the real incentive behind Leetcode, assuming that it is not a failure to employ, but it does exactly what it was designed to do?
He chooses for engineers who can train themselves for success within arbitrary restrictions – without questioning them. In other words: Leetcode truly tests your ability to adapt to meaningless systems. Those who pass less vulnerable to resisting non -coherent specifications, illogical timing dates, or empty rituals – because they have already proven that they are able to grind through them. For the linguistic minds looking for a structure behind the structure, leetcode is strange. It is noise – do not indicate. This is exactly what makes it effective as a mechanism for keeping the gate against intellectuals at the level of systems.
Go: Erasing the deliberate expression
Go is not just a programming language. It is the philosophy of engineering designed about a very specific organizational need: a safe and unified output of large groups of switch engineers.
Go is famous for rejecting complexity – but complexity is not an enemy of thought. Unnecessary complexity is. What removes it is not noise – it removes expressive financial lever: it discourages the performance for a decade not because it was impossible – but because it will allow the non -standard abstraction. It removes water and total facilities that allow the pattern to collapse. It depends on the recurrence of the boiler instead of structural circulation.
For the regime thinker, these restrictions are not only uncomfortable. They are cognitive and intellectually repressive.
The regime thinkers do not write a linear symbol – they are designed from concept to implementation. They are looking for hidden structures, frequency patterns, and abstracts that once cod the thought, properly. Go does not allow this. Go to force you to repeat yourself so that everyone can read your mind without learn how to think.
The real incentive behind Go, lies in flattening the distribution of engineering product. Codebases made readers and novice managers and engineers without context, and ensuring that there is no one engineer becomes a point of architectural lever. It goes to treat intellectual depth as the risk of maintenance. Therefore, compliance directly in the language. You cannot express your full mind.
This is not restrictions – it’s the target.
Reaction: I turned as an organizational control element
React has solved a real problem – the state of the user interface and interactive – but its adoption pattern reveals something deeper: it is perfectly compatible with the organizational desire to decompose the perception of ticket fragments.
Step RACT Model: Break everything into small -use small pieces. Patch pillars and composition until the user interface is provided. Add hooks, contexts, gates-all of them flow to 10-Liner Microstate.
But from the systems perspective, React is not the interface engineering – it’s a cognitive disintegration.
You no longer have flows, and do not understand user trips. The state transfers are seen on the screen and thinking in terms of cohesion. Think about it
It makes real system thinkers not related. And to the system, this is not an advantage as they wanted – it’s a mistake.
Modern stack: Development, yes – but also it can be controlled
React, Go and Leetcode are only the most clear mechanisms in a wider suppression structure. Linter rules and manufactured tissues such as beauty or Eslint encrypt the delegations of the tools – not to improve rightness, but to impose monotheism and eliminate expressive variation. SCRUM rituals and graceful work ceremonies in stripping of progress – story points, enemy speed, jira tickets – convert the strategy to the theater of measurable compliance. Even “rapid action” of culture and technical debts is not related to repetition; They are on the opposition of the opposition: Anyone who pays for the deepest design bears a barrier.
Artificial intelligence materials takes this further, which leads to changing the evaluation away from judgment and insight about how efficient you agree with the tools. Not only is the modern stack to expand the range of systems – it is designed to expand obedience, and to liquidate any mind calmly insisting on understanding all.
Nothing of these incidents. They are architectural options that reflect the value of technology companies:
The alignment of the truth. Compliance with elegance. Finishing sub -tasks on comprehensive design. Clarity on the leverage.
Because the average technology, the ruling is responsibility. If one person has a lot of insight, he may challenge the road map; They may reject tickets; They may change the system. But changing the system takes time. Insight is not written. Rading is not measurable. So the system was designed to prevent it before it starts.
How do you feel if you are this kind of mind
You feel that you are not used – not because you lack the skill, but because the system lacks depth. You feel exhausted – not through work, but through a low financial lever for everything that you are allowed to do. Feel separate – because the tools fight your thinking style at every turn. You feel populated – not by anyone directly, but through a structure that absorbs an insight like noise. In the end, she asks: “Am I?”
No, not you. It is the design – and it was not part of the requirements.
The road forward
If you describe this, the only rational path is strategic. You can learn the system well enough to move in it. Take advantage of it when it suits you, and resisted his absorption when he does not. Avoid environments that take off your structure. Or completely steps out – and design something better.
But above all: Do not let resist the arched system of thought convince you that thinking is wrong. It was never much. It was never intended to be developmental.
