One that changed things for me isn't about programming, but about how we think about things. In particular, how the concept of an "average" is a LIE. SO often you'll hear "target audience" or "average user" thrown out there as lame excuses for shoddy coding and bad practices... and it's all based on preconceived misconceptions and supported by card stacking and echo-chamber head-bobbers.
The book in question is "The End of Average" by Todd Rose.
harpercollins.ca/9780062358363/the-end-of-average
You can find a excerpt from it on the Toronto Star's website that involves how the mere concept of using "average" to make a 'one size fits all' solution was getting USAF pilots killed at the onset of the jet age. We studied this very topic when I was in BFM school at Eglin thirty years ago -- and how the solution was the invention of the adjustable seat. (which didn't even show up on cars until a decade after it was added to fighter jets!)
thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-f…
EVERY time now I see someone trying to use an 'average' to justify their position, I call bullshit. Same goes for concepts like 'market share' as what if the pool size changes? What's the skew for the overage.
Classic example is the LIE that IE lost users between 2004 and 2011 as their market share went from 94% to around 40% depending on who's numbers you used and assuming we're just talking the desktop space. Firefox fanboys trumpeted the death of IE and how they were hemorrhaging users from every rooftop.
But the pool size changed!
In February 2004 -- the peak of IE's market share -- there were only (by global village's numbers, google it) 745 million people online. We fast forward to June 2011 which is when statcounter reported 40% and before Chrome's traction threw a monkey wrench into the works, there were 2.11 billion Internet users.
Now I'm not mathemagician, but I'm pretty sure 94% of 745 is around 700 million, and 40% of 2110 million is 844 million.
This means that whilst yes, Microsoft "lost" 54% market share, _THEY GAINED 144 MILLION USERS! _To my mind that means they didn't lose a damned thing in that time and the floss fanboys creaming their panties over how FF was killing IE were talking out their arse!
Percentages, share, and averages are used to lie to us all the time. Like when people talk the 'average income' -- when you figure income inequity into the mix that average is bull. SURE, the average US household income right now is 60k or so, but when 90%+ of the people in the country live at below HALF THAT can you REALLY use the average as an indicator?!?
It's simple to explain too. Let's say we have 100 people, one of them makes a 5 million dollars in income a year. The rest of them make 20k a year (well below what's considered the poverty leve in the US right now). What's the average? 69.8k. THAT's how plutocrats use statistics to screw the masses... It's called "overage skew". Where a few high flyers shift the middle and then the derps basing everything on average end up using it to screw the majority.
Which is why Nick Hanauer is right, the pitchforks are coming.
JUST like how I suggest a few regular business math and management classes on top of any (useless) programming classes, putting some time into studying statistics can go a LONG ways towards not letting people run rough-shod over you with outright lies and propaganda.
In any case, that book -- and the topic of statistics -- can really open your eye and change the way you look at projects across the board. It makes you more aware of when some marketing sleaze is talking out their backside... though it has one drawback.
You end up feeling like you're wearing the sunglasses from "They Live".