Letting others piss their own bed so they can learn from their failures.
An example of this is recognizing that new and shiny wasn't always better -- and quite often drags you BACK a decade or more as old failures had new names and sick buzzwords slapped on them.
See HTML 5 in terms of JUST being a markup specification, where everything people ooh-ing and aah-ing over have NOTHING to do with HTML -- they're CSS3 and ECMAScript. The only REAL advantages it gives you is a more compact contents for <head>... the new "structural" tags and nonsense like ARIA roles are pointless redundancies to what already existed in 4 Strict (H1..H6, HR, and general semantics), and they undid the attempts at improving accessibility (like letting TARGET into non-frameset documents) and not only created new redundancies (AUDIO, VIDEO are redundant to OBJECT), they greenlit old ones (EMBED). You'd almost think the WhatWG was so ignorant of semantics and the intent of HTML 4 Strict they were unqualified to make HTML 5's successor.
But RECOGNIZING that when everyone is singing praises from the rooftops is a bit of a fight even in your own head.
Same goes for a LOT of the new shiny ECMAScript stuff. A lot of it like some of the new functions are welcome, but you look at the Math object and they added functions for people too lazy to type "1 -" for trig? REALLY? Worse many of the language constructs -- arrow functions, spreads, etc -- just take the already cryptic C syntax and make it even harder to follow.
But RECOGNIZING that when everyone is singing praises from the rooftops is a bit of a fight even in your own head.
Other concepts like "OOP for everything", "functional programming" which is just functions for EVERYTHING no matter how minor, "composition" over "inheritance" all reek of the old joke about how if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail -- or WORSE just sound like outright gibberish.
But RECOGNIZING that when everyone is singing praises from the rooftops is a bit of a fight even in your own head.
Or how most frameworks actually create more work, less sustainable work, and are in no way, shape, or form any "easier" or "make you more productive". More often than not they violate good practices, are created by people unqualified to tell others how to do things,
But RECOGNIZING that when everyone is singing praises from the rooftops is a bit of a fight even in your own head.
More so when few others see it the way you do blindly parroting those praises no matter how many facts you shove in their face. Ends up feeling like dealing with creationists or cultists.
BUT that's the really hard part, letting others blindly believe their made up fairy tales and basically screw themselves asunder without unloading on them using every four letter word in existence. People NEED to fail so they can learn. The hard lesson is LETTING people fail.
Then knowing how to put up with the fact they are willing to blame everyone and everything EXCEPT the technologies they chose.
Ok, I admit it, I never learned those lessons. But I'm trying.