Consider if you will, the Great Onion Nebula. In reading about it today it cracked me up that the professional astronomer described this as "Hot young stars" in keywords. Well, my scientific friend, that's one way to increase number of hits. Since I was a child I've had interest in the night sky. Upon seeing these beautiful images and those from the hubble telescope (in my opinion THE best use of money in all of space exploration in my entire lifetime), I began to imagine if I were able to float around in space that the colorful beauty of nature would surround me and exceed even the beauty available on earth. Then the truth. OUCH the truth. It's like finding out that Santa Claus isn't real. How bored I was with my first telescope. It represented a shattering of one of my fondest dreams. I'd been tricked! These photos aren't real! Real or not, they are a beautiful creation, we just need to explain what they are. They are art. They are enhanced reality based on science. Partly real, partly art. Like every magazine photo you see. However, we need to explain that only parts of it are real. We also need to show the unenhanced reality to people so that they do not feel tricked. Do not blame Photoshop for the human desire to see beauty and art. Do not doubt the integrity of the artists who create these. Realize this is their craft and appreciate the talent it takes. They do not create the demand for art and beauty. Even Reality TV is enhanced reality. No one wants real reality. Have you seen the "depression channel"? It's all footage of people starving, death and dismay. Commercials just flash up, "You are slowly dying. No one will get out of this alive." No, we can't stand that emotionally in large doses. I don't think that cable channel is likely to exists soon. Even the horror films that get popular are almost never situations very close to reality. People who love to be afraid enjoy the excitement, but if it's too close to home they no longer have the sense of relief that it isn't them. What does this have to do with testing? I've noticed two main schools of thought in testing. We have those who believe in giving managers and stakeholders a false sense of security in our testing using measures and statistics. Then we have the context driven school of thought who are much more in your face about presenting an unenhanced version of reality for others to deal with. I don't believe I belong with either group. I see myself somewhere in the middle. I'd like to present both a polished view with some science basis, and explain what it is based on and let others make their judgments. Bringing reality to the table IS part of my job, but that doesn't mean I have to bring the harshest reality in a blunt presentation to the table. I am certainly tough enough to handle confrontation when needed, but unlike some people I've met, I don't enjoy it. I find it makes future collaboration more difficult. I also understand that there is a need for art, beauty, and false reality that is born into us. We all have imagination. No person is all science and all fact, at least no person I'd invite over to my house. Who is to say how far we can impact reality with our ideas and imagination? I'd hate to find out what the world would be like without it.