Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

blue.cse.buffalo.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

#191

Post by crawfordcomeaux »

wolfgke wrote: post #189
RobertoG wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Agreed. Being political is a ton of work" Being political it's so much work that most people, in high places, in big organizations, barely do anything else.

> Being political it's so much work that most people, in high places, in big organizations, barely do anything else. Time for disruption. Dear hackers: Find a way how one can automate at least large parts of this by a computer program. :-)

I suspect something I came up with a few days ago would address this. It's based on the concept in this video: nxhx.org/maximizing/

The guy in the video suggests companies collect users' reasons for using products/services & feelings around those reasons. Companies would then be able to choose which reasons to design for.

The thinking goes like this: Right now, companies use metrics based on how much things cost in terms of time/money/attention. Those are abstractions on top of our reasons, so if companies can create a system to directly measure our reasons, those more meaningful metrics will allow them to produce better products.

That idea doesn't get rid of the politics in companies...unless you remove the company from the equation when collecting user reasons.

My idea is to build a public blockchain-based system for collecting those reasons publicly & anonymously. If every company has a public user-generated set of reasons for using their product & whether or not the product is a good choice for fulfilling those reasons, the internal debate changes to which reasons should they choose to fulfill. Arguing over whether this or that change better fulfills this or that reason would be silly because testing the idea is the only thing that makes sense.

There'll still be politics around funding tests, among other things, because political people aren't just going to change how they act overnight, but I'm betting this system will give them far less to play with.

Re: The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

#192

Post by crawfordcomeaux »

crispyambulance wrote: post #137
crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Being political is a ton of work. I find doing what OP suggests, which amounts to silently taking responsibility for other people's feelings instead of openly communicating about them, to be taxing as hell. Putting on an emotional mask usually is. Being "political" in this sense is a codependent behavior. Instead of operating out of fear of others' reactions, I prefer to give people the space they need to fee…

There's some really valuable truths in what you said. It takes years to discover, learn and master that and many people never come close to achieving those skills. This is the kind of thing you learn by hard knocks or by a really caring mentor.

That last one (reading "Nonviolent Communication"...several times in the span of a few months) directly led to the rest of the things.

It's easily the most important book I've ever read.

Re: The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

#193

Post by simonster »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #182
simonster wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a student who has participated in some decisions regarding changing courses at my institution, I think classes here are usually bad because no one really cares. It requires tact to say "this course is garbage and you don't care about it anyway; let me handle it" without bruising egos. But I think it's bullshit to say that not bruising egos is an important skill, especially in science. The kinds of scientists whose…

Actualy I see the big egos as a benefit. They just say "No, you are wrong, thanks for our input." And they really mean both sentences.

A benefit to what? People arguing for years over boring research questions where the evidence clearly favors one viewpoint over another does not benefit anyone except the people involved in the argument, who can ask for more funding to resolve this hotly debated open question.

Re: The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

#194

Post by sjg007 »

analog31 wrote: post #163
Spooky23 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a boss years ago who said it best. Never ask a question of decision maker type people when you don't know the answer already.

I have another rule, along similar lines: Never introduce new information at a meeting. We tend to decry "politics" as a dirty thing, and I'm no great fan of dysfunctional organizations. But even among bright, innovative people, I've observed what I think is the root cause of your rule: Most people, especially managers, really don't like to debate and negotiate in front of an audience. I'm like that myself. I think (…

These two comments are great! Thanks!

Re: The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

#195

Post by sjg007 »

Thriptic wrote: post #66
kevhito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. But research isn't everything. And there are at least some hints and signs that this person doesn't know how to get along with colleagues. > I worked really hard to bring an exciting and rigorous operating systems class to UB. Why did this effort require working "really hard"? Was it because of obstructionist, jealous, or stupid colleagues? Or people who wanted a boring and unrigourous course inste…

> Full disclosure: I'm coming up for tenure myself, and one lesson it has taken me 5 years to understand is that people who disagree with me on campus aren't doing so out of spite, stupidity, or carelessness, they often just have different priorities than I do In my experience, one problem is that the priorities are frequently rooted in the self-interest of powerful PIs or staff and are to the detriment of the depart…

This is why million dollar fines for HIPPA violations are a thing. Surprised that even said penalties wouldn't change things.

Re: The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

#196

Post by sjg007 »

karmelapple wrote: post #91
kevhito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. But research isn't everything. And there are at least some hints and signs that this person doesn't know how to get along with colleagues. > I worked really hard to bring an exciting and rigorous operating systems class to UB. Why did this effort require working "really hard"? Was it because of obstructionist, jealous, or stupid colleagues? Or people who wanted a boring and unrigourous course inste…

Some people are extremely allergic to dogs, and not just when the dog is in the room; dog dander sticks around in a room for a very long time. Policies to keep pets out of certain spaces isn't because of a lack of a fun environment, but looking out for some people's sensitivities.

I like dogs, just not at work.

Re: The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

#197

Post by totalZero »

psyc wrote: post #33

Kind of hilarious how many comments in this thread already echo the mentality he's opposing. Get in line. Don't rock the boat. Don't complain about your lot. And you probably deserve what you got, because it's what you got. (Aka Just World Fallacy.)

The just world hypothesis*

It's not a fallacy if it's a tenable argument.

Re: The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

#200

Post by stevetrewick »

analog31 wrote: post #163
Spooky23 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a boss years ago who said it best. Never ask a question of decision maker type people when you don't know the answer already.

I have another rule, along similar lines: Never introduce new information at a meeting. We tend to decry "politics" as a dirty thing, and I'm no great fan of dysfunctional organizations. But even among bright, innovative people, I've observed what I think is the root cause of your rule: Most people, especially managers, really don't like to debate and negotiate in front of an audience. I'm like that myself. I think (…

I agree. I also believe there are other good reasons for this rule. Imagine : 15 minute whiteboard workshop - "capturing value from meetings". We draw a horizontal line on the board, a relative value scale, lower to the left, higher to the right. Then we shout out a bunch of stuff people do in meetings, write them post it notes and try and arrange them on the scale. Once the stream starts drying up, draw a vertical line in the middle of the scale. It will now be reasonably obvious that what's clustered on the left can be loosely categorised as 'shit you could have emailed me' and what's clustered at the right as 'spontaneous interaction of informed participants'. Likely you can now demonstrate that stuff at the left - despite perhaps having intrinsically high value - is likely subtracting value in the context of a meeting. If you have good intuitions or hard data on time and travel, you can probably come up with a cost estimate.

I recommend trying this exercise with real people with the caveats that a) some of them will become angry, and b) probably most of them will ignore the outcomes unless you have some way of incentivising them not to.

Post reply on HN