721–730 of 757 posts
- Being results-oriented can be detrimental to doing anything useful.
How important it is to be able to inhabit another person's viewpoint and see things from their perspective. So much time and effort is saved in doing so. Much of my job has become translating and mediating between stakeholders going around in circles, because each one believes their viewpoint represents the entirety of the issue. They can not understand one another because they assume the other understands everything…
Absolutely. I would add: remember that we can all be right. That problem or dysfunction may have 3 root causes, not just 1, and that engineer, lawyer, and BA can stop debating about who diagnosed it right - they all did.
Now, they are all possibly approaching the truth from different directions, and need a synthesis of each others views to get to the truth, but that's not the same as the discussion-ending idea that inconsistent explanations can all be right so attempts to resolve the conflict are unnecessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Resource" being dehumanizing doesn't make "stakeholder" dehumanizing. Of course, everything depends on context. Do you think in this context I was trying to dehumanize the people I was referring to? To what end?
> "Resource" being dehumanizing doesn't make "stakeholder" dehumanizing. This is such a poor thought process, and a strawman to boot. I never made any claims about causality between them. I pointed out you can't defend "stakeholder as dehumanizing" by claiming it's more specific and the example I used to demonstrate this was that "resource" is more specific than 'people', yet 'resource' is considered dehumanizing whe…
“Stakeholders” elevates people to active actors whose needs must be considered and addressed. It isn't dehumanizing, because instead of denying agency as “resources” does, it specifically recognizes and emphasizes agency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>>I'm not basing my response off of any real data and neither are you. I provided a measurable piece of data for my conclusions, which I'll put in pseudo-code: CLASS partner; //object to define each sex partner, most variables omitted for simplicity BOOL ahole; //dickish statement made post-coitus BOOL itsover; //relationship terminated by other party INT terminated; //just a counter FLOAT failure_rate; RANGE(partne…
You are not the OP my reply was directed to but I'll answer your question. > Have you ever told a woman, after coitus, how you ran the same Game on them that you've run dozens of times before? ... They'll usually just laugh it off / not take it seriously. Nope. But to my defense I haven't had a single ONS so I don't know how my bedside talk would be in that situation. I don't see myself as a dick so I don't think I w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words, while I considered what the accountant guy did to be a rather low-effort incomplete job, he did exactly what was expected of him by the bank and what I needed to get my deal done. The degree to which everything runs on this sort of system is kind of horrifying, once you're exposed to enough things like this for that to sink in. Relatedly, I guess my contribution to the broader thread would be: Almos…
In social science there is a law along the line of: 50% of the work is done by the square root of the number of people in your organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Resource is less specific, not more.
This is not true. An IT manager who says resource certainly isn't referring to the garbageman, but if he says people he may well be.
"Stakeholders" is (usually seen as?) a subset of "people", whereas the modifier in "human resources" is very much not redundant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked filling shelves in a supermarket, I disagree that it applies to every field.
People can master nearly anything and stand out; boring physical labour is actually one where there are obvious things to be amazing it. It may not earn people a pay raise, but there will be a noticeable and impressive difference between an expert shelf-stacker and someone killing time for money. That being said there are a lot of jobs where I have difficulty imagining what mastery looks like; say in an automated, lo…
Look up "Bus Rodeo". It's basically a skills challenge for bus drivers.
You'll see drivers make maneuvers with 60 foot articulated beasts that the average person would have trouble doing in a normal SUV.
Computers don't work, internet doesn't work, software doesn't work. If something functions flawlessly it's because there existed a group of people who figured out a rock solid setup at one point in time, and another group of people maintaining it actively right now. Many people seeing something that "just works" and it's "free as in beer" demand a similar setup for their own business assuming that creating it require…
'The Dream Machine' by M. Mitchell Waldrop chronicles the trials and tribulations of the people who built the first computers and computer networks. Great read if you want to learn more about how computing and the internet were started!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I don't see it like that at all. I see it as the olden days where banks (or countries) actually had gold reserves for the amount of money that exists. (I know it doesn't work like that anymore) I also don't really agree that the bank owes my friend that $100k. They're just holding it for him. If you store your car at my house I'm not in debt to you. Your car is just sitting at my house for a while and you can…
Sure, you owe him a car for the duration, the fact that he can get it whenever he wants doesn't change much. If the car you stored goes missing (and you set up a contract) you'll find you now owe him money. Another interesting thing is that you (a bank) will typically store not one but a hundred cars, and you will lend 90% of those to other people at any given point, in exchange for money. So everyone thinks their ca…