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

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 354 posts

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#241

Post by oblio »

sp1nningaway wrote: post #239
jvanderbot wrote: post #164

It's surprising to me that people don't consider these coded language. Sure, the junior manager might use them vaguely to mimic, but IMHO, when vague language comes up at decision tables, it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability. A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time. A senior director…

I think this also explains some of our political climate. Everything the current administration says sounds like gibberish and equivocation to me, but to its intended audience it is a clear communication about wielding power and grift. Conversely, when someone talks about "decolonizing" a curriculum or "centering" marginalized voices, to me it's a clear statement about who gets to define meaning and whose history cou…

> "decolonizing" a curriculum or "centering" marginalized voices

Can you expand on this?

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#242

Post by bcrosby95 »

atroon wrote: post #230
fhd2 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the right move. If a word changes its colloquial meaning, better drop it and find a new one. Happens all the time. From stuff like "agile" in a software development context (pretty meaningless at this point, can mean anything from the original definition to the systematic micro management it got to be commonly associated with), to previously neutral words that became offensive (because they were commonly used…

> No individual holds power over connotations. Language just evolves. Okay, but I still reserve the right to be pissed off at teenagers using 'out of pocket' when they mean 'off the wall' or 'out of bounds'.

This usage is probably older than you're thinking: some 80s and 90s hip hop songs used "out of pocket" like that.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#243

Post by astrange »

oblio wrote: post #240
jvanderbot wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from TFA: > “Corporate bullshit is a specific style of communication that uses confusing, abstract buzzwords in a functionally misleading way,” said Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Arts and Sciences. “Unlike technical jargon, which can sometimes make office communication a little easier, corporate bullshit confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but it is semantically empty.” I'…

> Eventually they figured out that language served a different purpose inside the bond market than it did in the outside world. Bond market terminology was designed less to convey meaning than to bewilder outsiders. Overpriced bonds were not "expensive" overpriced bonds were "rich," which almost made them sound like something you should buy. The floors of subprime mortgage bonds were not called floors--or anything el…

I thought a mezzanine was when you go see a movie at noon.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#245

Post by mikrl »

astrange wrote: post #243
oblio wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eventually they figured out that language served a different purpose inside the bond market than it did in the outside world. Bond market terminology was designed less to convey meaning than to bewilder outsiders. Overpriced bonds were not "expensive" overpriced bonds were "rich," which almost made them sound like something you should buy. The floors of subprime mortgage bonds were not called floors--or anything el…

I thought a mezzanine was when you go see a movie at noon.

That’s a martingale you’re thinking of

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#246

Post by Muromec »

dsr_ wrote: post #226
Muromec wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying exactly what you mean is generating the paper trail and accountability, which is a liability.

In a sane system, it would not be a liability. QED.

Define sane

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#247

Post by sp1nningaway »

oblio wrote: post #241
sp1nningaway wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this also explains some of our political climate. Everything the current administration says sounds like gibberish and equivocation to me, but to its intended audience it is a clear communication about wielding power and grift. Conversely, when someone talks about "decolonizing" a curriculum or "centering" marginalized voices, to me it's a clear statement about who gets to define meaning and whose history cou…

> "decolonizing" a curriculum or "centering" marginalized voices Can you expand on this?

Those are just examples of academic/progressive jargon that I hear often in the Bay Area and in progressive circles. "Decolonizing," could mean for instance changing world history curriculum to cover non-western civilizations. "Centering" seems like maybe it just means focusing on, but there is a whole academic apparatus for designing curriculum around say, indigenous practices, and centering is the word used for that entire concept, which includes specific techniques.

I think to get the full meaning of both, you'd need to be fairly steeped in a world that uses those words all the time AND it is often used to identify people who "get it" from those who don't.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#248

Post by fhd2 »

atroon wrote: post #230
fhd2 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the right move. If a word changes its colloquial meaning, better drop it and find a new one. Happens all the time. From stuff like "agile" in a software development context (pretty meaningless at this point, can mean anything from the original definition to the systematic micro management it got to be commonly associated with), to previously neutral words that became offensive (because they were commonly used…

> No individual holds power over connotations. Language just evolves. Okay, but I still reserve the right to be pissed off at teenagers using 'out of pocket' when they mean 'off the wall' or 'out of bounds'.

Absolutely. I'm pro emotions :) Just also good to realise what battles are lost.

I do sometimes rebelliously use words in their original connotation along with an unnecessarily lengthy explanation. Never anything that's now an insult, of course, those I just stay away from and am not mad about either.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#249

Post by g3f32r »

sp1nningaway wrote: post #239
jvanderbot wrote: post #164

It's surprising to me that people don't consider these coded language. Sure, the junior manager might use them vaguely to mimic, but IMHO, when vague language comes up at decision tables, it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability. A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time. A senior director…

I think this also explains some of our political climate. Everything the current administration says sounds like gibberish and equivocation to me, but to its intended audience it is a clear communication about wielding power and grift. Conversely, when someone talks about "decolonizing" a curriculum or "centering" marginalized voices, to me it's a clear statement about who gets to define meaning and whose history cou…

> to my Boomer uncle it's incoherent, if not an outright attack.

These are separate things. If he's interpreting it as an outright attack, he _is_ hearing it correctly. But incoherence would imply he's _not_ hearing the coded language in it's true meaning.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#250

Post by michaelt »

johnisgood wrote: post #228
alexjplant wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Synergy has a real meaning: 1+1=3. A cigar and a whiskey. Chocolate and peanut butter. Hall and Oates. Et cetera. Unfortunately it's one of those terms like "DevOps" or "jam band" or "martini" whose true meaning has been sullied by people trying to sound cooler than they are. On the rare occasions I've used it sincerely in meetings I've always caveated it with some variation of "the real meaning, not the BS one." Thi…

Why would you drop it altogether? Medications and/or supplements can have synergistic effects, for example. Synergy is actually a term that is formally defined as "Effect(A + B) > Effect(A) + Effect(B)".

The point of saying and writing things is to be understood by your audience.

If I know a given wording is widely misunderstood, to the point I'm planning to immediately follow it with a clarification - often that's a sign it's not a very good wording.

There are exceptions, of course - go ahead and say Cephalopods (things like octopuses and squid) if you're a marine biology educator.

Post reply on HN