Live data from Hacker News

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

news.cornell.edu

251–260 of 354 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"an honest assessment & making us part of the journey to overcome whatever adversity" I suspect that most people just aren't wired up that way - we have a natural tendency to want to follow leaders and what we seem to want most from leaders is certainty and confidence. Does it matter what leaders are certain and confident about - not really.

It is hard to argue with a vague statement like "most people" without a proper scientific study. But I disagree: following the scientific principle, and being willing to change opinion in the face of new evidence increases my trust in someone. Someone who is certain and confident without showing their work / sources make me suspicious. And critical thinking is (pardon the pun) a critical skill.

If you actually think and act that way, so much the better. I don't even particularly disbelieve you. But can you really look at the mass of humanity around you and believe they think the same way? Even if they claim to value critical thinking, watch what they do, what they buy, how they vote.

You've most likely trained yourself to value critical thinking in your leaders, most likely from an early enough age that you don't remember what it was like without it. Lots of people don't get this training or don't apply it in a fully general way.

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

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a hell of a lot more functional to simply say directly what you want and mean. This sort of management is dysfunctional even in it's premises.

In this example you're actually just being polite. You are not calling out a person publicly, you're transmitting a course-correction through their manager that allows the person who knows you best to communicate the correction the best way AND it allows the corpo to take the blame for being vague and uninformative. Sure, direct, cold, concrete, public data is "best" in the objective sense, but people's feelings and…

Early in my career I tried very hard to "be concrete, cold, and direct" because that's what I thought a good communicator would do. It was seen as attacking to anyone below me and confusing to anyone above me. I was naive and I suffered for it.

I definitely agree with what you're saying here where these words actually do mean something, but it's completely opaque to those outside the "know". I also have found that there's not any better way to express information to those in the group than in this coded language, even if it makes completely no sense to me.

I wish younger me understood that the way I'm being perceived is the only important thing, not choosing the "best" words to technically describe a situation

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

#254
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.

I believe that’s a matinee

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

#255
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is not to be read as a necessarily "bad" thing I (and many others) read it as "dishonesty"

Not exactly? Let's say there are a thousand people there at the town hall. You don't want any of them to leave upset, or even concerned. But they each have different things that will make them concerned and upset. So there are maybe 10,000 tripwires out there, and you don't want to trip any of them. So you're not being dishonest , exactly. You're being nonspecific . You don't want to get down in the weeds and nail do…

"Smooth vagueness" to me comes off as tautologies. If you cannot say anything specific it means either you don't know, or don't want others to know. So it is a lie about ones' competency, or a lie by omission.

It's all dishonesty at the end of the day.

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

#257
post #201

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…

In the test these weren't coded language, they were randomly generated phrases. The finding is that the people who don't know how to decipher the code are easily impressed by it and have poor analytical skills.

The Gervais Principle by the Ribbonfarm guy gets into this: powertalk vs. babytalk

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

the Cornell article is basically just empirical testing of these concepts.

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

#258
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Define sane

best possible outcome for most people

or even best possible outcomes for the shareholders. cuz most of this coded BS is to make some executive's life easier, not to keep the board happy.

if they had a concrete plan they'd say it, and coded signals are only for certain audiences, who in most cases may not be most people, most shareholders, or more employees.

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

#259

I suspect this is why formal languages exist; as a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay, and a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. We are undoing much of this progress by now insisting everything be expressed in natural language for a machine to translate on our behalf, like a tour guide. The natives will continue to speak amongst themselves in their mother tongue.

This observation really resonates with me. I have spent a lot of energy trying to communicate that ditching formal languages for natural language is a terrible idea in some (most?) domains. The power of formal languages comes precisely from their "limitations".

Software is not the output. The output is the theory-building process by which one arrives a formal description of both the problem and (hopefully) the solution. Avoiding the effort to express a problem (or a model of the problem) in a formal language is a self-defeating enterprise.

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

#260

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…

> The Russian language has two different words for what most European languages would describe as lies. One is lozh (ложь), best translated into what we consider to be a lie; something that is the opposite of the truth. There is also vranyo (враньё). Vranyo is more than a simple lie. It is described as: ‘You know I’m lying, and I know that you know, and you know that I know that you know, but I go ahead with a straight face, and you nod seriously and take notes.’

Trump is taking a lesson from Putin. Social media makes this extra easy, as you can bury criticism with a hoard of what-aboutism-bots, redirected arguments, and straight up BS.

see also: https://militairespectator.nl/artikelen/vranyo

Post reply on HN