Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mezzanine is the drink with the worm in it; after you get "mezzed", you feel like the worm is eating you from the inside.
No, that’s mescaline (Spanish for tequila).
It was my attempt at a joke.
Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
271–280 of 354 posts
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Also summarised in https://alexdanco.com/2021/01/22/the-michael-scott-theory-of...
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#273Based on how they conducted the test:
- used an IQ / analytical test
- correlated that to whether people cared about flowery language
Generally speaking, analytical people care more about numbers than words, so isn't this more of an 'expected result'?
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#274One word: Retroencabulator.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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'…
In some cases, sure, they're semantically rich, but the result here is that in some cases it doesn't matter whether they are or not, that some people can't tell. That can still be true even if corporate jargon originated and is sometimes still used for rational-ish reasons.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#276It'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, to have an in-group signalling their strategies using coded language.
Is it like when an executive or politician "retires" to spend more time with their friends & family?
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#277The Simpsons helped popularize this theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk8grGedzAw
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Karl Popper in me says: Its barely useful science because its not falsifiable. Its like a horoscope, it applies to everyone. Its closer to a tautology "Its raining or its not" than a contradiction "Its raining and its not". The closer to contradiction limits the possible realities, which makes it better science. Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true.
> Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true. As long as you can define some measure of "worse at their jobs", which corporations routinely do, this seems like an easy thing to falsify. Go get employee eval scores and poll everyone on whether they eat breakfast.
And they did use cognitive tests that were correlated with job performance. If the people did not perform differently on those tests, or performed better on those tests… well there you go. Is it the most rigorous study in the world? Obviously not. Does it indicate what it purports to indicate? It sure does.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#279I read the article and thought it was referring to combining paradigms from different fields to create synergistic effects and was disheartened to hear that wasn't a useful thing to do.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but it’s not clickbait. It accurately reflects the article content, and seemingly, the discussed study’s results.
The Karl Popper in me says: Its barely useful science because its not falsifiable. Its like a horoscope, it applies to everyone. Its closer to a tautology "Its raining or its not" than a contradiction "Its raining and its not". The closer to contradiction limits the possible realities, which makes it better science. Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true.
It looks to me like they designed a test to measure someone’s susceptibility to corporate bullshit, and then administered tests that were correlated with job performance in other studies. If the results were not different on the cognitive tests, then it would be false. If the people who scored higher with their bullshit scores did better on the cognitive tests, then it would be false. If you disagree with the methodology then criticize that, but saying it’s not falsifiable is simply false.