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

321–330 of 354 posts

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

#321

Post by vkou »

hunterpayne wrote: post #302
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…

[flagged]

Well, I'm glad that only people who agree with you are rational.

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

#322

Post by [deleted] »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #284
ignoramous wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also summarised in https://alexdanco.com/2021/01/22/the-michael-scott-theory-of...

this reads like an AI clickbait. it does make Rao's original article a little easier to digest but it was already pretty tight through the first 3-4 parts.

[deleted]

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

#323

Post by ludicrousdispla »

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.

Close, it's the part of the cinema where you can purchase popcorn and soft drinks.

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

#325

Post by wiseowise »

zmgsabst wrote: post #316
jjk166 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they're not semantically rich. People who speak the code aren't doing it to more efficiently communicate, such that a long and complicated message can be expressed quickly. They are taking a short simple message, stripping away all the details, then padding it such that it becomes more verbose and vapid. This makes the real message harder to decipher for the uninitiated, it removes information even for those who…

In exactly the sense my HTTPS packets are semantically emptier than my HTTP packets.

Well, if your HTTPS packets are somehow more retarded than your HTTP packets, yes.

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

#326

Post by Brian_K_White »

jvanderbot wrote: post #215
jjk166 wrote: post #201

Earlier 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'…

But the article isn't about people who do the speaking or what their reasons or real meanings are, it's about people who like hearing it.

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

#327

Post by wiseowise »

zmgsabst wrote: post #317
notahacker wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, this is frankly isn't really showing what people think it's showing. The " not bullshit" examples are all manager-speak and coded phrases like "We plan to right-size our manufacturing operations to align to the new strategy and take advantage of integration opportunities." What the study actually shows is that less skilled people find it harder to distinguish this sort of way of saying jobs are being lost or pu…

Or that those “nonsense” phrases are not actually nonsense when spoken by a manager. The conclusion they’re nonsense comes from the random generation and the technical perspective on semantics; but it’s entirely possible they’re generating phrases that do have semantic meaning when said by a manager… and hence their whole study is flawed. They quietly assume their conclusion, when assuming their generated phrases are…

Jesus bro it looks like shit, it smells like shit, it has the same texture – it is shit, you can’t convince me it is a chocolate. The purpose of the corpo speak is to inflate manager ego and fool smooth brains.

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

#328

Post by wiseowise »

Muromec wrote: post #169
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…

Its an interesting take, bit why is this coded ingroup messaging is communicated to outgroup then?

So you can mog primitives with your sacred order practices.

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

#329

Post by zmgsabst »

wiseowise wrote: post #325
zmgsabst wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In exactly the sense my HTTPS packets are semantically emptier than my HTTP packets.

Well, if your HTTPS packets are somehow more retarded than your HTTP packets, yes.

I use HTTPS because it makes my packets “more retarded” than the HTTP version of those packets to anybody without the session key to decrypt the “retarded nonsense”.

That’s literally the whole point of encryption:

Your message becomes unintelligible to those who aren’t able to decode the content.

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

#330

Post by wiseowise »

zmgsabst wrote: post #329
wiseowise wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if your HTTPS packets are somehow more retarded than your HTTP packets, yes.

I use HTTPS because it makes my packets “more retarded” than the HTTP version of those packets to anybody without the session key to decrypt the “retarded nonsense”. That’s literally the whole point of encryption: Your message becomes unintelligible to those who aren’t able to decode the content.

Except encryption isn’t made to protect enlightened few from stupid masses and their “poor” understanding. If you have something secret to say to other managers then just send an email to a mailing list. Assuming that only you and your clique understand the message directed at specific people is an insult to people around you.
Post reply on HN