| General > General Technical Chat |
| Designated "Expert" Forum Users? |
| << < (51/98) > >> |
| Siwastaja:
--- Quote from: rstofer on February 18, 2022, 04:29:52 pm ---I don't deal well with rejection. --- End quote --- Me and my ego can accept very well receiving this: "You are stupid and wrong, you said xxx but really it's yyy, read here why and how..." ESPECIALLY if it is true, and verifiable. If it's putting words in my mouth, then I can at least say so: "I didn't say that, don't play games with me..." This is already harder to swallow: "You are stupid and wrong!" But at least I can reply to it that you are stupid, too. The worst thing is some hit-and-run automation which requires just a button press to nuke me down. Generally, my observation is that engineers "lacking social skills" is codename for engineers lacking social manipulation skills. Most engineers I have worked with are really honest and emotional people deep down. This in understandable, psychopaths and sociopaths try to get into position of managing engineers to their advantage. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: rstofer on February 18, 2022, 04:29:52 pm ---I don't care if people disagree with me, reasonable people can disagree. But down-voting is personal and insulting. --- End quote --- And, unless the vote system intends to represent popularity and nothing else, it is counterproductive. Consider this: What makes disagreements useful? The answer is, discussing the reasons for the disagreements, so that each position can be compared in objective terms to the current case at hand. Hell, we have over two millenia of recorded experience and thoughts on this process. What does downvoting do? It expresses the disagreement in a way that completely avoids the reasons for the disagreements. Consider my earlier coffee break among coworkers/colleagues, discussing some problem, and someone suggests an approach. If one of the participants then says "I disagree", and immediately walks off, how do you interpret the situation? I think the disagreer is a selfish asshole, because they provided no information, just cast doubt on the discussion. Conflict and strife, not help. At minimum, when someone disagrees, they should state the reason why. In a technical environment, the disagreement alone is purely detrimental. Only if it is accompanied with reasoning, can it be evaluated. A simple disagreement without stating any reasons behind it, in my opinion, is dirty social gaming; an appeal for argument from authority; sowing tension and strife, without any constructive elements. Do you want to be a social site, or a technical site where discussions are intended to be constructive and informative? I like it when people disagree with me, and state their reasons. No, I love it. That way I can learn, and better understand things from a new viewpoint. I definitely appreciate a good argument, even if it turns my understanding upside-down and shows just how wrong I was. (Yes, that stings a bit at first, nobody likes being shown wrong, but when one gets over that, the gains in understanding massively overwhelm the initial sting. It is well worth it, in my opinion.) Thus, when 'downvotes' appear on something I believe to be correct, I end up having to do research to verify what it might be about. If I start ignoring the downvotes, I'll be cultivating exactly the attitude I hate. But, without any additional information, it is like being told some code has a bug or a device has a fault –– and absolutely no information on what that bug or fault could be, or how to reproduce it –– and that one should fix it. HOW? My vote for downvoting is thus FUCK NO. --- Quote from: Siwastaja on February 18, 2022, 05:04:18 pm ---Generally, my observation is that engineers "lacking social skills" is codename for engineers lacking social manipulation skills. Most engineers I have worked with are really honest and emotional people deep down. This in understandable, psychopaths and sociopaths try to get into position of managing engineers to their advantage. --- End quote --- Exactly. I even have anecdotal "proof" of this, of sorts: for a few years, I was the bridge between artists and the technological tools. When team members are honest and direct, and trust each others domains of knowledge and experience, you get really good results. Communication isn't an issue, as long as everyone has the courage to be honest and direct, so no social manipulation is involved. (They trusted me, because I told them consistently that nothing was impossible, and instead described the needed work and effort to achieve the result, then suggested alternative options drastically reducing the time and effort needed, perhaps gaining additional useful features, with minimal artistic restrictions. They loved the choices and the control it gave them.) It is when you get a sociopath in the mix, who sees others just as tools or fuel to use to achieve their own goals or worse, as necessary hindrances on their way to fame and/or riches, that the "lack of social skills" claims appear. (Well, also when people are not comfortable with being direct and honest, and instead prefer language that insinuates instead of claims.. but that sort of language is rarely effective or productive in team-internal communications. At that time, it was accepted that Finns tend to be direct in matters of work and academic pursuits, so it was acceptable to require direct and honest talk; but this has drastically changed within the last decade or so.) A particular example is an award-winning sociopathic "artist"/project leader I had the misfortune to work with, that once sent an e-mail to her team of university students working on a project, admonishing them to "try to be real human beings, not just students". I guess it is easier, too, when you consider the local culture inferior to your own, like she definitely did. |
| rstofer:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 18, 2022, 05:20:59 pm ---A particular example is an award-winning sociopathic "artist"/project leader I had the misfortune to work with, that once sent an e-mail to her team of university students working on a project, admonishing them to "try to be real human beings, not just students". I guess it is easier, too, when you consider the local culture inferior to your own, like she definitely did. --- End quote --- Assassination by email - you just have to hate it! There used to be a workgroup leader who, whenever she had a problem, copied everybody in the chain of command clear to the president of the organization. Our group lost before we even knew there was a problem. Perhaps the problem could be easily repaired but perhaps it now took a LONG time to get around to it. First we needed to STUDY the problem, and so forth... A simple stop by my office and we could have solved the problem immediately. I truly hate interoffice email! If I owned a company, it wouldn't even have an internal email system. Deal with the problems personally. I also hated our Rohm phone system which would notify callers if their voice mail had been heard. That way the caller would know when you heard their terribly important message. I made a habit of reviewing the caller information before listening and some messages were never heard. I could delete them without listening! Sometimes you just know somebody is going to jam you up just by the fact that they request a receipt. I am so happy to be retired! |
| SiliconWizard:
Yeah, one thing with email is that you can never assume it's a private exchange, even when you intended it to be. The other person can forward it to others, put them in copy when replying, including hidden copy so you don't even know about it... So using email at the workplace? Do it ONLY if you actually want what you write to be shared to everyone. If not, have a person to person conversation. (Of course they can always repeat what you said to others, but this has nowhere near the same impact as the actual exchange being copied verbatim.) |
| Wallace Gasiewicz:
If you elect experts by vote you have to make sure the vote is accurate and inclusive and people don't vote twice, or more. Using "thanks" would definitely change the meaning of that "thanked" number, making it political. If you appoint experts you get a "Deep State" situation where the person appointed is in a position of authority with little chance of recall. Either way you would be establishing a hierarchy that is counter to the proper functioning of a "Forum" where any thoughts can be expressed. and all opinions are heard by all interested. Anyway "Forum" comes from the Latin name for the place where public speaking for any purpose was tolerated. Do you want to be "Egalitarian" or "Hierarchical" ???? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |