[Talk] Re: [Jobs] [JOB] RoR Developers (4), Orlando, FL | 50-85k

[Nick Simicich]

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 19:45, Danny Rathjens wrote:
> Nick Simicich wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 19:05, Danny Rathjens wrote:
> >>Lawrence Kagan wrote:
> >>>So since you presume, you MUST be correct?  You have the option of
> >>>communicating your ideas without being condescending to your peers.
> >>>Please use that option.
> >>
> >>Just consider it as part of the primate hierarchical dominance games
> >>we all have the instincts to play.
> >>Acting as though you are higher up in the hierarchy is one way of
> >>moving up or maintaining position in the hierarchy. :)
> >>Pointing out other's mistakes is another. :)
> >>Refusing to admit you have made a mistake is a way to help prevent
> >>moving down in the hierarchy. :)
> > 
> > A technique I've used here to get answers for someone whose plain
> > question is not being answered is to answer it - even though I'm doing
> > nothing but reading man pages to do it.  If I'm right, then the person
> > gets their answer.  If I'm wrong, someone is more likely to jump in to
> > put me down than they are to answer the question originally.  They knew
> > the answer but would not be bothered to answer the question - but they
> > will expend effort to point out my error.
> > 
> > In this case, though, "Lawrence Kagan" was doing exactly what he accused
> > me of - he was quoting from someone solely to criticize them...and he
> > wanted to make them wrong so badly that he was willing to quote them in
> > such a way that it distorted what they actually said. 
> > 
> > Personnel peeps and recruiters speak a different language.  Learning to
> > speak it is not hard, all you need is a phrase book.  I've gotten more
> > than one job that others could not get because I could speak personnel. 
> 
> I forgot to mention self-promotion. :)  The "me > others" ploy is an
> oldy but a goody.  I like it because it so clear cut.  "I do something
> well and other people do something poorly; therefore I am higher in the
> hierarchy than all those alleged others."

For this particular thing.  There are lots of things that I do poorly. 
I avoid telling people how to configure X, for example, as I'm really
bad at it and there are plenty of people who know how to configure X
really well.

The point of this list and other lists like them is for people who are
good at something to spread that expertise.  You are somehow saying that
is a bad thing.  Why, then, if you dislike the process, are you here at
all?

The point is that there is really nothing wrong with the process.  There
was nothing wrong with Lawrence originally offering an observation,
whether or not it was grounded in fact, because it is by this process
that we examine such things, and there was nothing wrong with my
pointing out the fact that he had used a common logical fallacy (which
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context) in
quoting out of context.  There was nothing wrong with his taking affont
to my tone, although I'm not convinced I could have said it any
differently and I remain convinced that it was reasonable for me to say
it.

Now, that led me to this quote, which for reasons I can't quite fathom,
seems quite appropriate here:

vox populi 	"voice of the people" 	Sometimes extended to vox populi vox
Dei ("the voice of the people [is] the voice of God"). In its original
context, the extended version means the opposite of what it's frequently
taken to mean: the source is usually given as the monk Alcuin, who
advised Charlemagne that nec audiendi qui solent dicere vox populi vox
Dei quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit, meaning "And
those people should not be listened to who keep saying, 'The voice of
the people [is] the voice of God,' since the riotousness of the crowd is
always very close to madness." (Works, Letter 164)[4]

-- 
Blog: http://majordomo.squawk.com/njs/blog/blogger.html
Atom: http://majordomo.squawk.com/njs/blog/atom.xml
RSS: http://majordomo.squawk.com/njs/blog/atom.rdf