Rune Allnor wrote:> On 16 Mar, 16:48, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> Apropos management and >> leadership: did anyone think to have a half-hour basic hygiene sit-down >> session with at least the kitchen crew? > > Probably not - until it was decades too late. My *prejudice* on > the matter that these guys are not used to think or to understand; > just to do what they are told. > > If somebody tell them to wear rubber gloves, they wear > rubber gloves. No questions asked. No arguing or discussing. > No decisions to be made. End of story. > > Pyshology and culture.As long as they really do what they're told, there are ways around the problem: 1. Tell them what to do as you would write an algorithm. Be complete and make no assumptions. No appeal to the DWIM key. 2. Tell them to think for themselves. They may find that liberating. 3. When giving a general order, explain its purpose. If the chief believes that's beneath his dignity, he's in the wrong job. Jerry -- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Management and Engineering
Started by ●March 15, 2010
Reply by ●March 16, 20102010-03-16
Reply by ●March 16, 20102010-03-16
On 16 Mar, 18:13, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:> Rune Allnor wrote: > > On 16 Mar, 16:48, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > > >> Apropos management and > >> leadership: did anyone think to have a half-hour basic hygiene sit-dow=n> >> session with at least the kitchen crew? > > > Probably not - until it was decades too late. My *prejudice* on > > the matter that these guys are not used to think or to understand; > > just to do what they are told. > > > If somebody tell them to wear rubber gloves, they wear > > rubber gloves. No questions asked. No arguing or discussing. > > No decisions to be made. End of story. > > > Pyshology and culture. > > As long as they really do what they're told, there are ways around the > problem: > 1. Tell them what to do as you would write an algorithm. Be complete and > make no assumptions. No appeal to the DWIM key.This would almost certainly be percieved as derogatory. And rightly so.> 2. Tell them to think for themselves. They may find that liberating. > 3. When giving a general order, explain its purpose. If the chief > =A0 =A0 believes that's beneath his dignity, he's in the wrong job.You seem to argue from the premise that Homo Sapiens has a free will and is capable of independent thinking. A far more useful premise is to see Homo Sapiens as what it is - a primate that has developed while living in hierachial herds or groups. Homo Sapiens react to percieved authority, be it expressed as personal attitudes, social convention, religious beliefs, political ideas or other philosophies. This "free will and independent thinking" stuff only exists is the western cultural spehere, and first emerged a couple of centuries ago. Totally insignificant compared to the 100.000 years or so Homo Sapiens has exsted. Everywhere else, at all other times, people have lived under rule of authorities, one way or the other. It's a fundamental human trait *not* to question, second- guess, or interpret instructions issued by percieved authorities, and instead do exactly as one is told. It's only madmen like you and me who think freely and speak our minds. No one doing what we do, would have been able to survive anywhere else than in the West, at any time other than after WWII. Rune
Reply by ●March 16, 20102010-03-16
Rune Allnor wrote:> It's only madmen like you and me who think freely and speak > our minds.Dr. Rune, The fact that you are madman who has somewhat different values then most of people doesn't make you independent and free thinker either. You are still a bio robot of the same model. :)))))) BTW, Steve Underwood already recommended a book: R. Cialdini "Psychology of persuasion". I second his recommendation; very enlightening.> No one doing what we do, would have been able to > survive anywhere else than in the West, at any time other than > after WWII.Really? God's fools, shamans, clergy, alchemists and such existed at all times. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●March 17, 20102010-03-17
>steveu wrote: > > ... > >> A law for engineers course is hardly going to substitute for a lawdegree.>> However, I have too often seen engineers stumbling into trouble becauseof>> a complete lack of legal grounding. This is especially true for peoplein>> small organisations, where there is not a strong framework around themto>> protect them. > >All an engineer needs to know about law is that he needs to ask, notassume. This presupposes that people spot when they are assuming. America has some of the more interesting legislation for surprising the unwary engineer. Have you ever looked at engineers after a training session from a lawyer on something like RICO or FCPA for engineers? They typically realise they may have been doing some legally iffy things for years, without even questioning whether there was anything they should be asking questions about.>> I don't know as much about my body as a doctor. However, if I lackedthe>> grounding to even grasp what he is talking about, I would feelextremely>> vulnerable - as indeed I would be in a world where a fair percentage of >> private doctors are about as trustworthy as politicians. > >Sure. Where did you learn enough about your body to understand your >doctor, in hygiene class? In any class? Probably not.Nothing needs to be learned in college. Clearly, anything can be learned in other ways. You and I didn't study DSP at college, because nobody ran DSP courses back then. That didn't stop us learning - in some small part by building the foundations of the DSP business. The key thing with law for engineers is engineers ought to be introduced to its implications at the earliest possible stage. A several hour course as a small part of an engineering degree program seems like the ideal place. Steve
Reply by ●March 17, 20102010-03-17
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:12:44 -0500 "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote:> [snip] > > This presupposes that people spot when they are assuming. America has > some of the more interesting legislation for surprising the unwary > engineer. Have you ever looked at engineers after a training session > from a lawyer on something like RICO or FCPA for engineers? They > typically realise they may have been doing some legally iffy things > for years, without even questioning whether there was anything they > should be asking questions about. > > [snip]Steve, I think if your engineering is violating RICO you're doing it wrong. I've written up many a change order, and none of them have involved the phrase "Have Skinny Mike's knees broken." -- Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology Email address is currently out of order
Reply by ●March 17, 20102010-03-17
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:12:44 -0500 >"steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: > >> [snip] >> >> This presupposes that people spot when they are assuming. America has >> some of the more interesting legislation for surprising the unwary >> engineer. Have you ever looked at engineers after a training session >> from a lawyer on something like RICO or FCPA for engineers? They >> typically realise they may have been doing some legally iffy things >> for years, without even questioning whether there was anything they >> should be asking questions about. >> >> [snip] > >Steve, I think if your engineering is violating RICO you're doing it >wrong. I've written up many a change order, and none of them have >involved the phrase "Have Skinny Mike's knees broken."Various industry standards groups hover on the borders of being legally classified as a Corrupt Organisation. Steve
Reply by ●March 17, 20102010-03-17
steveu wrote:>> steveu wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> A law for engineers course is hardly going to substitute for a law > degree. >>> However, I have too often seen engineers stumbling into trouble because > of >>> a complete lack of legal grounding. This is especially true for people > in >>> small organisations, where there is not a strong framework around them > to >>> protect them. >> All an engineer needs to know about law is that he needs to ask, not > assume. > > This presupposes that people spot when they are assuming. America has some > of the more interesting legislation for surprising the unwary engineer. > Have you ever looked at engineers after a training session from a lawyer on > something like RICO or FCPA for engineers? They typically realise they may > have been doing some legally iffy things for years, without even > questioning whether there was anything they should be asking questions > about. > >>> I don't know as much about my body as a doctor. However, if I lacked > the >>> grounding to even grasp what he is talking about, I would feel > extremely >>> vulnerable - as indeed I would be in a world where a fair percentage of >>> private doctors are about as trustworthy as politicians. >> Sure. Where did you learn enough about your body to understand your >> doctor, in hygiene class? In any class? Probably not. > > Nothing needs to be learned in college. Clearly, anything can be learned in > other ways. You and I didn't study DSP at college, because nobody ran DSP > courses back then. That didn't stop us learning - in some small part by > building the foundations of the DSP business. The key thing with law for > engineers is engineers ought to be introduced to its implications at the > earliest possible stage. A several hour course as a small part of an > engineering degree program seems like the ideal place."Several hours" is an week of evening reading or a seminar, not a course. It seems like a good idea. Jerry -- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 17, 20102010-03-17
>steveu wrote: >>> steveu wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> A law for engineers course is hardly going to substitute for a law >> degree. >>>> However, I have too often seen engineers stumbling into troublebecause>> of >>>> a complete lack of legal grounding. This is especially true forpeople>> in >>>> small organisations, where there is not a strong framework aroundthem>> to >>>> protect them. >>> All an engineer needs to know about law is that he needs to ask, not >> assume. >> >> This presupposes that people spot when they are assuming. America hassome>> of the more interesting legislation for surprising the unwary engineer. >> Have you ever looked at engineers after a training session from a lawyeron>> something like RICO or FCPA for engineers? They typically realise theymay>> have been doing some legally iffy things for years, without even >> questioning whether there was anything they should be asking questions >> about. >> >>>> I don't know as much about my body as a doctor. However, if I lacked >> the >>>> grounding to even grasp what he is talking about, I would feel >> extremely >>>> vulnerable - as indeed I would be in a world where a fair percentageof>>>> private doctors are about as trustworthy as politicians. >>> Sure. Where did you learn enough about your body to understand your >>> doctor, in hygiene class? In any class? Probably not. >> >> Nothing needs to be learned in college. Clearly, anything can be learnedin>> other ways. You and I didn't study DSP at college, because nobody ranDSP>> courses back then. That didn't stop us learning - in some small part by >> building the foundations of the DSP business. The key thing with lawfor>> engineers is engineers ought to be introduced to its implications atthe>> earliest possible stage. A several hour course as a small part of an >> engineering degree program seems like the ideal place. > >"Several hours" is an week of evening reading or a seminar, not a >course. It seems like a good idea.Let's not get into a "my courses are smaller and finer grained than your courses" argument. When I was at college our biggest courses counted for only 1/2 a unit. The whole unit was based on physics degrees, where the unit system started. They run a small number of broadly based courses. The engineering faculty ran many more smaller, more focussed, courses. Everyone had to fit into the physics scheme, to keep the unit system common across the whole university. Steve
Reply by ●March 18, 20102010-03-18
On 17 Mar, 00:18, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> It's a fundamental human trait *not* to question, second- > guess, or interpret instructions issued by =A0percieved > authorities, and instead do exactly as one is told.And, it turns out, it's not only me who happen to have such views. A local news page http://www.abcnyheter.no/verden/100317/torturerte-fordi-det-var-tv?autoplay= =3D1 reports a recent experiment in a TV gameshow setting. The idea is similar to the (in)famous Milgram experiment half a century ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment This time with gameshow participants dealing out misery and mayhem to what they think are adversaries in a gameshow setting. The story contains a comment made by a participant of jewish descent, "Sophie", whose grandparents were persecuted by the nazis: "=96 Helt siden jeg var en liten jente har jeg alltid lurt p=E5 hva som fikk nazistene til =E5 gj=F8re som de gjorde. Hvordan kunne de f=F8lge slike ordre? Og der var jeg, og fulgte ordrene selv" "Since I was a child I always wondered what made the nazis act as they did. How could they obey such orders? And there I was, obeying similar orders." I have seen this story mentioned in a number of international news media the past few hours. Google for something like Milgram + "Zone Extreme" (name of the show) + "France 2" (the TV station that produced the experiment) to find your local version. Rune
Reply by ●March 18, 20102010-03-18
Rune Allnor wrote:> On 17 Mar, 00:18, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote: > >> It's a fundamental human trait *not* to question, second- >> guess, or interpret instructions issued by percieved >> authorities, and instead do exactly as one is told. > > And, it turns out, it's not only me who happen to have such views. > > A local news page > > http://www.abcnyheter.no/verden/100317/torturerte-fordi-det-var-tv?autoplay=1 > > reports a recent experiment in a TV gameshow setting. > The idea is similar to the (in)famous Milgram experiment > half a century ago, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment > > This time with gameshow participants dealing out misery and > mayhem to what they think are adversaries in a gameshow setting. > > The story contains a comment made by a participant of jewish descent, > "Sophie", whose grandparents were persecuted by the nazis: > > "� Helt siden jeg var en liten jente har jeg alltid lurt p� hva som > fikk nazistene til � gj�re som de gjorde. Hvordan kunne de f�lge > slike ordre? Og der var jeg, og fulgte ordrene selv" > > "Since I was a child I always wondered what made the nazis act > as they did. How could they obey such orders? And there I was, > obeying similar orders." > > I have seen this story mentioned in a number of international > news media the past few hours. Google for something like > > Milgram + "Zone Extreme" (name of the show) + "France 2" > (the TV station that produced the experiment) > > to find your local version.Not all of us do -- or would do -- that. I have no sympathy for Sophie or any of the others. Jerry -- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
