[extropy-chat] Fw: Deconstruction deconstructed....

[Harvey Newstrom]

Alan Eliasen wrote,
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> 
> > Jef Allbright wrote,
> > 
> >>Stephen Karlsgodt wrote:
> >>
> >>><http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html >
> > 
> > I would fire any engineer that wrote this article.  He makes fun of 
> > things he doesn't understand and assumes that only his own field of 
> > endeavor is worthwhile while other people's knowledge is fake.  He 
> > sounds more like the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert rather 
> than a real engineer.
> 
>    If you find yourself in such a position, please forward me 
> the resume of said fired engineer.  I would be more than 
> happy to hire such a pragmatic engineer who was clearly able 
> to express himself clearly, with a clear flair for language, 
> and had such a wide-based interest in fields outside of 
> engineering that he reads the exchanges, attends the 
> seminars, is confident to present public talks, and attempts 
> to contribute to mass understanding of a rather interesting 
> phenomenon. Firing such people would seem to me to be, to put 
> it gently, counterproductive.

Wow.  Did we read the same article?

This person that you think has interests in other fields attended a
conference that was "an aggressively interdisciplinary gathering, drawing
from fields as diverse as computer science, literary criticism, engineering,
history, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, and political science" and
finds it incomprehensible, saying "The things they said were largely
incomprehensible."  This lead me to conclude that the author was not
interested or familiar with most of the fields he listed.

This person that you think was an accomplished speaker said, "we discovered
that we had grossly mischaracterized the audience by assuming that it would
be like the crowd from the first conference. I spent most of that first day
furiously scribbling notes."  This lead me to conclude that the author was
not prepared and was not confident of his own presentation.

The person you think expressed himself clearly with a flair for language
said, "We retreated back to Palo Alto that evening for a quick rewrite. The
first order of business was to excise various little bits of phraseology....
Then we set about attempting to add something that would be an adequate
response to the postmodern lit crit-speak we had been inundated with that
day. Since we had no idea what any of it meant (or even if it actually meant
anything at all), I simply cut-and-pasted from my notes."  This lead me to
conclude that the author was willing to present material he didn't
understand and fluff it up with buzzwords that he did not comprehend.

This person you believe to be a good source of information also said, "(I
once spoke with a Harvard professor who told me that it is quite easy to get
a Harvard undergraduate degree without ever once encountering a tenured
member of the faculty inside a classroom; I don't know if this is actually
true but it's a delightful piece of slander regardless)."  This lead me to
conclude that the author is willing to pass on information for its affect,
even if the truthfulness of the information is in doubt.

Most of the communication in this article seems to be insulting satire
rather than a serious observation.  For example, when he says, "You get
maximum style points for being French. Since most of us aren't French, we
don't qualify for this one, but we can still score almost as much by writing
in French or citing French sources. However, it is difficult for even the
most intense and unprincipled American academician writing in French to
match the zen obliqueness of a native French literary critic."  This lead me
to believe that the author likes to go off into satirical insults instead of
presenting a serious position.

And in conclusion, after a very lengthy attempt at persuasion, the author
finishes with a not-too-clear conclusion.  He says, "So, what are we to make
of all this? I earlier stated that my quest was to learn if there was any
content to this stuff and if it was or was not bogus. Well, my assessment is
that there is indeed some content, much of it interesting. The question of
bogosity, however, is a little more difficult."  This lead me to conclude
that the author merely wanted to express the various stories and insults and
satires, but that they did not add up to any specific conclusion one way or
the other.

I stand by my statement.  If I had an engineer working for me, and if I sent
him to a conference, and I got reports back that he:
1.  Totally mischaracterized the audience.
2.  Added major rewrites and new material to the presentation the night
before.
3.  Insulted other attendees or made fun of their serious presentations
during his presentation.
4.  Cut and pasted notes from other people's presentations into his own.
5.  Used buzzwords and phrases in his presentation even though he did not
know what they meant.
6.  Was invited to present a serious paper, but presented a comedy routine
or satire paper instead.
7.  Recounted a possibly slanderous anecdote and later admitting that he
didn't know if it were true or not.

I would indeed fire the engineer.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>