5 ms·

It would be interesting to see what exactly Urs said about this guy, in what context, what this guy's personality is, etc. Being an "old fuddy-duddy," while wit

It would be interesting to see what exactly Urs said about this guy, in what context, what this guy's personality is, etc. Being an "old fuddy-duddy," while without a settled meaning, I think basically is a way of saying that an old person is acting childish or unprofessional. If that's so, one easy way not to run afoul of the law is to say that the person acts childishly or unprofessionally. Of course, you should also document concrete examples of the same. For example, if the person in question frequently shoots down proposals in meetings by saying the moral equivalent of, "That's not how we did it back at Bell Labs," just say that. Also, saying the guy's ideas are "too old to matter" is a dick move IMO. If you want to abandon rational explanations for why you don't like someone's ideas, just say, "We're not going to do that, end of discussion." No need to get personal. This goes back to my personal doctrine of trying to say exactly what I mean. I find that some people try to solve problems by saying things designed to get a person to do what they want, but without being direct about it. On more than one occasion I've observed this has led to hurt feelings where I think the direct approach -- just ask for what you want -- would not. For example, if your coworker bothers you while you are trying to work, "Hey, could we talk later? I am trying to work," would probably be received a lot better than, "Damn, dude, you talk a lot." This example is contrived but I have observed concrete cases not too different from this a number of times. Anyway, hopefully no one reading this article is stressing out about not having a demographically appropriate workforce, because it seems very unlikely that alone will be enough to get you into trouble.

paul 16y ago
It'd difficult for me to imagine anyone at Google (at least in that era) using the term "fuddy-duddy". None of the quotes sound like anything I ever heard or over-heard, which of course doesn't prove anything, but it's not the culture that I ever observed.
- grellas 16y ago
  When things reach a lawsuit stage, they often take on a surreal air and become increasingly disconnected from what is likely to have happened in fact. Lawyers embellish, witnesses develop convenient memories, and those with a motive or agenda will tend to shade their testimony in ways that promote their case (on one side or the other), whether or not this conforms with exactly what might have happened. I don't mean by this that most people intentionally perjure themselves (they usually don't). I mean only that, once it all goes through the lawsuit grinder, what emerges may or may not be recognizable to those who actually went through the experience or who know the environment. Often, it isn't. Just a sad fact of life of what happens when people start fighting in the courts.
  - todayiamme 16y ago
    That might be the case, but another thing that might be at work over here is that people do have biases/prejudices that they are unwilling to expose in front of others. Someone smart enough can easily hide their real feelings on a subject in most situations, but as soon as they get annoyed, threatened or angry it starts to come tumbling out. Perhaps, over here he simply encountered a few people with unresolved issues and got a raw deal because of it. On the other hand, this happened when Google was relatively young an interesting question is, what happens in large organizations? When you hire people they tend to bring their baggage in them. So, now the question becomes how can a culture be created that allows people to transcend their prejudices? I just don't know.
- chc 16y ago
  It's hard for me to imagine anyone using the term who couldn't be called one himself. It's really old-fashioned language. "Dinosaur" or "old coot" are more what I'd imagine someone my age saying to communicate the same idea.
  - snprbob86 16y ago
    I don't know what your age is, but as a 20-something, I can confirm that "Dinosaur" is an extremely popular term for this in my circles. It's particularly common among my Microsoftie friends to refer to executive leadership. However, I've personally starting using the term "Crustacean" to refer to the dinosaurs who just refuse to go extinct.
    - palish 16y ago
      Just because their ideas are different than yours, and they happen to be old, you call them "crustaceans"? Am I correctly reading what you wrote?
      - houseabsolute 16y ago
        Presumably the ideas must also be old. ;)
        palish 16y ago
        Okay but that right there is where people discriminate. Unintentional or not, it's still discrimination. Just because a person or idea is "old" does not make it somehow inherently negative. If you have to comment on age to argue against something that isn't edible or lovable, then you really have no argument at all.
        ithkuil 16y ago
        I completely agree with you, I also started to fear for my future as I'm entering in my 30ties, collecting experience and getting better and better every day. Yes, probably I loose some of my concentration and speed, multitasking capability etc as I get older but I feel to be able to see things better, have a better intuition, solve big problems quicker than before, by far (while taking longer to solve smaller problems, like algorithmic tests etc which require more concentration, but it could be also caused by the fact that I work too much and I'm simply too tired). I don't think that performance and idea degradation seen in some older people is about physical age, but because perhaps of their particular personality, for example if they are prisoners of they experience at the point that they are unwilling to challenge them. I'm not going to say here that there is a misunderstanding, that it's a social problem, that younger people also play their role into cutting off older people from their ideas and are part of this descending spiral. Because they are older professionals (I work with software engineers, but I guess it's similar in other tech fields) whose ideas are fossilized, which don't want to learn anything new, which don't have any stimula left, which work by inertia. Those people are there, for real, and even if I have no idea which is the ratio of bright/inert older professionals, I wouldn't expect it be drastically different from the ratio of bright/dumb younger guys. So the whole thing appears to me as a perfect place to abuse in both directions, discriminating good people and unfair accusing of discrimination. No idea how to solve it. On the other hand I heard that google is happy to hire not-so-young people, so I'm not sure that their corporate culture is really orbiting around the "20 years old bright people" standard I read about around the blogosphere.
patio11 16y ago
demographically appropriate workforce This is a wonderful, terrifying neologism that I haven't heard before. Has it entered common use yet?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
kscaldef 16y ago
> Being an "old fuddy-duddy," while without a settled meaning, I think basically is a way of saying that an old person is acting childish or unprofessional Hmm... that's almost exactly the opposite of what I think of when I hear that term. To me it conjures up someone who is overly serious, doesn't have any fun, and doesn't want to let anyone else have fun either.
- TheSOB88 16y ago
  Those aren't mutually exclusive... people trying to be overly serious can't have childish (selfish/ignorant) or unprofessional behavior?

paul 16y ago

It'd difficult for me to imagine anyone at Google (at least in that era) using the term "fuddy-duddy". None of the quotes sound like anything I ever heard or over-heard, which of course doesn't prove anything, but it's not the culture that I ever observed.

grellas 16y ago
When things reach a lawsuit stage, they often take on a surreal air and become increasingly disconnected from what is likely to have happened in fact. Lawyers embellish, witnesses develop convenient memories, and those with a motive or agenda will tend to shade their testimony in ways that promote their case (on one side or the other), whether or not this conforms with exactly what might have happened. I don't mean by this that most people intentionally perjure themselves (they usually don't). I mean only that, once it all goes through the lawsuit grinder, what emerges may or may not be recognizable to those who actually went through the experience or who know the environment. Often, it isn't. Just a sad fact of life of what happens when people start fighting in the courts.
- todayiamme 16y ago
  That might be the case, but another thing that might be at work over here is that people do have biases/prejudices that they are unwilling to expose in front of others. Someone smart enough can easily hide their real feelings on a subject in most situations, but as soon as they get annoyed, threatened or angry it starts to come tumbling out. Perhaps, over here he simply encountered a few people with unresolved issues and got a raw deal because of it. On the other hand, this happened when Google was relatively young an interesting question is, what happens in large organizations? When you hire people they tend to bring their baggage in them. So, now the question becomes how can a culture be created that allows people to transcend their prejudices? I just don't know.
chc 16y ago
It's hard for me to imagine anyone using the term who couldn't be called one himself. It's really old-fashioned language. "Dinosaur" or "old coot" are more what I'd imagine someone my age saying to communicate the same idea.
- snprbob86 16y ago
  I don't know what your age is, but as a 20-something, I can confirm that "Dinosaur" is an extremely popular term for this in my circles. It's particularly common among my Microsoftie friends to refer to executive leadership. However, I've personally starting using the term "Crustacean" to refer to the dinosaurs who just refuse to go extinct.
  - palish 16y ago
    Just because their ideas are different than yours, and they happen to be old, you call them "crustaceans"? Am I correctly reading what you wrote?
    - houseabsolute 16y ago
      Presumably the ideas must also be old. ;)
      - palish 16y ago
        Okay but that right there is where people discriminate. Unintentional or not, it's still discrimination. Just because a person or idea is "old" does not make it somehow inherently negative. If you have to comment on age to argue against something that isn't edible or lovable, then you really have no argument at all.
        ithkuil 16y ago
        I completely agree with you, I also started to fear for my future as I'm entering in my 30ties, collecting experience and getting better and better every day. Yes, probably I loose some of my concentration and speed, multitasking capability etc as I get older but I feel to be able to see things better, have a better intuition, solve big problems quicker than before, by far (while taking longer to solve smaller problems, like algorithmic tests etc which require more concentration, but it could be also caused by the fact that I work too much and I'm simply too tired). I don't think that performance and idea degradation seen in some older people is about physical age, but because perhaps of their particular personality, for example if they are prisoners of they experience at the point that they are unwilling to challenge them. I'm not going to say here that there is a misunderstanding, that it's a social problem, that younger people also play their role into cutting off older people from their ideas and are part of this descending spiral. Because they are older professionals (I work with software engineers, but I guess it's similar in other tech fields) whose ideas are fossilized, which don't want to learn anything new, which don't have any stimula left, which work by inertia. Those people are there, for real, and even if I have no idea which is the ratio of bright/inert older professionals, I wouldn't expect it be drastically different from the ratio of bright/dumb younger guys. So the whole thing appears to me as a perfect place to abuse in both directions, discriminating good people and unfair accusing of discrimination. No idea how to solve it. On the other hand I heard that google is happy to hire not-so-young people, so I'm not sure that their corporate culture is really orbiting around the "20 years old bright people" standard I read about around the blogosphere.

patio11 16y ago

demographically appropriate workforce This is a wonderful, terrifying neologism that I haven't heard before. Has it entered common use yet?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

kscaldef 16y ago

> Being an "old fuddy-duddy," while without a settled meaning, I think basically is a way of saying that an old person is acting childish or unprofessional Hmm... that's almost exactly the opposite of what I think of when I hear that term. To me it conjures up someone who is overly serious, doesn't have any fun, and doesn't want to let anyone else have fun either.

TheSOB88 16y ago
Those aren't mutually exclusive... people trying to be overly serious can't have childish (selfish/ignorant) or unprofessional behavior?