5 ms·
It's suspiciously similar to the "hairy arms" of Disney lore: > So the story goes that probably a long while ago - probably in the '30s or '40s - they had a le
by blotter_paper 7y ago
It's suspiciously similar to the "hairy arms" of Disney lore:
> So the story goes that probably a long while ago - probably in the '30s or '40s - they had a lead animators, but they also had creative directors. And when the lead animators would make concept designs, meaning, like, character development, they'd be so proud of these characters. And they would go to their art directors, and their art directors would change something constantly even though they thought it was their best work.
> So what they realized after working with these art directors - that what they hated the most was anything added to the character, especially hair on the arms 'cause this is, you know, '30s and '40s. Things had to look very slick. So what they did was to distract the art directors from making other changes, they would automatically put hair on the arms of each character.
https://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364760847/whats-with-all-of-the-hairy-arms-in-graphic-design https://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364760847/whats-with-all-of-t...
Though both stories could be true, it's also possible that somebody familiar with the Disney story created another narrative based on it. I'm not even sure that the Disney version is real, but I'd give it a higher likelihood.
- radarsat1 7y agoHeh, my supervisor from a postdoc liked to call that a "shit magnet". Put something egregious in an article so the reviewers have something to complain about. It sounds ethically dubious but if you think about it, it also makes some sense -- reviewers are engaged specifically to find problems in your work -- so if they don't find problems, they feel like they are not doing their job. So it's not in their interests to ever say, "this is fine, nothing to change." A shit magnet thus is not just to distract, but to legitimately give reviewers an "out" while saving face.
- nn3 7y agoWhere I work the strategy is called "throwing a bone to the dog" during a technical review.
- taneq 7y agoHappens in all different contexts. If you've ever had to take a car over the pits to get it re-registered or get a defect notice removed, you might have been given the advice to take out one of the tail-light globes. Then the inspectors feel useful because they have something to write down, it's trivial for you to 'fix', and everyone's happy.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- catalogia 7y agoI'd bet on this strategy being independently discovered by frustrated subordinates many times through history. Not unlike birds, bats and bugs independently evolving flight.
- blotter_paper 7y agoThat seems quite probable to me as well, but one or both of these specific examples might be fabrications with that still being the case.