3 ms·

Thanks for posting. I wonder if the author's conclusion would differ depending on the subject's relation to this type of incident? For example: - You provide a

Thanks for posting. I wonder if the author's conclusion would differ depending on the subject's relation to this type of incident? For example: - You provide a service in this domain and are aware from the news that this is getting more common - You provide a service in this domain and your customers tell you this is annoying them, and the story has amplified that issue, making things uncomfortable for you - You perceive that you can provide specific value in this kind of situation, as someone who can change the dynamics of the issue with an intervention- or diagnostic-type product or service - You see this news as a way to highlight the additional value of your offering, for example your industry group or union provides additional leverage by vetting or screening Just some thoughts & questions as to interest, scope, and leverage outside that particular office.

jrochkind1 5y ago
you're talking about how it might be different from a recruiter's point of view, thats what you mean by "a service in this domain", "your offering", etc? I'm guessing, not entirely sure what you mean, why not just say so?
- themodelplumber 5y ago
  See how quickly you tried to narrow it down? This is tricky because the scenario seems so easy to contain in a given example, the straw-example-man so to speak. But the point is not the job or intersection of job titles, it's the conversion of scenario into broader principle. The author has started this pathway for us in their post. Abstraction allows one to theorize and stay big-picture more effectively, so if a different but still relevant individual or position comes into play later, the rules aren't instantly outdated. I wouldn't limit a message or rule to a position like "recruiter" if I wasn't sure that's exactly who I wanted to speak to, because that just leaks leverage all over the place. And also, I'm thinking of many different positions, possibly hundreds, not just the poor recruiter... They do get a lot of flak :D
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about ("leaks leverage" what? what even is a "services" in the "domain" of... interviewing?), but ok.
    - themodelplumber 5y ago
      You used the word "just" in both replies. It's a word that often comes up when a new way of thinking or a new angle may be discussed. But "just" is almost always that word which demands that past understanding be brought forward. It will block new insight. (It is a great word for communicating, "if it's not simple to understand, and if it's even this inscrutable, then how can it be true" which is a kind of fantasy-fallacy.) If you have a question about new information, and if it's out of legit interest, it's better to stay away from "just" unless you are firmly on the side of life being mansplainably simple in any given case. At this point it's too weird to go into the rest though, as if to convince you that I have great ideas. I'm not exactly some kind of employment wizard and I'm not writing for an audience. "Leaking leverage" ought to be metaphorically simple enough to puzzle out with some interest in the problem...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jrochkind1 5y ago
        You can eliminate the word "just" from my sentence, I agree it makes it a stronger sentence, thanks for the edit. You don't seem to be writing to be understood, which is of course your right, but I feel foolish for trying to understand now.
        themodelplumber 5y ago
        > You don't seem to be writing to be understood, which is of course your right Okay, that's quite a projection. I think it's better to admit that this is your assumption, maybe even informationally based on someone saying they aren't writing for an audience. This layer of interpretation carrying some emotive personal confirmation is getting in your own way. You feel pain, emotional suffering, look I'm doing my best but this whole topic was derailed by trying to take the original comment off into a single, assumptive concrete example way too fast. IMO you are also writing for yourself here whether you know it or not. Read it over. Better to embrace that aspect. It may be a new and frustrating type of discussion for you, I get that. If you stay with the abstractions, build up from there without assumptions, I don't think this would be an issue.

jrochkind1 5y ago

you're talking about how it might be different from a recruiter's point of view, thats what you mean by "a service in this domain", "your offering", etc? I'm guessing, not entirely sure what you mean, why not just say so?

themodelplumber 5y ago
See how quickly you tried to narrow it down? This is tricky because the scenario seems so easy to contain in a given example, the straw-example-man so to speak. But the point is not the job or intersection of job titles, it's the conversion of scenario into broader principle. The author has started this pathway for us in their post. Abstraction allows one to theorize and stay big-picture more effectively, so if a different but still relevant individual or position comes into play later, the rules aren't instantly outdated. I wouldn't limit a message or rule to a position like "recruiter" if I wasn't sure that's exactly who I wanted to speak to, because that just leaks leverage all over the place. And also, I'm thinking of many different positions, possibly hundreds, not just the poor recruiter... They do get a lot of flak :D
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about ("leaks leverage" what? what even is a "services" in the "domain" of... interviewing?), but ok.
  - themodelplumber 5y ago
    You used the word "just" in both replies. It's a word that often comes up when a new way of thinking or a new angle may be discussed. But "just" is almost always that word which demands that past understanding be brought forward. It will block new insight. (It is a great word for communicating, "if it's not simple to understand, and if it's even this inscrutable, then how can it be true" which is a kind of fantasy-fallacy.) If you have a question about new information, and if it's out of legit interest, it's better to stay away from "just" unless you are firmly on the side of life being mansplainably simple in any given case. At this point it's too weird to go into the rest though, as if to convince you that I have great ideas. I'm not exactly some kind of employment wizard and I'm not writing for an audience. "Leaking leverage" ought to be metaphorically simple enough to puzzle out with some interest in the problem...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      You can eliminate the word "just" from my sentence, I agree it makes it a stronger sentence, thanks for the edit. You don't seem to be writing to be understood, which is of course your right, but I feel foolish for trying to understand now.
      - themodelplumber 5y ago
        > You don't seem to be writing to be understood, which is of course your right Okay, that's quite a projection. I think it's better to admit that this is your assumption, maybe even informationally based on someone saying they aren't writing for an audience. This layer of interpretation carrying some emotive personal confirmation is getting in your own way. You feel pain, emotional suffering, look I'm doing my best but this whole topic was derailed by trying to take the original comment off into a single, assumptive concrete example way too fast. IMO you are also writing for yourself here whether you know it or not. Read it over. Better to embrace that aspect. It may be a new and frustrating type of discussion for you, I get that. If you stay with the abstractions, build up from there without assumptions, I don't think this would be an issue.