5 ms·

Nice reformulation. It would be right in some contexts ... but, to me (and I am not a programmer by trade nor do I work in the field), the original quote is exp

Nice reformulation. It would be right in some contexts ... but, to me (and I am not a programmer by trade nor do I work in the field), the original quote is explicit enough that I would trust the person saying it to know what they are talking about, whereas your reformulation would, in many contexts, sounds like what someone would say when they really have no clue (think "pointed-haired" boss).

dgreensp 15y ago
I think that's the point of the reformulation: there's jargon and then there's substance-removing abstraction.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Not knowing the meaning of the first formulation, I can still safely say that it was produced by someone who knows precisely what he's talking about. That breeds confidence. The latter sounds like wall-to-wall bullshit. Not to say that the words don't have meaning, just that they're parked in that infuriating zone favored by people who would generally prefer that you didn't actually understand what they were saying. If all this represents an especially clever or elegant solution, wonderful - talk about that in a way that makes the elegance clear. Or provide the hard information that the first formulation conveys, so that a trusted advisor can evaluate it. Just don't slip into the bullshit zone. Not if you want to maintain goodwill, trust, and confidence. And for what it's worth, smart humans are very good at detecting the difference between actual technicalities, and bullshit. It's got little to do with the domain. It's got a lot to do with the demeanor and tone of the person speaking. The first formulation makes me want to hire the guy. The second makes me want to fire the guy.
  - _dps 15y ago
    I'm not sure how you can "safely say ... [he] knows precisely what he's talking about" while admitting "not knowing the meaning." I think perceiving it as "breeding confidence" is precisely the reason why many business situations where experts' actions must be managed/approved by non-experts result in a flood of impressive-sounding jargon. The deluge of specificity creates a posture of expertise; however,without knowing what the specifics mean you can't possibly evaluate it for truth. There are many equally impressively structured but semantically ridiculous statements, such as "We host our servers on NLTK, serving up EC2 to a browser frontend running varnish and memcached."
    - rhizome 15y ago
      It's almost a shibboleth, these reverse abstractions into understandable English. The more I hear someone jargon it up, the more I think they don't understand what they're talking about. "I like big data!"
    - alexqgb 15y ago
      It's more subtle than that. Looking past the technical terms, the first formulation is very distilled, and cites a specific action. It's an elegant expression. The second one uses fluffery like "performed" instead of "did". And that's what sets off the BS detector.
      - doktrin 15y ago
        I think you missed the point. Why do you perceive statement #1 to be factual? If you have no domain expertise, you have no way to evaluate it. _DPS's example sounds -identical- to someone without domain knowledge, and yet is comically absurd.
        Dylan16807 15y ago
        But that example goes well beyond meaningless buzzword boasting into flat-out lying. This is a bit of a different problem and it's a lot easier to fact check factual statements, with or without domain knowledge.
log6 15y ago
And what is "content-rich content" anyway? The "translation" is still meaningless without domain-knowledge, but is now far less factual. I guess the content is now less content-rich!
rhizome 15y ago
the original quote is explicit enough that I would trust the person saying it to know what they are talking about Which is why (at least) some people do it.

dgreensp 15y ago

I think that's the point of the reformulation: there's jargon and then there's substance-removing abstraction.

alexqgb 15y ago
Not knowing the meaning of the first formulation, I can still safely say that it was produced by someone who knows precisely what he's talking about. That breeds confidence. The latter sounds like wall-to-wall bullshit. Not to say that the words don't have meaning, just that they're parked in that infuriating zone favored by people who would generally prefer that you didn't actually understand what they were saying. If all this represents an especially clever or elegant solution, wonderful - talk about that in a way that makes the elegance clear. Or provide the hard information that the first formulation conveys, so that a trusted advisor can evaluate it. Just don't slip into the bullshit zone. Not if you want to maintain goodwill, trust, and confidence. And for what it's worth, smart humans are very good at detecting the difference between actual technicalities, and bullshit. It's got little to do with the domain. It's got a lot to do with the demeanor and tone of the person speaking. The first formulation makes me want to hire the guy. The second makes me want to fire the guy.
- _dps 15y ago
  I'm not sure how you can "safely say ... [he] knows precisely what he's talking about" while admitting "not knowing the meaning." I think perceiving it as "breeding confidence" is precisely the reason why many business situations where experts' actions must be managed/approved by non-experts result in a flood of impressive-sounding jargon. The deluge of specificity creates a posture of expertise; however,without knowing what the specifics mean you can't possibly evaluate it for truth. There are many equally impressively structured but semantically ridiculous statements, such as "We host our servers on NLTK, serving up EC2 to a browser frontend running varnish and memcached."
  - rhizome 15y ago
    It's almost a shibboleth, these reverse abstractions into understandable English. The more I hear someone jargon it up, the more I think they don't understand what they're talking about. "I like big data!"
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    It's more subtle than that. Looking past the technical terms, the first formulation is very distilled, and cites a specific action. It's an elegant expression. The second one uses fluffery like "performed" instead of "did". And that's what sets off the BS detector.
    - doktrin 15y ago
      I think you missed the point. Why do you perceive statement #1 to be factual? If you have no domain expertise, you have no way to evaluate it. _DPS's example sounds -identical- to someone without domain knowledge, and yet is comically absurd.
      - Dylan16807 15y ago
        But that example goes well beyond meaningless buzzword boasting into flat-out lying. This is a bit of a different problem and it's a lot easier to fact check factual statements, with or without domain knowledge.

log6 15y ago

And what is "content-rich content" anyway? The "translation" is still meaningless without domain-knowledge, but is now far less factual. I guess the content is now less content-rich!

rhizome 15y ago

the original quote is explicit enough that I would trust the person saying it to know what they are talking about Which is why (at least) some people do it.