> For example, by pairing an architecture astronaut with a hacker, one may get something sensible, if both survive the encounter. This sounds a lot like my wor

> For example, by pairing an architecture astronaut with a hacker, one may get something sensible, if both survive the encounter. This sounds a lot like my workplace, where we have a shop foreman and fabrication team who tends to just want to build to print and get it shipped on time and at a profit, an engineering team who tends to hyper-optimize and inspect every parameter of the design, and an administration team that prioritizes process following. Left to their own devices, build would throw together something unreplicable and in desperate need of a redesign, engineering would be perpetually making ever more complicated prototypes and never ship anything, and admin would be holding so many meetings to go over so many forms that there would be no time remaining to make any mistakes (or to make anything at all), but together, it's a pretty successful team. Sure, we poke fun at each other in the lunchroom, but it's all good-natured. Perhaps that's a better example of adversarial collaboration than a highly-polarizing gender studies paper...