|
Wasn't Einstein the same one to say "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"?
modified 15-Jun-18 18:29pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I think he was and I only used Einstein as the example genius because so many people know him. This story is really about the self-styled Einsteins who believe they are geniuses. 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get it.
Why wouldn't you just myxl targ plinkle gop to onkatik shoosilfar like he says? 
I think the proper response would be gobble da undink raba shuna.
I mean, the guy's a genius and you're just rude 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I think the proper response would be gobble da undink raba shuna.
Perhaps, if you happen to be Jabba the Hutt.
And now you should say something like 'Bring me Solo! And the Wookiee!'
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Bring me Solo! And the Wookiee!
|
|
|
|
|
So it was you who actually went to see that movie.
Obligatory cat picture[^]
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
You've transcended!! Genius!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Or, you know, acknowledge the fact that he claims a need for the myxl targ plinkle gop to onkatik shoosilfar.
Write it down, along with the general context of the conversation, and research the variations of myxl targ plinkle gop to onkatik shoosilfar before assessing the value of the need.
If it turns out to be redundant in your own assessment, reconvene on a later date with the myxl targ plinkle gop to onkatik shoosilfar as requested and a working alternative addressing your own concerns.
With both options present, have an objective cost/benefit analysis, and pick the best one together.
If he defends the objectively worst option based on an emotional claim, you stab him with a knife.
|
|
|
|
|
A reasoned and balanced approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Einstein: Imagination is more important than knowledge
Is this why I can't imagine why some things just don't work the way they are supposed to?
Now the phrase "I need the myxl targ plinkle gop to onkatik shoosilfar." makes much more sense, it is a string of muttered expletives. I do this all the time.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: "I need the myxl targ plinkle gop to onkatik shoosilfar."*
To which I will reply in the words of "Weird Al" Yankovic:
"It's unintel-ligible
I just can't get it through my skull
It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss(?)
With all these marbles in my mouth" - Smells Like Nirvana
|
|
|
|
|
It's also possible that Einstein has developed expressive aphasia, you have developed impressive aphasia, or both. Aphasia[^] is a common result after a transient ischemic attack (TIA)[^] or cerebrovascular accident (CVA)[^], more commonly known as stroke.
Unfortunately I'm intimately familiar with this concept, as Mrs. Wife had two strokes a few years ago 
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: It's also possible that Einstein has developed expressive aphasia, you have developed impressive aphasia,
That's really interesting and another good possibility.
Another poster mentioned that Einstein must surely be having a stroke.
Communication between two people is wrought with difficulty and prone to error.
The Internet was supposed to fix this.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Communication between two people is wrought with difficulty and prone to error.
Interestingly, my wife's written speech (in the form of Facebook posts) is quite a bit more 'fluent' than her spoken speech. She knows the words she wants to use, she just can't remember how to say them some times.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: my wife's written speech (in the form of Facebook posts) is quite a bit more 'fluent' than her spoken speech
When done correctly, writing is the superior form of communication. IMO.
I'd rather read a good book on a subject than watch video in most cases. PluralSight is really good, but most of the time I have to crank up the speed the presenter speaks at.
With books I can flip through until I find the part I want. 
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly enough, I have developed a theory base for this "use case"/situation...
It's called Triality Theory and it posits three levels of consciousness...
The point is that when you're at a higher level of consciousness/understanding/perception others at lower levels cannot gnarsh/understand/see.
Getting from one level to another is a difficult chore/adventure/odyssey...
The problem isn't so much as the higher consciousness person getting mad/frustrated/etc but rather the need to develop a common ground so that they meet together and can elevate the lower to the higher level.
This has been an historic problem throughout human history. And it is very prevalent in software and software development.
Think of you standing high up the side of a mountain...What all can you see? A lot! Now think of a person standing at the base of the mountain, and enshrouded in fog...What can he/she see? Not as much. Now, think of how you can possibly explain your magnificent vista to the lower elevation view person who sees mostly fog? How do you do this? And think about how long it took you to trek up the side of the mountain to your present vantage point.
Now think about the guy/gal up above you, much higher up the mountain...What can they see? And what can they see that you cannot? And how much higher you have to trek up the mountain to get to gnarsh/understand/see their view/viewpoint/perspective/understanding?
Triality Theory explains this all and how to move upwards efficiently between levels. I am still writing the book but should be finished with it by the end of this year.
I have yet to put a website up...It's on my list of things to do. If you are interested in this, just contact me. If there is interest on specifically how to apply this to software and software dev I'd be happy to consider a series of articles here on Code Project to start explaining.
- Cary Grant Anderson
Note to Future Historians: I think that this was the first mention of Triality Theory on the web...
|
|
|
|
|
|
So,
You assume that he knows what his audience knows... Without previous interactions?
I say this because as an intelligent person who understands complex topics, including some of the quantum mechanics, etc...
I can tell you that WITHOUT interrogating your audience, it is NEAR impossible to know what they understand on any given topic. To this day, I meet people who don't know what "Calculus" means (assuming it is math related, as opposed to the generic definition as used in the Calculus of Set Theory).
One of the proofs that a Generic Proofing Algorithm cannot be written literally says "Because either the machine will have to assume too little, and therefore cannot solve complex proofs over its horizon, or it will assume too much, and will get caught in loops that don't get to the solution"...
That sentence was garbled to me... And as a receiver of a message, I have a DUTY to let the sender know that it was not understood. Human interactions are full of this. Walk up to someone and start talking to them in a foreign language. You will instantly be greeted by visual clues that they don't understand.
Also, don't confuse genius in ANY ONE area with the ability to communicate effectively. They are two separate skills. You don't expect the worlds strongest man competitors to know Concentric Geometries, nor do you expect math geniuses to know the effects of carbohydrate starvation/loading on a body builders physique...
Finally, the adaptability of the English language, in particular, is such that any complex field develops it's own Jargon. Try asking someone who has barely used a computer if they know if that is a PC or a MAC and if it has a CD-ROM or USB boot option in the BIOS.
Then ask yourself how many of those "words" would have utterly confused Einstein himself?
therefore, he must not be a genius, or the inquisitor must not be intelligent?
|
|
|
|
|
All very good points. This is about the self-styled Geniuses who say their thing and then say, "You see that I'm right about this? Of course, I have explained this thoroughly and clearly? Any idiot would understand what I'm saying because I've made it so plain? Everyone else will find it to be genius and clear and perfect and right so I'm sure you see it the same way, right?"
At this point the inquisitor has the choice to fight like crazy or nod her head, hum a little tune and go on her way.
And, because of history the inquisitor knows that even if she explains the challenges to the genius solution then the Genius will simple wave his hands and say, "no, no. that is not a problem at all. Anyone can see as plain as day that those things will never happen."
La-la-la-do-ti-do-la (nodding head, humming tune, walking away) 
|
|
|
|
|
Let me offer you a better way to deal with the genius...
The Professorial Walk... (Using the old Socratic Method) of asking questions...
First, never think it bad to admit to ignorance (lack of knowledge due to lack of exposure), it differs greatly from stupidity (lack of ability to grasp when exposed to knowledge).
This is an approach:
Genius: So it is obvious that we must do X.
Me: What other things did you consider before you decided X?
...
Me: Who else was involved in that decision to pick X?
...
(let them build their case... It makes breaking their legs more effective later).
Me: I noticed you did not discuss Y as an approach, why not?
...
Me: So, are you admitting you did not talk to enough people THEN, or you want to ignore everyone else now that you made your mind up?
Leave the Genius alone. Attack his ideas. Attack his thought process. Attack the things he ignored. There is NO DECISION made that did not ignore some details.
Also, during this time, it is best to AGREE with the decision. Watch Columbo a few times. He agrees, and this disarms the bad guy... Then he asks the question the guy does not want to hear.
BTW, if you listen well enough to any "Genius" they will literally tell you what question they DONT want you to ask... Ask THAT question. And truly listen to what they cover up next. Ask THAT question...
As an example, I had more of an Idiot boss. We published code that broke the printing for all of our customers. It had to do with a driver difference, we fixed it in 4 hours! But the customer suffered 4-6 hours of issues. He kept demanding to know WHO caused the bug. As the manager, I said it is my team, it is my fault. Not good enough. Who? I asked why? so we can punish them? "No, No... So it does not happen again"... Then fine, blame me, I am already making sure it does not happen again.
He would not relent. I walked him into the Owners office, who proceeded to ask me "Why not disclose this?" I replied "Because this idiot will use it to punish the programmer, declare some management level BS and guarantee that because of this one mistake, we will cut our development speed to 10% of what it is today, so every programmer can avoid being called out".
He lied and said that was not the point at all.
The owner asked... Then why do you care who actually caused it?
The owner sided with me. This guy was gone within 6 months, and our software continued to make great strides. I would NEVER have let anyone know who caused this, because I AM RESPONSIBLE for the good and the bad, and protecting my team comes first. I would have lost my job GLADLY over it.
Find that ONE nugget that they really are trying to hide. He was trying to hide WHY he needed to know. These guys you mention are hiding their lack of knowledge, and from a management perspective, they are hiding the ACTUAL RISK of doing it X... Especially if X is leading edge.
If you can link X with something that failed in the past that management did not understand, but were CONVINCED by a genius they had to do... You can kill anything!
Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
|
That is all fantastic. Great stories to back up the ideas too.
Thanks very much for sharing that.
Also I love the Socratic method and do use it though not as well as I hope to.
And props to you for being a true leader and standing up for your people and your process. It is a very rare thing out in in corporate-land. 
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. I have paid some heavy prices in other situations, but the company was better for the decisions made.
I hope you can find something. And realize the point is NOT to win the day, and prove the Genius is peddling Snake Oil... the point is that you can freely admit ignorance, and appeal to the vanity of the Genius... to make him explain himself. Start small. Enough to engage and dig a little. Don't try to win, let him know you will ask questions...
Imagine some day management comes to you and asks you why you are questioning this... And you find out they have similar concerns but are told it's because they don't understand...
Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
|
I do not understand your questions and remarks; it's completely clear ...
Of course he need his myxl trag plinklegop.
Because who don't want to onkatik shoosilfar?
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you say that...
I talked to 2 customers who said they left the last company because the "plinklegop" was forced on them, and it never worked... They had to spend days reconciling their accounting, and started fearing Sarbanes-Oxley violations... But if MANAGEMENT is good with that risk... I say go for it!
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
