You can divide people into two types. Those that do things that are original and those that don't do anything original but critisize the original work of the first "type".
I noticed on these forums recently a number of people who "judge" others such as the eminent scientist.
I'm an engineer in my professional life and have "superiors" who have never created anything in their lives. It's interesting because they don't appreciate the complexity of a project and therefore are annoyed when they add a "requirement" near the end of a project and it takes a long time to "incorporate" it.
This occurs more in "government" establishments compared to "commercial" establishments but is , i believe, an accurate observation. What do you think? 
I suppose I'm definitely an original, even when I judge others' ideas, it is usually judging how well they could be incorporated into something new or an improvement to something I've already been thinking of.
Judgers do have their uses though. They keep us dreamers grounded closer to reality, making us more productive because we spend less time on impossible projects.
OC
Has someone told you that they thought what you were trying to do is impossible?
| chasbeen wrote: |
OC
Has someone told you that they thought what you were trying to do is impossible? |
Many times!I've got a perfect example, and sorry about the rant here, but I really need to vent, and this topic seems perfect.
I've been an amateur photographer for years. I've always got a camera handy and I'm the one who usually takes all the snapshots at family events. I've even sold some of my photos in online stock libraries. So, recently I've been really studying up on photography, learning new techniques, really improving my shots, and I think I can make a go at it professionally.
Now, I'm not talking about quitting my day job, but I want to invest in a moderately priced lighting set up so I can take more shots for stock, and I've got family members who are more than willing to model for me. The world's top stock photographer sells over 500million licenses a year, and he only started selling three years ago, and he sells through some of the same stock agencies I do. I know that I'm not very likely to make it to his level, but I can certainly supplement our household income.
So I tell my husband what I have in mind, that I want to use the $130 I've made so far with my photos to buy equipment so I can take better photos and make more money. Does he support me? No!
He tells me that I'm dreaming, and that we'd be better off putting that money toward paying bills. It's not like I want to take out a second mortgage so I can rent a studio and buy tons of equipment or anything.
It makes me so angry. I have an idea, a dream, and it's not an unreasonable one. He doesn't understand the world of photography, he has no interest in it, so I guess he thinks it's like me wanting to go to Hollywood and star in a movie out of the blue. He thinks it's a pipe dream, and he just won't listen when I try to tell him how it actually works, and that it's a reasonable goal, and a good investment for my money.
I know I'm not gonna be the next Yuri Arcurs, and I'm not trying to be. I just wanna try making a little money doing something I enjoy. Is it too much to ask for a little support?
/rant
Again, sorry... I just had to get that out of my system.
Oh, and if you're wondering, I'm buying the equipment anyway. If he won't listen, I'll just have to show him.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Judgers do have their uses though. They keep us dreamers grounded closer to reality, making us more productive because we spend less time on impossible projects. |
I'm original, most people on this forum probably is if they design and create their own websites, more then half the time i like to be judged, some opinions help, some don't. | chasbeen wrote: |
| You can divide people into two types. |
No, you really can't. People have been trying to do that since at least as far back as recorded history can tell us: trying to divide people into pat little groups of "us" vs. "them". It doesn't work, and it never has. People are far too wonderfully complex and variable to be able to put them neatly into little groups. You can't even cleanly group people into "man" vs. "woman"... hell, you can't even cleanly group them into "dead" vs. "alive", or "human" vs. "non-human"! People are just too complicated, and you are doing them a disservice by trying to slam them into two arbitrary little groups.
In this particular case, your two groups don't take into account people who both "create" and "judge", or people who neither "create" nor "judge"... and that's just to start. You don't even consider why people "create" and/or "judge" - it may be the case that someone who cannot "create" finds that they can at least help out the creation process by "judging" designs to weed out those that can't possibly work. Are those people "judges" or "creators"? That depends on your personal point of view, doesn't it?
And all of that is still not to mention that part of the creative process is to "judge"! You can't "create" unless you "judge" - and anyone that has created anything can tell you that. Necessity is the mother of invention after all. Creation starts by looking at existing designs and ideas and saying, "well, this is good, and this is good, but i think this is unnecessary, so let's see if i can come up with a design that doesn't use it...". Nobody starts out trying to create something that is worse than what is already out there - they start by judging what is available as imperfect and trying to make either an improvement, or an alternate choice.
And all of that is still not to mention that a "creator" really benefits from having a good "judge" around. i have worked as an engineer both on projects that i was free to chat about and on projects that i had to keep secret - and it is so much easier when you can go to another person (not even necessarily an engineer!) and say, "What do you think about this idea?" and get real feedback. A simple, "You forgot about _____" or "That won't work because of _____" can save you hours - sometimes days of work.
| chasbeen wrote: |
You can divide people into two types. Those that do things that are original and those that don't do anything original but critisize the original work of the first "type".
I noticed on these forums recently a number of people who "judge" others such as the eminent scientist.
I'm an engineer in my professional life and have "superiors" who have never created anything in their lives. It's interesting because they don't appreciate the complexity of a project and therefore are annoyed when they add a "requirement" near the end of a project and it takes a long time to "incorporate" it.
This occurs more in "government" establishments compared to "commercial" establishments but is , i believe, an accurate observation. What do you think? |
i'll tell you what i think in the form of a story.
Once upon a time, there were two inventors: Fred and George. Both were trying to create something new and exciting, and both came up with very interesting - but different - ideas on the same day.
Fred went to his friend Barney and showed him his design. Barney looked it over and said it was clever and interesting. Encouraged, Fred went back to his lab and got to work on the design.
Meanwhile George went to his friend Gracie, and showed her his design. Gracie looked it over, and handed him a long list of flaws in the design, explaining in detail what would work and what would not, and why. George was disheartened, but he took Gracie's list and went back to the drawing board.
Fred and George met up to discuss their work, and George told Fred how Gracie had dumped on his design. Fred said: "That's too bad, George, you should find a better friend. My friend Barney would never be so critical and demotivating to me."
Several times over the next few months, George went back to Gracie with improved designs, and each time Gracie showed him things that he had missed - over and over for almost a year this went on, until finally George had a design that Gracie said she thought would work. Finally he was able to get to work - but in the meantime Fred had been working almost non-stop.
...
Years later, Fred and George met up again. George asked Fred how his design had worked out. Fred replied: "Terrible! i spent months and months and months working on the design, and thousands of dollars in parts. And in the end, after all that time and expense, i found out that it would never work - it was fundamentally flawed. i wasted years!" George asked: "You mean Barney didn't notice the design was flawed when you showed it to him?" Fred said: "No, he noticed. He just didn't want to hurt my feelings by telling me."
Now who had the better friend?I've said it once and I'll say it again...a great loss to the teaching profession..
| Indi wrote: |
| chasbeen wrote: | | You can divide people into two types. |
No, you really can't. People have been trying to do that since at least as far back as recorded history can tell us: trying to divide people into pat little groups of "us" vs. "them". It doesn't work, and it never has. People are far too wonderfully complex and variable to be able to put them neatly into little groups. You can't even cleanly group people into "man" vs. "woman"... hell, you can't even cleanly group them into "dead" vs. "alive", or "human" vs. "non-human"! People are just too complicated, and you are doing them a disservice by trying to slam them into two arbitrary little groups.
|
Indi - you are right up to a point.
People can be grouped, but the criteria for the groupings has to be narrow. Think of set theory. As you expand the criteria, the intersection of the sets becomes greater & more complex and you get more grey areas.
For instance, you mentioned man vs woman. If you use the criteria of reproductive organs, the sets are separate. You can then add people with pronounced facial hair. That is commonly a male trait, but some females have it. You therefore do not get a set within a set, you have 2 discrete sets with another set intersecting them both.
Hermaphrodites could be a set that intersects all 3 of the others.
As a generalisation I would agree with the original poster (although his use of quote marks is questionable 
). I spent many years in the computer industry as programmer, analyst, & consultant. In more than 1 company my boss was a business graduate who had no concept of software complexities. Those sort of people can be very quick to criticise without being able to offer anything constructive.Wow I see Indi had an opinion.
However I still maintain that you can divide people into 2 mutually exclusive groups but I forgot to define the criteria.
Firstly I can see that there are people who don't have an original idea during their lifetime and there are others that have a few every hour. These "unique" ideas get translated into actions and are therefore noticed by the people we have been calling "judges".
However there are people who judge and have original ideas, so what i'm saying I suppose is that we ALL judge but not everyone has original ideas.
So in group 1 we have people who have original ideas and in groupo 2 we have the rest. Put group 2 in a work environment with group 1 and we dont have group 1 people with the senior jobs but (quite often) group 2.
Yes, I used to design and build significant software systems. Still do but only as one of my hobbies.
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | chasbeen wrote: | | You can divide people into two types. |
No, you really can't. People have been trying to do that since at least as far back as recorded history can tell us: trying to divide people into pat little groups of "us" vs. "them". It doesn't work, and it never has. People are far too wonderfully complex and variable to be able to put them neatly into little groups. You can't even cleanly group people into "man" vs. "woman"... hell, you can't even cleanly group them into "dead" vs. "alive", or "human" vs. "non-human"! People are just too complicated, and you are doing them a disservice by trying to slam them into two arbitrary little groups.
|
Indi - you are right up to a point.
People can be grouped, but the criteria for the groupings has to be narrow. Think of set theory. As you expand the criteria, the intersection of the sets becomes greater & more complex and you get more grey areas.
For instance, you mentioned man vs woman. If you use the criteria of reproductive organs, the sets are separate. You can then add people with pronounced facial hair. That is commonly a male trait, but some females have it. You therefore do not get a set within a set, you have 2 discrete sets with another set intersecting them both.
Hermaphrodites could be a set that intersects all 3 of the others.
As a generalisation I would agree with the original poster (although his use of quote marks is questionable ). I spent many years in the computer industry as programmer, analyst, & consultant. In more than 1 company my boss was a business graduate who had no concept of software complexities. Those sort of people can be very quick to criticise without being able to offer anything constructive. |
You're going to have to clarify your objection. ^_^; i said you can't split people into two neat little groups, and you... agreed? Disagreed? i'm really not sure. Because you say you disagree, then provide an example to support what you disagree with.
As you say, let's try to separate people into "men" and "women" using their genitalia. By doing this do you get two neat groups? As you figured out... no, you don't. Hermaphrodites straddle the two groups. In other words, you don't get two neat groups. (And, incidentally, you forgot to mention people who are born without any genitalia at all. And there are even further aberrations still. Unless you are planning to argue that they are not people (and neither are hermaphrodites), then no, you can't split people neatly into two groups of "men" and "women" by using their genitalia.)
You simply can't split people neatly into two pat groups (unless one group is empty ^_^; which doesn't really count as two groups). Set theory isn't going to help you either. As you say, the broader the criteria, the bigger the intersection, true. Which means, theoretically, that if you narrow the criteria enough, the intersection set will shrink to zero. But this is not theory. The more precise you make your measuring criteria in a real world measurement, the worse your signal to noise ratio gets. Eventually you get to a point where there is functionally no signal, just all noise. To put this in terms that apply, let's say that we want to separate people into two groups, those who are 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck length units tall or greater, and those who are less than that height (rougly a meter and a half). You can't measure half a Planck length, so there is no chance of a grey area. If you're 9 × 10³⁴ or 9 × 10³⁴ plus one, you're in group A. If you're 9 × 10³⁴ minus one, you're in group B. Nothing in between. Let's say also that you managed to get everyone's height simultaneously (because people are growing), under the exact same conditions (to rule out heat expansion or gravity differences affecting height, not to mention the precise stage of breathing because your height changes very slightly as you inhale and exhale, etc.), and let's ignore Heisenberg. If you managed to accomplish all of that you would get everyone into two perfect groups.
Or would you?
First, your group would only be valid for the space between two Planck seconds. After that, people will have grown or shrunk simply by virtue of the motion of their molecules. Second... you still have to come up with a definition of what is and what is not "people", or just human, or how will you know some "thing" you measured at x Planck lengths is a person? Zing.
Can't be done. The only functional way to group people into two groups is to squint and go with your gut - just make arbitrary judgements. (Which, by the way, is what is being done here, of course.) Such groups are not really meaningful, and say more about the person doing the grouping than the people in the groups.
Even the new "revised" criteria for "judges" and "creators"... doesn't work. So group 1 is everyone who has had an original idea, and group 2 is everyone who has not. Sounds simple, right? Oh, but where to even begin with the gotchas? Well, i'll just throw out a couple. Unconsciously generated ideas? Original ideas that were not known as original? Unoriginal ideas that were thought of as original? People who come up with original ideas... outside of what work they do? Etc. etc. etc.
(Not to mention that no one has addressed the other major problem with this endeavour - the fact that judging is necessary for the creation process. Those people in "senior jobs" vetoing the ideas of their juniors are probably seniors for a reason, and their objections are probably something the "creator" should pay close attention to.)Wow, Indi, another opinion.
Unoriginal ideas that were thought of as original count as long as the author was not aware their idea was not original. The groupings are based on "types" not the final result.
| Quote: |
Those people in "senior jobs" vetoing the ideas of their juniors are probably seniors for a reason, and their objections are probably something the "creator" should pay close attention to.)
|
The reason these people get there (To senior positions) is very often because they are very good at the chat (b/s).
They are also performing the standard behaviour that is expected of them. They like that because they have never had an original idea in their life and are free to critisize and suppress those people that demonstrate an original ideas.
Another typical occurrence is they will often try to steal that "junior" persons idea as though it was their own. As they are painfully aware of their shotcomings.
The above, i'm afraid, is often the case Indi. wat r u trying to do is almost impossible
how can a person decide what the person is coz u r different at different times
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Wow, Indi, another opinion. |
Blows the mind, doesn't it? ^_^
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Unoriginal ideas that were thought of as original count as long as the author was not aware their idea was not original. The groupings are based on "types" not the final result. |
*ahem* ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
| The only functional way to group people into two groups is to squint and go with your gut - just make arbitrary judgements. (Which, by the way, is what is being done here, of course.) Such groups are not really meaningful, and say more about the person doing the grouping than the people in the groups. |
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Quote: |
Those people in "senior jobs" vetoing the ideas of their juniors are probably seniors for a reason, and their objections are probably something the "creator" should pay close attention to.)
|
The reason these people get there (To senior positions) is very often because they are very good at the chat (b/s). |
You know, i just have to ask... if the only people in senior positions now are the people who were only good at the chat in the past, and never did any "creating"... where are all the "creators" from the past? ^_^; Did they bump them off or something?
| chasbeen wrote: |
They are also performing the standard behaviour that is expected of them. They like that because they have never had an original idea in their life and are free to critisize and suppress those people that demonstrate an original ideas.
Another typical occurrence is they will often try to steal that "junior" persons idea as though it was their own. As they are painfully aware of their shotcomings.
The above, i'm afraid, is often the case Indi. |
i see, and how did you come to that conclusion? This is a science forum after all, so... i assume you've actually collected data? How many companies have you worked at to form this conclusion, and how did you manage to survey a representative sample of the billions of companies, groups etc. to determine this?
See, i've worked for dozens of companies and no less than three different countries' governments, and that's not nearly beginning to be a representative sampling, but i must be choosing really good ones - because i haven't seen what you describe at all.
Are there a lot of ****** in upper management? Oh hell yeah. Are most of them ******? Yes, if you're in America, but then statistics are on your side. ^_^
Are some of them raging incompetents? Oh hell yeah. Are most of them raging incompetents? No. Get real. In order to get into a senior position, you first have to prove yourself in a junior position. It is true that being able to play "the game" strongly advantages your career path - i can speak personally to this as someone who has said openly and cheerfully said "****** the game!" all through their career, and opted to advance solely on my talent and output, which has made it very hard at times - but even brown-nosers have to show that they can handle the position of seniority. If all they're capable of doing is kissing ass and taking credit for their subordinates' work... how did they every get subordinates to begin with? (Unless, of course, they were not hired because of their technical knowledge or artistic talent but for their management skills... in which case they shouldn't be making technical or artistic decisions at all, so i'll assume they don't count.)
But of course, if you've got actual data to prove my intuitions wrong, bring it on. Otherwise, it sounds like you've just had a couple shitty junior positions in a couple shitty companies and you're bitter about being at the bottom of the ladder. Suck it up, buddy. ^_^ If you do your job "creating" well, in a couple years some of your junior "creators" will be posting on the internet that you're a talentless hack stifling their creativity, too.Iv'e been actively involved in one war, worked in half a dozen countries and speak a couple of languages.
What really enhanced my statistical data collection of people characterization for me was the roles I had to play through the evolution of software through the 80's until the current day. You see as a consultant I would often be placed in a position where for example I had to come up with a way to do
Presentation of topics to audiences at my new place of work
Solve company breaking system software proplems
Instigate and deliver new software systems.
While doing the above type of work you meet many people in senior positions and those in junior positions.
Lifes not all black and white BUT if you define a specification for those who are "creators" and those that are "not" this is perfectly feasible. Just as feasible as destinguishing those who won gold at the last winter olympics from the rest of the human race.
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Lifes not all black and white BUT if you define a specification for those who are "creators" and those that are "not" this is perfectly feasible. |
IF you could define a specification to properly fit people into those two groups (which doesn't even need to be able to fit all people for it to be useful, which is good because that would be impossible)... then you can run any kind of experiment you can dream up on them to test whatever characteristics you are interested in.
The problem is... you can't group people that way. ^_^;
Go ahead. Try it. Group me. Am i a "creator" or a "judge" (or do you prefer "non-creator")? Suppose i decided to prove i was a "creator" by making something up right now? Here's the rub... how would you know that the thought i have is original, and that i didn't hear it somewhere else? In fact, even if i told you all of the accomplishments i made throughout my life... how would know that i'm not just an ingenious plagiarist?
Or, let's go the other way. Let's say that in my life i have produced nothing, ever. Does that mean i am a "non-creator"? How would you know that i don't have original thoughts all the time - maybe i daydream 24/7 and i'm incredibly imaginative? - but i just don't act on them?
You see? ^_^; Impossible. Unless you can read minds - and you can read them better than the people who use them, because anyone who has studied the mind knows how often it plays tricks on us to boost our self-esteem - it's simply an impossible job.
And in fact, all of these people you work with that you are attempting to lump into these categories... it really has nothing to do with them, does it? It's all about your perception of them. If you think they are creative, they go in one group. Otherwise, they go in the other. But just because you think they are creative, it does not follow that they are.Go ahead. Try it. Group me. Am i a "creator" or a "judge" (or do you prefer "non-creator")?
I'm not going to try you either are or your not a creator.
Suppose i decided to prove i was a "creator" by making something up right now? Here's the rub... how would you know that the thought i have is original, and that i didn't hear it somewhere else?
I would not know but you might
In fact, even if i told you all of the accomplishments i made throughout my life... how would know that i'm not just an ingenious plagiarist?
Same
Or, let's go the other way. Let's say that in my life i have produced nothing, ever. Does that mean i am a "non-creator"?
Yes
How would you know that i don't have original thoughts all the time - maybe i daydream 24/7 and i'm incredibly imaginative? - but i just don't act on them?
I wouldn't know
You see? ^_^; Impossible. Unless you can read minds - and you can read them better than the people who use them, because anyone who has studied the mind knows how often it plays tricks on us to boost our self-esteem - it's simply an impossible job
Off topic
And in fact, all of these people you work with that you are attempting to lump into these categories... it really has nothing to do with them, does it? It's all about your perception of them. If you think they are creative, they go in one group. Otherwise, they go in the other. But just because you think they are creative, it does not follow that they are.
au contraire, it's nothing to do with perception but the people I meet inside or outside of work ARE in two categories. CREATORS AND JUDGERS
| chasbeen wrote: |
| au contraire, it's nothing to do with perception but the people I meet inside or outside of work ARE in two categories. CREATORS AND JUDGERS |
OK - so, you must be the ULTIMATE judge then. The judge whose opinion is final and concerning which there is no appeal. We have a name for such a judge in popular parlance....God. Let's hope you don't plan any smiting after you pass your omnipotent judgement...I might be a judge or a creator. Theres not enough data here. 
| chasbeen wrote: |
| I might be a judge or a creator. Theres not enough data here. |
Unfortunately that invalidates your argument. You certainly ARE a judge - as you demonstrated in the previous posting. The assumption that your perception of people (as either one thing or another) is not open to question is the ultimate in judgementalism.
By admitting that you may also be a creator then you allow for the possibility that the two 'groups' are not exclusive, since you are clearly in the group 'judge'.We all do some judging. But not all of us create, you see. | chasbeen wrote: |
| We all do some judging. But not all of us create, you see. |
Yes, I read your previous postings. I don't really see any consistency. You start by maintaining that there are two exclusive groups of people. You then admit that the groups are not exclusive and that, in fact, everyone belongs to group 1 (judge) but not everyone belongs to group 2 (creator). You provide absolutely no evidence for your hypothesis (which is a bit of a bugger in a science forum) and you end up with the most unscientific of arguments possible - 'it is true because I say so'.
