![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stephbgAs of this morning I am officially on the schedule for the next ACS-W "Networking Event" in August. Oh the horror. I shall complain about the horror. I have, however, discovered a tenuous gender link to support my topic selection of "Communication Risks" (one of which is making me do public speaking). I shall complain about the tenuousness of the link, unless enough people tell me this particular bias actually seems plausible.
Social skills can be hazardous to your project. Srsly. My one big concession to the gender debate is that women might be more inclined than men to be polite or otherwise lubricate the social wheels in the working environment. I didn't have boys and girls in mind when I* first* developed* this idea for a conference last year, but it works in hindsight.
There's a bit in my talk where I point out that polite laughter in response to incomprehensible jokes can have serious and unforeseen consequences. Being nice can lead to ruin and destruction! (And goat cheese, apparently). It goes like this:
(1) Person A shares a geeky joke relating to the technology of the project.
(2) Person B makes amused sounds, just to be nice. Person B is in fact mystified, but hides it well to keep everyone happy.
(3) Person A then believes that Person B understands the technical premise of the geeky joke. Believing that Person B understands more than they actually do, Person A goes on to make horrible omissions of communication.
(4) Person B--lacking the information that Person A believes they already have--goes on to make horrible errors of judgement. The project fails. Everyone's reputations are ruined.
(5) Person A gets huffy.
(6) Person B quits the rat race to make jam and goat cheese in Walpole.
It could be a Big Bang Theory episode. With jam. And goat cheese. Or a Dilbert strip. With jam etc.
This actually works for any two people with an unequal body of knowledge in any area at all. It's unfortunate that this particular genderised application requires that Person B (non-techical, socially aware) to be female, but there's nothing stopping Person A (technical, non-socially aware) being female as well.
A lot of information is embedded in a joke and its reactions, and I don't trust any two people to share that information correctly unless they were twins raised in identical controlled environments. You don't see a lot of that amongst people who work on opposite ends of enterprise application development and deployment teams.
Workplace humour (even the safe stuff that isn't sexist, racist or offensive): RISKY
(*) I am in no way suggesting that I'm the first person to have this idea. Fortunately I don't have to provide references. That's right! I can make this stuff up and lecture IT professionals about it! There is no justice in the world. Bow before me you academics chained by the weight of evidence and precedence. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!
Social skills can be hazardous to your project. Srsly. My one big concession to the gender debate is that women might be more inclined than men to be polite or otherwise lubricate the social wheels in the working environment. I didn't have boys and girls in mind when I* first* developed* this idea for a conference last year, but it works in hindsight.
There's a bit in my talk where I point out that polite laughter in response to incomprehensible jokes can have serious and unforeseen consequences. Being nice can lead to ruin and destruction! (And goat cheese, apparently). It goes like this:
(1) Person A shares a geeky joke relating to the technology of the project.
(2) Person B makes amused sounds, just to be nice. Person B is in fact mystified, but hides it well to keep everyone happy.
(3) Person A then believes that Person B understands the technical premise of the geeky joke. Believing that Person B understands more than they actually do, Person A goes on to make horrible omissions of communication.
(4) Person B--lacking the information that Person A believes they already have--goes on to make horrible errors of judgement. The project fails. Everyone's reputations are ruined.
(5) Person A gets huffy.
(6) Person B quits the rat race to make jam and goat cheese in Walpole.
It could be a Big Bang Theory episode. With jam. And goat cheese. Or a Dilbert strip. With jam etc.
This actually works for any two people with an unequal body of knowledge in any area at all. It's unfortunate that this particular genderised application requires that Person B (non-techical, socially aware) to be female, but there's nothing stopping Person A (technical, non-socially aware) being female as well.
A lot of information is embedded in a joke and its reactions, and I don't trust any two people to share that information correctly unless they were twins raised in identical controlled environments. You don't see a lot of that amongst people who work on opposite ends of enterprise application development and deployment teams.
Workplace humour (even the safe stuff that isn't sexist, racist or offensive): RISKY
(*) I am in no way suggesting that I'm the first person to have this idea. Fortunately I don't have to provide references. That's right! I can make this stuff up and lecture IT professionals about it! There is no justice in the world. Bow before me you academics chained by the weight of evidence and precedence. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!
