From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 8/02/2026 11:38 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Bill Sloman wrote:
>
>> On 8/02/2026 3:37 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> I'm not arguing with him - just jeering at his attempts to look clever.
>>>> I'm not bored stiff, but I don't have anything like enough to - I do
>>>> apply for jobs from time to time,and have got the occasional interview,
>>>> but 83-year-olds aren't attractive recruits.
>>>
>>> Especially 83-year-olds who jeer at other people.
>>
>> If you look at the comments I've published in Review of Scientific
>> Instruments since 1972, you will find that I've been jeering for quite a
>> while.
>>
>> It's called informed criticism in that sort of context, and can be quite
>> useful.
>
> You don't seem to realise the difference between constructive criticism
> and destructive criticism.
Oh? Really?
> The former helps to move things forward and
> encourages people to produce better work next time; the latter puts off
> the person you are criticising and deters them from trying to do better.
But that has more to do with the attitude of the person being
criticised. John Larkin seems to experience any kind of criticism as
destructive - he's fishing for compliments and resents it when he
doesn't get them.
> Destructive criticism in reviews or online comments is bad for the
> profession, bad for the publishers, and makes the critic look bad in the
> eyes of the readers because it is often a sign of bluster to cover up
> insecurity.
Sadly, criticism which isn't explicitly critical tends to be ignored.
The only test of criticism that matters is whether it's justified, and -
in electronics - whether would it lead to a more accurate, faster or
more reliable circuit.
> When you reply, it often helps to put yourself in the other person's
> shoes and consider whether they see your reply as benefitting them.
> giving them information which they might not have (in an encouraging
> way, not a disparaging one) and making them feel they would like to
> learn more about the subject. If you think they will see it as
> unhelpful jeering, don't post it.
Giving information "in an encouraging way" is one of those skills which
doesn't actually seem to exist in the real world. "You have done well
but you could have done better" isn't something anybody with any sense
is going to find flattering.
>> It probably doesn't have anything to do with my lack of success in
>> job-hunting.
>
> Have you ever looked at the differences between yourself and those who
> got the jobs (apart from age).
Not something that I'm in any position to do. I'm on the committee of
the local branch of the IEEE but it has never given me any back-channels
into any of the places where I've tried to get work.
It doesn't matter how knowledgeable or
> clever you are, if you appear to adopt a curt or abrasive manner that
> will get up the noses of the people you work with, they won't want you
> in their organisation.
I wasn't known as being curt or abrasive at George Kent in Luton, EMI
Central Research in Hayes, ITT-Creed in Brighton, Cambridge Instruments
in Cambridge, or IASys in Cambridge, or any of the places where I worked
in the Netherlands. I wasn't known for being slow to express my
opinions either, but there wasn't a lot of friction.
> They won't change; you can if you try.
Whatever I was doing worked pretty well for some thirty or forty years.
Trying to reconstruct my personality on the basis of the advice of
somebody who has never met me face to face wouldn't be all that sensible.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
