

Be careful of who you work for - bdfh42
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/10/be-careful-of-w.html

======
robg
How about: Be careful of who you work _with_

~~~
adityag
Definitely!

Seth argument makes sense for all these three: who you work for, who you work
with and who works for you. It’s more about the work environment.

I have worked in great work environments as well as not so great ones...and I
believe it is the single most important factor affecting your productivity and
growth.

------
edw519
As usual, Seth has an incredible grasp of the obvious.

~~~
fallentimes
The way so many people blindly adhere to him is unbelievable. He's like the
Joseph McCarthy or Emperor's New Clothes of marketing.

~~~
Alex3917
In Seth's own words, his job to remind people of what they already know. Even
if you don't like it, I don't see why it's so hard to see the value of such a
service.

~~~
fallentimes
His ego, coining of vapor words and other people's awe of him do not match
that description.

~~~
netcan
Ego is debatable.

'Coining of vapor words' is naming things, renaming things or creating
concepts. These are very useful tools for assisting thought processes. We
think with language.

~~~
fallentimes
That's debatable. Buzzwords or vapor words are usually not useful. Most of the
time other legacy words exist to express yourself. Buzzwords (not to be
confused with technical terms) are created to sell books or consulting
services. It appears to be working.

"clowd", purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, his wrong usage of the word
competent (the article I think you submitted), the dip, lens, etc

Just because "we think with language" doesn't mean we should make up
superfluous words on the fly. I'll admit, it's necessary sometimes, but
certainly not at the rate people do it at. The point of language is to
communicate. And like I said, it's not like I hate the guy, some of his stuff
is great. The rest... He seems to resonate a lot more with you than me, and if
his work has helped you do something better all the power to him (and you).

~~~
Alex3917
Actually I think that purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, the dip,
sheepwalking, etc. are very important ideas. It's just that the words Seth
chooses to represent these ideas kind of suck. What Seth calls an ideavirus is
the same thing that Dawkins calls a meme, and that's a word we pretty much use
every day. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future someone else
coined a word that meant the same thing as sheep walking, but was actually
usable without sounding daft.

~~~
fallentimes
You can express ideas without creating ridiculous buzz words. And like I said,
sometimes the creation of a new word (e.g. meme, kool-aid) is necessary, but
not at the rate consultants and marketers do it. They're just marketing.

~~~
netcan
I agree with you to an extent. Seth tends to irritate me a little personally.
But he is good at getting his ideas out there. Not just his name, his ideas &
concepts. The tool he uses to achieve this is what you call buzzwords, which
by definition are words that resonate to an extent & make it into people's
vocabulary & thought processes.

'Meme' vs 'ideavirus' will suffice as an example. 'Meme' will not be used by
the same people to have the same thoughts as 'ideavirus'. I hope we can agree
on that (the discussion would be cumbersome). It flat wouldn't. The words have
different connotations & usages even if they can be defined exactly the same
way in a dictionary. Just like your usage of 'buzzword' has a different
connotation to 'vogue word' & 'technical term' has a different connotation to
'jargon'. Ergo, it is a powerful tool for communication.

Inserting words into people's vocabulary changes the way they think. It is
useful even if there is already an existing word with the same formalised
meaning.

As I said I agree with you to an extent. There is nothing worse then watching
marketing attempts to create a lexicon flop. It is something that can become
polluted very quickly.

------
thisrealjob
Sometimes people take bad jobs out of blinding need and over promising
executives. At least that is what happened in my case.

It is my fault for staying for so long though. At least I have something to
blog about now.

------
gwsaines
I'm not entirely sure why everyone is always hating on Seth. His blog posts
are hit or miss, but that doesn't mean he's an arsehole.

~~~
michaelneale
Whilst I agree with your point, I am shocked at your courage to attempt to use
the English spelling of "arsehole" in the internet. Haven't seen it written
that way for too long a time !

I find myself giving up and using American spelling and terms.

Even Firefox doesn't know how to spell, despite me telling my OS many times my
locale to an alarming level of detail.

~~~
13ren
I think you're right, that it's simply US vs. British spelling, but I've
always felt that the _usage_ is slightly different (and that therefore maybe
they are actually different words...).

An asshole seems to be someone you are angry with (legitimately or not). It's
about behaviour (or perception thereof); but to call someone an arsehole is a
darker, earthier insult, and is closer to what they intrinsically _are_. It
seems more literal to me.

Maybe this is because I've mostly heard "asshole" on sanitized TV; but I've
heard "arsehole" in uncensored RL.

PS: Firefox then spellchecked in a way that was almost but not quite entirely
unlike British English.

~~~
michaelneale
That sounds reasonable to me, it does seem darker in the British usage.

Also - in US English, you could call someone an "ass" - its not really that
bad an insult, like you said, more about their behaviour at a point in time.
There is also the donkey meaning (ass) which makes it less insulting then it
would otherwise be.

~~~
13ren
Yes - the donkey meaning. I think actual donkeys might also have been more
common in the USA.

------
fallentimes
The entire time I read this, all I could think about was "squidoo".

------
goodgoblin
Another important question to ask yourself - Who does number two work for?

------
13ren
I found this article thought-provoking (which is the best kind): it's about
how we _see_.

Our point of view is affected by where we are; and the lens through which we
see is affected by the people around us, what aspect they pay attention to,
and their values. Because the way we _see_ is so fundamental to verification,
changes in it can be insidious - and changes to values are often virtually
undetectable.

------
ig1
Vault, Wetfeet, Glassdoor, etc. If he doesn't think there are sites with
company reviews he hasn't been looking.

------
cbrinker
Or just work for yourself? I guess that kind of requires the whole knowing
what's best for you mentality as well, though.

------
Allocator2008
OK, it's not "who you work for" it's "WHOM you work for". Pet peeve of mine,
people saying "who" when they mean "whom" - if the "who" is the object of the
action "work for" then it is "whom", like "To whom are you speaking?" NOT "Who
are you speaking to?" Irks me no end.

~~~
Allocator2008
Hey to whomever down voted this comment: down voting it doesn't make "who"
right when it should be "whom". Down vote this all you want, it does not
change the Queen's english darling.

~~~
foulmouthboy
True, but it does keep the irrelevant conversation out of the way of
discussion of the actual news item.

