[lbo-talk] Jargon in Science

[// ravi]

On Mar 1, 2012, at 6:53 AM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> at work, one of the sales managers used the term, "please waterfall this to your team". He could have used any number of "everyday" words - which is to say more typically used words - instead of "waterfall". Don't get the sense that this guy is pretentious - although he's a Brit, I believe.
> 
> On our team, another guy and I will use words like obfuscate as a normal part of the way we talk. That's just our vocabulary and we only become aware that it isn't when another guy on the team jokingly says, "Can ya spell that?" One of those inside jokes where he takes a jab at his own, as he calls it, community college education but where he's actually just having fun with others. E.g., another guy, from MIT, is regularly subjected to a bit of ridicule with, "Yo, MIT, you got that bug fixed yet."
> 
> In that case, my and E's use of "obfuscatory" could be seen as, well, obfuscatory since another word could be used. Whereas if we use ontology, level set,  iteration, semantic - all words that usually make a sales rep stare blankly, then blink twice -- this is somehow technical jargon and acceptable. but a sales rep would still stare, blink, and drool thinking we speak in a foreign language and getting pissed at us for not using everyday words.

Good examples to show that it’s tricky. But I do think there is a dotted line one can draw beyond which things really do go over the top. “Please waterfall this”, IMHO, is definitely way past that line. So is “socialise this to your team”. WTF? In fact “socialise” this is worse, because it’s a weasel word usage that is intentionally substituted (not by the poor sap imitating his higher ups, but by the MBA mills) for a direct word like “communicate”, because “socialise” (as opposed to the more realistic “waterfall”) gives some sort of “we are all equal and work is like a dinner hangout at your house” feel.

As you know, the IT space is full of such semi-technical jargon (in many cases borrowed from elsewhere), if not in definition, at least in usage. “Semantics” is one, “orthogonal” is another, and it keeps going… “closure” is very popular these days given the return of FP-style thinking. Personally, I am against most of these terms which often have simpler one or 2-3 word substitutes. Rather than adding clarity they in fact confuse because their usage is either metaphorical or is an act of unnecessary conceptualisation (formalisations, such as in logic, are to me valuable when they actively contribute to helping the project progress). They also act very effectively as tools of credentialism (as your CC coworker hints at!).

Next time the guy says “waterfall this”, I think you should raise your hand and exclaim “but be Agile about it!” :-). (or you could correct: “here in America we say ‘trickle down this’”).

	—ravi