May 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Sorry, I can't let that one pass. Ms. Streep is a super-powered exception. Many, many very good actresses are *not* working at her age, because of age bias.
And what is the price of tea in China?
May 14, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/14/2012)
I thought the parallel with Mrs. Streep from levynissim was pretty good. We don't think that experienced people in many industries are worse than younger people or worth less.
Unless they're in an appearance-driven industry (of which Hollywood definitely is one) -- and especially if they're female and over a certain age.
Come on. It's just a bad analogy, Steve. The general point is well taken, but there's no parallel in sight -- and that's a very good thing. I'm frankly thrilled that, in our industry, individuals of either sex are generally not required to nip and tuck their bodies, get frantic over what they're going to wear to work, or agonize because they have a line or two on their faces.
>L<
May 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Lisa, I did not make a bad analogy. The fact that you can't understand that really surprises me. I would think a software developer would have better analytical thinking skills.
May 14, 2012 at 7:27 pm
levynissim (5/14/2012)
You are completely going off on a tangent. Please stay on topic. I was not discussing how Hollywood is treating actresses as they age. I was merely showing that just as aging actors and actresses that are still acting are not looked down upon because they have not moved on to management roles in the movie industry, aging software developers should similarly not be looked down upon.Please analyze people's comments more logically in the future before you criticize someone on this or any other discussion forum.
Oh for goodness sakes. I didn't criticize you. Not only did I ;-), but I also followed up by saying something like "Getting back to the point of the discussion" and, I hope, do agree with you about that point.
Don't freak out about it, and don't lecture me; it's not worth it. I actually spoke up because I thought it was funny anybody would use that as an example, but I am *not* criticizing because of it.
I do believe -- and again, this is not aimed at you -- that Hollywood looks down on aging people, except for a couple of superstars, and that this is only one of many reasons that we should celebrate our differences with the film industry.
I made my comment because it is worth celebrating. Young people in our industry *can* (as somebody on this thread mentioned) pick up their kids from school, they can take advantage of flex time, they can remote in to do their work efficiently and work around a baby's schedule. Older people in our industry can take similar advantage of flexibility that really isn't available in Hollywood, on a manufacturing floor, or to taxi drivers -- whether because they have aging parents who need care, or a back that goes out.
Please don't be further offended because I have expanded on my comment here. Or, if you are offended, please don't lecture me about "analyzing comments logically". You said something that made me think and riff in a particular direction, and I happen to think my direction was worth contributing to the thread, whether it was at right-angles to your thought process or not.
As it happens -- and this is a *separate* direction, and this comment is aimed at both you *and* Steve it happens to be a fallacy that actors and actresses don't feel pressure to "move into management roles". Many of them -- especially as they begin to fear losing their youth and fresh looks -- absolutely do.
Didn't you ever wonder why so many of them say "but what I really want to do is direct"? Actors of both sexes often feel that they are treated as meat-puppets no matter what they're paid. It's a hard, harsh industry, and romanticizing its behavior based on what you see of a few superstars doesn't make sense to me, unless you're setting up an analogy only to a few superstars in *our* field. (There are some people who rise above all rules, in any field, that's true, but it's *not* an apt parallel to the rank and file.)
Meanwhile, for all our industry problems, we are pretty lucky. Men and women alike. Young and old alike. That's all I was thinking when I wrote before, and no criticism of you was intended at all.
May 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm
levynissim (5/14/2012)
Lisa, I did not make a bad analogy. The fact that you can't understand that really surprises me. I would think a software developer would have better analytical thinking skills.
This isn't a problem of capacity to understand.
I can understand why you think it's a good analogy. I do disagree and I've now responded to what you wrote, attempting to explain why. Feel free to disagree with why I think it's a bad analogy, but please read.
May 15, 2012 at 8:04 am
Don't freak out about it, and don't lecture me; it's not worth it. I actually spoke up because I thought it was funny anybody would use that as an example, but I am *not* criticizing because of it.
Lisa,
I understood exactly what you were talking about. The one thing I have learned about this forum over the years of posting here is that some of the egos here tend to have very thinned skin and take things very personally, particularly if you don't agree with them. I have been called all kinds of names simply because I have disagreed with certain people. After all, it is a forum. I'm kind of surprised Steve didn't step in on that one, but oh well, I can take it. So, please don't let it rent any space in your head. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
May 15, 2012 at 8:54 am
Lisa,
I'm with Travis. You said nothing to apologize for and what you did say was intelligent and respectful and illuminating
This has been a very interesting topic that has hit a lot of people strongly, and from several different angles: ageism in the workplace, good/bad management practices, personal choices in life paths, sexism in Hollywood, and how much more fun it is to create things than to manage the creators.
Sigerson
"No pressure, no diamonds." - Thomas Carlyle
May 15, 2012 at 9:05 am
Somehow we went from software engineering to superannuated Hollywood actresses.
It's been an interesting ride! But I'm honestly at a loss to understand where Meryl Streep comes into any of this (although she was outstanding in Iron Lady).
Still, I do agree it's a good thing we're not in a profession where our bodies have to be nipped and tucked (they'd be working on me forever if it were so).
May 15, 2012 at 9:11 am
Craig-315134 (5/15/2012)
It's been an interesting ride! But I'm honestly at a loss to understand where Meryl Streep comes into any of this (although she was outstanding in Iron Lady).
My youngest daughter (13 yo) said this was the most boring movie she had every seen. I haven't seen it yet, but told her I'd probably enjoy it, having lived during her term as Prime Minister of England.
May 15, 2012 at 9:29 am
Ah, well, Lynn, we have something in common. I left Blighty in the early 80's, not wanting to see the final results of Thatcher's social and fiscal 'leadership'.
This punter did find Iron Lady worth the price of admission, but I'm a bit of a history fan, too.
May 15, 2012 at 9:37 am
Craig-315134 (5/15/2012)
Ah, well, Lynn, we have something in common. I left Blighty in the early 80's, not wanting to see the final results of Thatcher's social and fiscal 'leadership'.This punter did find Iron Lady worth the price of admission, but I'm a bit of a history fan, too.
I was in England from January 79 to July 81. Wouldn't mind going back as a tourist.
May 15, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Capt. Sigerson (5/15/2012)
This has been a very interesting topic that has hit a lot of people strongly, and from several different angles: ageism in the workplace, good/bad management practices, personal choices in life paths, sexism in Hollywood, and how much more fun it is to create things than to manage the creators.
Thanks Capt, and to others who have weighed in here. I have to say that "all of the above" hit me very strongly, which is one reason why I weighed in to thank Steve for the editorial.
Editorials, compared with technical discussions, are often where we turn when we want to take stock of broader issues. There are lots of different perspectives, and that's another good thing we can celebrate about SQLServerCentral.com in particular and tech professions in general, I hope: our water cooler being virtual, the issues and the people with whom we discuss them are... even broader :-).
I do personally feel that it is "more fun to create things than to manage the creators". But there is a second, slightly more subtle difference between *classifications* of creators about which we could go off on yet another tangent (still related to the editorial, I promise): elaborators and abstractors. This is a common distinction that I probably don't need to define for you.
* -- abstractors get to have a special, profound satisfaction being able to do architecture, but they often start to miss immediate feedback and feel underappreciated externally.
* -- elaborators get to have more fun being thanked by users because they make things that are actually used, but they often lose sight of the overall goals and feel lost/underappreciated within the group.
* -- both groups are creative, and both occasionally think the grass is greener on the other side.
Speaking as a former manager, I think:
* -- it is more boring (at least for me) to manage a team of natural elaborators
* -- there are more crises (life is less predictable) if you're managing a team of natural abstractors
* -- it is most fruitful if you have a team containing both types, but only if you get them to interact regularly!
* -- since most developers, even very young ones, have some traits on both sides of the line, one has to be careful to make sure that each dev has room for both types of activities. Even if they scream about it and don't want to move out of their comfort zone, they'll do better work overall.
Now, what's the relationship between this personality type difference and the editorial, and our overall discussion? I want to ratify some earlier posts who spoke up on the positive aspects of how aging impacts one's abilities as a developer: The older we get, the more many of us can handle both elaboration and abstraction.
Developers all change over time. They commonly grow into the ability to abstract after elaborating as an apprentice and journeyman. But, OTOH, some of them start out with *very* abstract capabilities but eventually applying their inner criteria to perform incredible UX/front-end design, precise business analysis, and other user-facing disciplines.
Both directions of growth, it seems to me, are respectable alternatives to moving into management with a clear indication of value, maturity, and usefulness increasing as the individual proceeds down the path.
Some companies -- HP comes to mind -- used to have institutionalized ways of acknowledging this. No matter where we work, however, we have a lot of scope for growth and satisfaction.
The key thing here is (pace Steve) we don't actually "do the same work for decades". Come to think of it, really good carpenters don't either :-).
>L<
May 15, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Lisa Slater Nicholls (5/15/2012)
The key thing here is (pace Steve) we don't actually "do the same work for decades". Come to think of it, really good carpenters don't either :-).>L<
I think I wrote the "same job", not the "same work". I agree with much of what you've said, though.
May 15, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/15/2012)
[..]I think I wrote the "same job", not the "same work". I agree with much of what you've said, though.
Nope, I just checked to see if I was dreaming, here's what you wrote:
So many people in various industries continue to improve at their jobs, and do the same work for decades.
But I think your first clause actually cancels out the second clause, so we're clearly in agreement.
>L<
May 15, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Lisa Slater Nicholls (5/15/2012)
The key thing here is (pace Steve) we don't actually "do the same work for decades". Come to think of it, really good carpenters don't either :-).
I guess that's a matter of opinion, Lisa. There are some incredibly skilled and very high paid artisians in many walks of life, including carpentry, who not only have been doing the same job for decades, but have been using the exact same tools over all of those decades.
I believe the same holds true for software development in most cases. Sure, the tools may change a bit more frequently than for our sage and skilled carpenter friends but it all works out to be the same thing. Some raw material is processed to produce a product whether its wood to make a cabinet or data to drive a decision. It's the same ol' job year after year. It just looks different because we change tools, labels, and descriptions so often.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 94 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply