Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Yes, which is why I phrased my statement as “Well, … could…” to indicate an alternative perspective. This was to illustrate that sometimes pithy reductive quips can be based on overly reductive assumptions. Maybe it is the case that a single baby is all that’s required, but maybe the author misunderstood the goal.
In this fictional scenario of the author’s creation? That just demonstrates the converse - that sometimes simple ideas will be deliberately misinterpreted in a convoluted way, to prove someone else’s point.
With something like a baby, people know what’s going on and what’s meant. That’s why it’s the example. But when it comes to esoteric things, playing word games just confuses the issue and will lead to a manager thinking that indeed 9 woman can give you a baby in 1 month (I’m not jumping through your word games, you know what’s meant).
Making assumptions about what’s meant, and expecting people to make assumptions about what you mean, is how problems happen. Thorough communication is the cornerstone of understanding.
Playing games with “it could be interpreted this way if I tried really really hard” and frankly being intentionally obtuse is how problems happen. Don’t intentionally contribute to miscommunication. You can play games online, in real life this doesn’t help anyone.
Well, nine women could produce a baby once a month (recovery period aside)
I think it refers to producing a single baby, rather than just a baby every month
Yes, which is why I phrased my statement as “Well, … could…” to indicate an alternative perspective. This was to illustrate that sometimes pithy reductive quips can be based on overly reductive assumptions. Maybe it is the case that a single baby is all that’s required, but maybe the author misunderstood the goal.
In this fictional scenario of the author’s creation? That just demonstrates the converse - that sometimes simple ideas will be deliberately misinterpreted in a convoluted way, to prove someone else’s point.
So a straw man? Or are we supposed to infer that this is an illustrative example of actual behavior?
You’re the one feeding managers bad information.
With something like a baby, people know what’s going on and what’s meant. That’s why it’s the example. But when it comes to esoteric things, playing word games just confuses the issue and will lead to a manager thinking that indeed 9 woman can give you a baby in 1 month (I’m not jumping through your word games, you know what’s meant).
Unless they’re politicians, of course. But then they rarely know what’s going on.
Making assumptions about what’s meant, and expecting people to make assumptions about what you mean, is how problems happen. Thorough communication is the cornerstone of understanding.
Playing games with “it could be interpreted this way if I tried really really hard” and frankly being intentionally obtuse is how problems happen. Don’t intentionally contribute to miscommunication. You can play games online, in real life this doesn’t help anyone.