An uncomfortable thought

[Umbran]

Obviously this is anecdotal, all organizations are different, and if someone has a beef with you they can twist gaming or anything else to further their agenda.

The point that all organizations are different is important. For many of us, this is really a non-issue, sure. But we should keep in mind that for some it can be a problem. Folks who work in the tech sector, for example, may be finding that tech is becoming somewhat less the bastion of geekdom, but not so much that being traditionally geeky is a major issue in most areas. But there are any number of gamers who aren't in the tech field, and don't have the "traditionally geeky" protection.

It really is part of learning about proper use of social media - don't broadcast images of people without their permission, and such.

 

[Anselyn]

You know that the root word of "stats" is "statistics", yes?

Er, yes. As in lies, damned lies and statistics - and 77% of imaginary respondents thought a patronising writing style doesn't endear the reader to the write.

You know that statistics call for carefully taken, and hopefully large, sample sizes, yes? So, those should not be applied to *individual* workers. At least not to your typical office worker, to whom most of this office-politics kind of thing apply.

Yes. I was not advocating this management style. I was commenting that I thought this is where we're at now - and I'm happy to be wrong.

For my part I get asked to comment on questionnaires that tell me that the responding 45% of my students (say 85/190) have given me a score of 3.93/5 - as if those three sig figs are meaningful.

I have to ask, what kind of office jobs have you held? In what industries? I ask so I can perhaps understand your perspective better, and be better able to explain.

I'm a physics academic at an English university. We're the fifth-ranked department in the Complete University Guide 2016 for Physics and Astronomy departments (You see - measured and judged by tables). "91% of our research is world leading / internationally excellent. The results of REF 2014 confirm the excellence of the research carried out at Bath." REF 2014 - official government measure of research outputs.

Please do feel free to expound. I am interested - and honestly don't think that I'm such a social misfit that I wouldn't notice if these things were going on (but I wouldn't, would I). Here are some thoughts I've had about this today.

I. As an academic I/we, of course, get some flack for not living in the real world - and its business practices to which we should aspire. This just seems to suggest that we get some things nicely right.

II. Is this a cultural issue? I believe there is a deep British belief that what you do behind closed doors is up to you and not part of your public life. Of course, the French are even more liberal than us on this when it comes to sexual behaviour. Is some of this about required standards of conformity in American life?

III. I agree that social media is changing things. We should respect other's' decisions about control of their public persona.

 

[Umbran]

Er, yes. As in lies, damned lies and statistics - and 77% of imaginary respondents thought a patronising writing style doesn't endear the reader to the write.

With respect, you were speaking about an area you don't know much about, and your ignorance showed. That generally tells us that we need to take several steps back and start at basics. That'll seem patronizing, I suspect.

I'm a physics academic at an English university.

Fair enough - I understand that position, as I've been there (physics, but at an American university).

"91% of our research is world leading / internationally excellent.

Yes, well, think about that judgement. It speaks to the University as a whole, but not to any particular graduate student. The individual students are judged by a much smaller group of individuals at the university. And sometimes, an interaction between a student and professor goes awry, now doesn't it?

I. As an academic I/we, of course, get some flack for not living in the real world - and its business practices to which we should aspire. This just seems to suggest that we get some things nicely right.

Yes and no. Surely, you Brits are not immune to departmental politics?

When I was a graduate student, I was looking for a thesis project - and one professor suggested one. I looked into it for a semester, and once I had learned enough to make a judgement, it was pretty clear what he needed was a computer scientist, not a physicist. I informed him (as politely as I could) that the project didn't seem like it was for me, and found another one that was much more fitting to my interests and skills. It turned out that, no matter how polite I'd tried to be, I'd *horribly* offended this professor, and he was still on my thesis committee. It made several things much more difficult from that point on.

That's not an academic dynamic, or a business one. It is a human one. And it happens anywhere.

II. Is this a cultural issue?

To some extent, I expect so, though I haven't spent enough time in Britain to really judge.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is a DEFINITE cultural dynamic at play. People underestimate how xenophobic/anti-intellectual/intolerant/regressive/reactionary certain aspects of America can be.

 

[Anselyn]

With respect, you were speaking about an area you don't know much about, and your ignorance showed.

I see. Your ignorance seems to extend to the well documented cases of employers, such as Amazon, monitoring the productivity of workers on a minute-by-minute basis in their warehouses or equivalent monitoring of staff in call centres. I'm not saying this is universal but the practise seems to be following the technological capability.

A rather different example is optimising the performance of elite athletes (rugby is the specific case here that I'm thinking of) by having GPS trackers on each player. Data is then analysed for various aspects of individual performance, with as I understand it, comparisons being made to other players and previous history.

It speaks to the University as a whole, but not to any particular graduate student.

Actually that was for Physics - each "Unit of Assessment" (=subject) was also measured. However, yes it was for a unit not down to the level of individuals. That happens in our annual reviews.

And sometimes, an interaction between a student and professor goes awry, now doesn't it?

Yes, of course. We are people and have processes, up to an ombudsman, to deal with these things because it is a problem. We don't just accept it as inevitable and unavoidable.

Surely, you Brits are not immune to departmental politics?

My dept is very collegiate, others not so much. These arguments tend to swirl around research groups, rather than individuals, competing for space. I do have departmental colleagues who are seen as worse departmental citizens than others. There are, of course, people I find it more or less easy to work with. However - to return to the starting point here - I've never heard whispers against someone based on their personal life. Now - I'm not saying there isn't gossip but there certainly isn't politics based on hobbies or interests - to my knowledge.

(We probably need to think about definitions here. I assume that we'd agree that politics is "Activities aimed at improving someone’s status or increasing power within an organization"[oxforddictionaries.com] rather than the variety of interpersonal realtions.)

It made several things much more difficult from that point on.

I'm sorry to hear that he was so unprofessional, which is how I would consider it. I assume his peers would taken this into account if this dynamic were known to them?

That's not an academic dynamic, or a business one. It is a human one. And it happens anywhere.

Yes, but .... I find it dispiriting that you seem to be saying that this means it's inevitable and unavoidable. The same could be said of sexism, racism etc. It doesn't mean that it's acceptable anywhere.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You know that the root word of "stats" is "statistics", yes? You know that statistics call for carefully taken, and hopefully large, sample sizes, yes? So, those should not be applied to *individual* workers. At least not to your typical office worker, to whom most of this office-politics kind of thing apply.



Heck, in the software industry these days, you don't measure the output of individuals - you measure teams.

And, consider that the bulk of business out there is actually *small* business. They don't have time, money, or expertise to try to come up with metrics for everything.

I have to ask, what kind of office jobs have you held? In what industries? I ask so I can perhaps understand your perspective better, and be better able to explain.

I'd like to point out that the second definition of statistics is a collection of quantitative data, which can quite easily refer to an individual. I've had jobs where my stats were tracked such as my time, my throughput, my customer satisfaction scores, etc. Sports players often have 'stats' which refer to their performance.

I believe that you might owe Anselyn an apology.

 

[Umbran]

I'd like to point out that the second definition of statistics is a collection of quantitative data, which can quite easily refer to an individual. I've had jobs where my stats were tracked such as my time, my throughput, my customer satisfaction scores, etc.

Actually, the modern term for those in the (American) business world is "metrics", in part because major companies do have people who deal with statistics (ah, "Big Data"!), and they want to draw the distinction. And, unless they are carefully designed, they often don't do what people think they do.

Sports players often have 'stats' which refer to their performance.

Yep, and those stats are often reported to levels of precision, and given weight not justified by the number of trials and measures taken. Total umber of yards rushed this season is a piece of data, a measure, a metric, but it isn't statistical in nature, and shouldn't really be called a statistic for that reason. Basically, the business world has gotten ahead of sports in this regard, in recognizing the difference between "something we measure" and "something we measure with statistical relevance".

 

[Anselyn]

Metrics/statistics

the difference between "something we measure" and "something we measure with statistical relevance".

That is a very useful definition.

Probably worth mentioning for the general reader that even within physics practices vary on data handling. In my sub-field we look at "error" propagation (really uncertainty propagation) and uncertainties in data fitting. We never do any form of hypothesis testing, which I tend to associate with biologists by default. However, if I were looking for new particles at CERN or for gravity waves then analysis of the statistical significance of data emerging from the noise (for particles) or the sources of all possible source of instrumental noise and suppressing it (for gravity waves) would be core to what I do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually, the modern term for those in the (American) business world is "metrics", in part because major companies do have people who deal with statistics (ah, "Big Data"!), and they want to draw the distinction. And, unless they are carefully designed, they often don't do what people think they do.

Sure, I suppose you can argue with the dictionary and also decide that everyone now uses your preferred term. I mean, hey, my lived experience must not be correct, right?

Yep, and those stats are often reported to levels of precision, and given weight not justified by the number of trials and measures taken. Total umber of yards rushed this season is a piece of data, a measure, a metric, but it isn't statistical in nature, and shouldn't really be called a statistic for that reason. Basically, the business world has gotten ahead of sports in this regard, in recognizing the difference between "something we measure" and "something we measure with statistical relevance".

Yes, but I didn't argue it was statistical in nature, I said it was a statistic. I fully understand the difference, I use statistics daily in my professional life. However, I also understand that stats doesn't always mean statistical analysis but can also just mean data. Heck, in our shared hobby, attribute scores are sometimes called stats. What I also understand is that it isn't cool to condescend to other posters because you forgot that statistics has more than one meaning.