|
> Stuff like that. Love that phrase, might be misusing it, still love it. Yeah, love those concepts that lend themselves well to other systems (signal to noise ratio, inertia, etc). What I meant, I may have "packaged" my message clumsily, was the following: is an Engineer's duty, in the context of their job, to package "technical" information for the manager not the flip side of the manager's duty to package "managerial" information for the Engineer. The Engineer complains that management doesn't get "obvious technical" information the same way management complains an Engineer doesn't get "obvious management" information, which might cause mutual disdain, and ~°we all know°~ it's easier to have disdain for people with questionable hygiene and appearance, so there's that. I guess an Engineer's struggle with money stuff is really the same as the inability of someone to solve a Physics problem: one needs to have the data in the right dimensions, the laws that apply to them, and know how to apply them. Then practice doing so. An Engineer's inability to "get money stuff" is one or more of the above missing (cash vs cash flow for figures of the right dimension, for example), knowing the rules to apply to money, and then the practice of applying them. |
It would be a whole lot less weird to me if we were talking about, I dunno, anyone who isn't good at systems/math.
It's just a big blind spot, at least it is in the USA. I don't get it.