The problem I had was that Clinton's principal associate is Ira Magaziner, the same "intellectual" who was the schemer-in-chief behind "Hillary care" in 1993.
The problem I have is that Tom Peters is the same "intellectual" who continues to say less with more words that any other "business guru" on the lecture circuit.
Funny how often over the years he has been wrong with his McKinsey-like advice while the world changed under his feet.
Funnier is that the guy who skims the surface of everything, never digging down below one level is telling us hackers to act without realizing that this is one audience you can't bullshit.
Examples of Peters' charlatanism are everywhere. Just a few:
It's odd, because I don't get the same sentiment from reading the two articles you've cited (I haven't read the book).
Essentially, you're upset that the man's predictions have often been wrong. Big whup. Show me one billionaire or nobel prize-winning scientist who hasn't been wrong hundreds of times and I'll show you a liar.
What you should get out of Tom Peters' manic style is, if anything, that you should always question business as usual because shit is going to keep changing. That's it. If you're taking his (or anyone else's) advice as a prescription for how you should think, act, or feel - you're a fool. Advice should merely serve as fodder for thinking, for shocking us out of doing things just because we've always done them that way.
If you form your own opinions, there's no need to go foamy at the mouth when someone else's turn out to be wrong.
Just like models and actors have built entire careers (and industries, in fact) on just standing around and pretending to do things?
Tom Peters does not pretend to be a hacker.
Hackers are not the only sort of people in the world.
Peter Diamandis, for example, is a personal hero of mine and a champion of industry. Does he run unit tests? No. Does he personally build spacecraft? No.
Does that make him any less valuable as a thinker and leader?
Sure it does. He is the living embodiment of "you can just go around talking shit", he's irrational. You can call him an abstract painterly post-modernist thinker, or whatever, just don't go supporting his way of being by putting meaning where there is none, you'd be giving people false hope, so to say. And that really murders, and subsequently mutilates your inner child.
Ok, I can see why it may be fun to counter something that partially reads like a personal attack on Magaziner with something that's definitely a personal attack on Peters (insert discussion about HN as a forum for spectator sports here), but do you also disagree with the argument about planning vs. doing that he's actually making?
I think it's slang. I found a definition on an online dictionary with a less-than-stellar reputation (they have a poor Web of Trust score). They defined it as meaning "suspicious and feces-ridden". Heh.
Comments
The problem I had was that Clinton's principal associate is Ira Magaziner, the same "intellectual" who was the schemer-in-chief behind "Hillary care" in 1993.
The problem I have is that Tom Peters is the same "intellectual" who continues to say less with more words that any other "business guru" on the lecture circuit.
Funny how often over the years he has been wrong with his McKinsey-like advice while the world changed under his feet.
Funnier is that the guy who skims the surface of everything, never digging down below one level is telling us hackers to act without realizing that this is one audience you can't bullshit.
Examples of Peters' charlatanism are everywhere. Just a few:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/53/peters.html
http://www.sathnam.com/Features/31/tom-peters
http://www.amazon.com/Witch-Doctors-Making-Sense-Management/...
It's odd, because I don't get the same sentiment from reading the two articles you've cited (I haven't read the book).
Essentially, you're upset that the man's predictions have often been wrong. Big whup. Show me one billionaire or nobel prize-winning scientist who hasn't been wrong hundreds of times and I'll show you a liar.
What you should get out of Tom Peters' manic style is, if anything, that you should always question business as usual because shit is going to keep changing. That's it. If you're taking his (or anyone else's) advice as a prescription for how you should think, act, or feel - you're a fool. Advice should merely serve as fodder for thinking, for shocking us out of doing things just because we've always done them that way.
If you form your own opinions, there's no need to go foamy at the mouth when someone else's turn out to be wrong.
If you form your own opinions, there's no need to go foamy at the mouth when someone else's turn out to be wrong.
Maybe not.
But then again, this is a guy who has built an entire career (and industry, in fact) on exactly the opposite of what most of us practice here at hn.
While we build, he talks.
While we test, he guesses.
While we ask, he tells.
When we're right, we deliver value, When he's right, people just say, "Of course."
When we're wrong, shit stops working. When he's wrong, the PHBs still keep writing him checks.
When the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, someone should say so. Especially here.
Just like models and actors have built entire careers (and industries, in fact) on just standing around and pretending to do things?
Tom Peters does not pretend to be a hacker.
Hackers are not the only sort of people in the world.
Peter Diamandis, for example, is a personal hero of mine and a champion of industry. Does he run unit tests? No. Does he personally build spacecraft? No.
Does that make him any less valuable as a thinker and leader?
Sure it does. He is the living embodiment of "you can just go around talking shit", he's irrational. You can call him an abstract painterly post-modernist thinker, or whatever, just don't go supporting his way of being by putting meaning where there is none, you'd be giving people false hope, so to say. And that really murders, and subsequently mutilates your inner child.
Night.
Ok, I can see why it may be fun to counter something that partially reads like a personal attack on Magaziner with something that's definitely a personal attack on Peters (insert discussion about HN as a forum for spectator sports here), but do you also disagree with the argument about planning vs. doing that he's actually making?
It's called an ad hominem argument, and it's one of the many well-known logical fallacies. For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hah, and this is one of the few, few times that I've seen someone online correctly saying that an argument was ad hominem.
Can someone who knows Latin give me a name for the logical fallacy of incorrectly dismissing an argument as ad hominem?
Not so specific, but fecious reasoning is a broad spectrum disorder that might be applicable...
From a quick dictionary lookup, "fecious" doesn't seem to be a word. Do you mean "specious?"
-ous: adjective forming suffix meaning "full of"
feces: sh*t
fecious: [I'll leave this as an exercise for the class]
I think it's slang. I found a definition on an online dictionary with a less-than-stellar reputation (they have a poor Web of Trust score). They defined it as meaning "suspicious and feces-ridden". Heh.
Fecious?
Whatever the latin for being wrong while trying to appeal to authority and intimidate someone would be.
If you want to coin it, seems like you can!