"Rhetoric for Engineers" available FREE!

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:18:54 -0800, Ron Graham wrote:


http://www.tcnj.edu/~rgraham/rhetoric/

Interesting page.  But already I can see that you left out one important
mode of appeal: Bathos, or "what happens if I dissolve in a puddle of
tears right here on the conference room floor -- will they give me what I
want just to stop the noise?".

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Ron Graham wrote:

http://www.tcnj.edu/~rgraham/rhetoric/

Maybe rhetoric can convince people that dog droppings taste like
chocolate pudding, but science and engineering deal with facts; either
the tower withstands strong wind or it falls. Rhetoric may help to
defend the lawsuit, but it won't hold up the tower.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:

Rhetoric will help you convince the "money men" to build the tower that
will stay up, however.  Otherwise you'll be stuck as #2 man on the
project team headed up by the guy with the fountain pen who interviews
well, but never stays around long enough for his failures to stick to _him_.

Frankly, Jerry, I suspect that you're a pretty good rhetorician --
otherwise you wouldn't have convinced the powers that be to give you
room to be a good engineer.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Tim Wescott wrote:

   ...


Where I've worked, it took facts, not fancy arguments to do that. Still,...


...you may be right. Back when computers were coming into use for
scientific calculation and a minicomputer with 16 Kwords of core was
within reach of most large commercial projects, RCA's data-processing
department decreed "You shall use these computers and no others." They
had a point. A different computer meant a different compiler and editor,
and proliferation was getting out of hand.

Our group needed a mini to be part of a bench experiment, and a critical
factor in its choice was the details and cost of the I/O. The one we
could easily use wasn't on the list. I spent about a week looking for
ways to use the allowed machines, then groused to my manager, "If I
needed two $5,000 scopes, there's be no problem. One $10,000 computer,
and it's like the asking for something from King Tut's tomb!" He said
"Tell that to Rajchman. Maybe it's an argument he can use" (Jan Rajchman
was director of the computer lab.

Rajchman repeated it to the head of the labs (and a corporate VP) and to
Paul Brown, a member of the board of directors in New York whose office
was at the labs. Brown asked me why that particular choice. Rhetoric
would not have sufficed for an answer. Together they brought it to the
full board, which overruled the DP department. I got the Nova 1200.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:26:02 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:


But it always takes some convincing to get people to look at the facts,
and you have to arrange your facts in a manner that will transmit the
message that you want your audience to get without getting distracted by
side issues, and you often have to tell the audience what message they're
supposed to be getting without getting their dander up.

That's all rhetoric.  If you're presenting to a hostile audience, it's
either good rhetoric (possibly with fancy arguments) or failed rhetoric.
 

Saying "This computer is only $10000, so you should buy it!" is presenting
the facts, but won't get you very far.  Saying "I have unique needs for
this computer, it only costs as much as this other thing you'll get for
me, and it'll cost much less in the end if you give me a variance" is good
rhetoric.

Logos, or the appeal to logic, is the rhetorical approach that should
probably be used most often as an engineer, but the presentation still
needs to be made well -- numbers don't lie, but they don't talk so you
gotta get folks to read them.

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

I agree with Tim. Engineering is very much a people focussed activity, and
communication is a big part of it. Putting effort into making your message
persuasive is one of the best things you can do.

Bruce Varley wrote:

   ...


OK: I accept the correction. I never thought about it much, probably
because I haven't needed to. I'm reminded of the politician who, some
years before I was born, stood on an overturned barrel to give a
campaign speech. The bottom caved in while he spoke. He climbed out and,
standing on the rim, declared that the weight of his argument could be
counted on to carry him through. He was elected.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

I appreciate that answer.  But it's a false argument.  You make it
sound
like it's one or the other.  Either "facts" or "fancy arguments."  How
likely
is that?

Where I've worked, I've seen good people with good facts who were
unable to get the point across, and as a result were ignored as surely
as if they hadn't done the work at all.  I, and I'm sure many others
in
these groups -- if there still ARE many others -- can name historical
examples illustrating the same point.

Dr. Ron Graham
founder of Usenet newsgroup sci.engr, and no longer proud of it  :-(
editor of Rhetoric for Engineers and start me up!: Young Entrepreneurs
"Better is the enemy of good enough" -- Russian quality slogan

Ron Graham wrote:

I agree now. I take the goal of expressing myself so much for granted
that I lost sight of it's value.


Shouldn't that be "Good enough is the enemy of better"? I grant that
enmity is usually a reciprocal relation, but the flavor seems different.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Dear Jerry Avins:


The winner is the enemy of the "also ran".  Does it taste better
that way?  The winner can be gracious, and has few enemies...

David A. Smith

Jerry Avins wrote:

Striving for "better" when your customers are willing to pay good money
for "good enough" may delay your product release to a fatal degree.

Resting on your "good enough" laurels when your competitors are primed
to release "better" -- or even when your market is saturated with "good
enough" -- may put you behind in the market to a fatal degree.

There's sense in both forms of the slogan.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Isn't that the truth?  Most of us have for years called this
phenomenon
"paralysis by analysis."  LOL

Dr. Ron Graham
founder of Usenet newsgroup sci.engr, and, well... LOL
Just the FAQs, man --  http://www.tcnj.edu/~rgraham/
"You know a design is good when you want to lick it."
- Steve Jobs

You spend the time determining what the specs need to be.  Then you meet
them.  There is no loop in a good design waterfall for exceeding them.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Aristotle:  Logos, pathos AND ethos.