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.
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.
Well, nine women could produce a baby once a month (recovery period aside)
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).
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.
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?