Compromise

I expressed an opinion on your outlook on compromise. A word that you now know I detest because it conveys a sloppy approach.

You were the one who got into name calling. I think the word "fool" was used.

Even you have backed away from the statement that "ALL things in yacht design are a compromise" They were the words you wrote. How am I supposed to understand anything different.

As far as the vote goes I learnt a long time ago it is all in the framing of the question.

Imagine if I started a vote on recruiting a young engineer/ yacht designer.

I have two fresh faced candidates that I interview. Both fresh out of the same school and similar results in the aptitude tests and presentation skills.


During the interview young Mike discusses something he found in a his text book. It had quite an impact because he can quote it almost verbatum to you:
A word which I believe should be kept in mind by all engineers and Naval Architects is optimum, and the art of naval architecture demands particular compliance with the necessity of achieving optimization, which is of course is the best combination of several incompatibilities.

Now young Will expresses a somewhat different view and states:
All things in yacht design are a compromise.

He then adds:
I believe the clients are usually wrong but I would not tell them that to their face.


You are the recruitment specialist. Who will you recommend to your firm knowing they have a reputation for building the best yachts in their segment of the market that have no equal:

A. Mike
B. Will

I wonder how this vote would go.

Rick W

 

Here you are, at it again. Misrepresenting not just my remarks, but Mike's as well! Doesn't it strike you as odd that he'd agree with you, but then vote the other way? You don't even understand what it is that he said!

Yes - I did use the word fool, please accept my apologies. Whilst it falls well short of what I'd like to call you, it was probably inappropriate to do so. My only defense is that I had been working for 30+hrs. Of course, if we're going to get into a "he said it 1st" scenario, should I not regard 'sloppy' and 'lazy' as a form of name calling?

I have absolutely not backed away from any of my statements.
I also fail to see how the simple question "does the process of producing a complete design invariably involve compromise?" could possibly skew the result.

Now, we can go on like this forever - you can twist my words to suit your own ends until the cows come home. The simple fact is, you lost this one Rick. Be man enough to admit it.... swallow your pride and lets move on

 

I have lost debates before. I did my best and maybe got a few people to think about it a bit deeper. It is only my opinion - they differ. I have never been afraid to be different. That is the basis of innovation.

I am encouraged to see my thoughts expressed in a text that NAs might know about however Mike intended it. I do not get the same meaning as you from his post. Maybe you should ask Mike what he meant if you are reading something into it. I thought he was the one who voted against the rest.


Rick W

 

"Each his own. If that is your idea of enjoyment then so be it."

This is the KEY!

The boats OWNER , who causes the vessel to be created has his own list of DESIREMENTS.

These are the compromises he is willing to make to obtain HIS VIEW of his 'Optimum" boat.

The design optimization the NA attempts is to get the vessel as close to the owners dream as reality will allow..

Unfortuniatly lots of owners want stuff that is in conflict with other parts of their desirements .

Like the F1 car , any single concept can be optimized , but not all in the same vehicle , vessel.

ALL desirements can never be optimal , to every owner , but to the fellow paying the bills , close is possible.

"Different strokes for different folks"

FF

 

Howard Chapelle has this to say about compromising.

"Too many yachts are designed by attempting to obtain all the qualitites of the pefect yacht without regard to the limitations of the chosen type and intended use. It is very tempting to try to obtain all the good features seen in designs, yet if attempted the results prove very disappointing."

I think this quote is very fitting for this discussion.

 

There are ALWAYS requirements, the first are those from the client and his aesthetics tastes -even for your example of the small lake boat where the primordial requirement is 6 persons capacity-. Aesthetics are strong requirements as he pays... All the NA working in yachting have the sometimes sad experience.
The very first compromise of your example will be the color of the boat...

A very strong requirement; feasibility. The designed object must be "build-able" or it will be just lines on a paper or junk material.

Requirements may be very incentive, but it's absolutely necessary to define rationally them, or it will be empty mess written on paper, as in your example.

If you think that your example proves anything, you have some problems with logic and reality.

Compromises (or better said choices) are not a torture. Torture comes when the designer tries to conciliate impossible or unreachable requirements, the most common being the lack of funds.

With rational requirements there is no torture as all the rational goal requirements are made, and these requirements (also choices) have not internal contradiction. Just common sense of someone who knows what he wants, and he knows that what he wants is feasible. That asks some knowledge of the field. Without a strong knowledge, theoretic and practical, design is a vain exercise.

 

So you do agree that compromise is an inappropriate word here. That is my point exactly. We all make choices. That is not compromise.

Rick W

 

Wrongly written, Rick.
The correct form of this phrase would be "So do you agree that compromise is an inappropriate word here?".
Form does matter when relating to other persons - that is one of reasons you now have to fight against so many persons on the forum. Nobody likes being patronized and nobody likes when other people try to put words into their mouth.
I am telling you this very good-heartedly, believe me.

 

Many thanks Daiquiri, you answered to Rick for me about politeness, and respect of the others. My answer to Rick is that compromise is a very appropriate word, in the meaning it's understood by at least 90% of the English speaking people.

Rick has semantic and logical problems: one of these problems, he thinks compromise as only a negative word. it's false in English.
In French there are 2 words: "compromis" positive meaning; reasoned choice or agreement, and "compromission" a very negative meaning, where you're giving away without any gain.
Sometimes you gain more by giving away...it's also a life attitude. And sometimes we have to admit we are wrong and it's not a shame.

But Rick, you seem to be a very rigid minded person, not admitting contradiction...I do hope to be wrong about you.

Finally, Rick you have not answered to my post #81 and tried to displace the discussion on another semantic field. I'm not here to argue; read the phrase and you'll understand why I've used the word "choices". It's not an innocent use of the word in the context of the phrase.

Rick, what do you think, rationally, of the assertions I make in the #81 post? Let's do Maieutics (from the Greek μαιευτικός). It's not a war, just a good mental training.

 

I am not fighting against anyone. Just having a debate using the same tactics that are used by others.

Rick W

 

Willallison started this thread with a poll and the whole dilemma is so obvious allready from there.. The difference btw the two possible answers lies in the presence and absence of the phrase "design spiral" Design spiral as concept requires some kind of revaluation and compromises to be done btw contradicting aspects of the design.. in case of all aspects being optimal they are so without the interference of any other aspects and can be determined as sole..

 

Its ok to be wrong Rick, it happens to all of us and if anything just means that your pushing yourself to a better end.
The only offensive thing to being wrong is when some folks jump up and down and rub it in as if this was kindergarten or something

at 97% we have reached the same level of consensus as on Rapid Global Climate Change and how many people seriously argue that one

might take a minute of self reflection and rethink this one friend

A. its all in good fun
B. its the internet so no worries
C. its one simple admission to shake that monkey off your back
D. its no big deal

personally Im signing off on this one
its turning into Rick bashing and I just dont want to play that way
He's been helpful to a lot of folks round here and he's a valuable asset to the mix
frankly Ive apreciated both the abuse and the help from time to time
so I think I'll just bail out and look up some threads that do help me get closer to finishing my project

 

I think this thread is turning about semantic alone.
Rick will not let it go, because perhaps is interest is on the shear game of semantic and around the signification of one word. This is called the destruction and reconstruction of a meaning, or thought, witch is translated into a word.
You can turn around with that for a century.
In that case Rick is wrong, and he knows it. Rick design small and efficient vessel, some are really interesting and very imaginative. Rick must have a very high degree of intelligence, and creativity.
What Rick do not have is a real customer who quick is *** if Rick do not complies with what he want.
So Rick as to explain to the customer that is requirement are not possible but he can find an other way. The customer agree with conditions. And Rick, with the help of the thought of his depleted bank account, start to compromise, and the check clear, the money flow, and everybody is happy, since the boat is a great success.
At the launch was Rick's banker.
And as for the semantic Rick says: who gives a flying **** about it.
But of course I can't put thought in Rick's mind.
It was just a story.

Daniel

 

boston
I cannot be wrong. It is only an opinion. There is no scientific measure here of wrong or right.

Another way I can make the distinction on my point is that engineers use scientific methods to achieve their objectives. Diplomats practice the art of compromise.

So simply put I am more an engineer than a diplomat. I do not have need for approval of my opinions. It seems that some think that simply because there is weight of numbers their opinion is right. It is only an opinion cannot be right or wrong. An opinion cannot be made fact by weight of numbers. Same way you cannot change the laws of physics by weight of numbers.

It seems a lot of people here seem to need the approval of the group. I am happy to be different and strongly voice opinions that I hold dear. If others want to be more diplomats than engineers then that is their choice.

Rick W

 

boston
You have been the only one on the forum who has managed to frustrate me to the point of giving up on the laws of physics - remember the DDWFTTW.

Anyhow I expect the boys are very close to doing their full scale runs. You may still be a sceptic but the science will be proving at human scale very soon. Apparently they are looking to set up a competition to have an annual DDWFTTW race.

Rick W