You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah, this kinda shit is fucking hilarious but people don't realize it. There's this corporate training BS called Kaizen where they take a lot of normal Japanese words like 無理 (muri) and associate weird Eastern mystic significance to them.
Literally just means "impossible" and is frequently used in slang to be like "no no no I couldn't possibly [talk to that hot guy]". Having it put up on a slide and presented by some white dudes in suits who were nodding solely and talking about the secret Japanese knowledge was just too much to bear.
I fucking hate Kaizen. I had to go through it as part of a job placement program and was convinced it was a cult. Like no, I am not going to call "Leaving a reminder for myself" a Gemba. I'm calling it a note because the japanese didn't fucking invent the idea of writing things down for later.
It’s all the same bullshit as six sigma with their black belts and shit. Or if you are devops the utter trash called “Agile”.
Sprints away
How can you say Six Sigma is bullshit?
It's literally just a method of identifying a problem, measuring and analyzing its impact, and implementing a lasting solution.
The difference between the six sigma method and traditional organizations is that:
- Six sigma gives power to experts (instead of middle managers), * It involves staff who are actually doing the work
- It tests solutions before they're implemented
- It acknowledges that many things can't be forced top-down by the boss
Because I'm not a six sigma whatever belt and all those things you listed are things that are just common sense.
This dude has really drank the kool aid. Imagine being tricked into thinking that you need an imaginary black belt to do root cause analysis and participate in a project
Shame on you!
You're taking food out of the mouths of the children of Management Consultants with your reckless disregards for the latest corporate management fad!
They didn't invent the idea of comic books either, so why do we call them "manga" if they come from Japan?
Because it’s a way to distinguish them. In Italy, we also call American comics “comics” (instead of the Italian word for comics) for example.
Manga are a kind of comic, they're just pretty specific about their format and choices. Anime is a kind of animated cartoon, it's just specific about its choices. Even "coming from Japan" isn't a requirement as long as it follows those traditionally(-ish) Japanese choices.
Eh, there’s different schools of thought. Artists like Junji Ito or Kabi Nagata make stuff very different from the usual manga, but they’re still called “manga”. In the same way, Radiant isn’t considered a manga by many even though it’s so close to the actual ones it even got an anime.
I mean yeah. Most people define genres or categories using association, and they can become a gooey mess at worst. I've been arguing for structured definitions for years, but it's a lost cause. I still believe I am the only person who has a completely sane definition for "role-playing game". But I digress, fam. ^^
What’s your definition, out of curiosity?
Personally my first thought hearing “RPG” is the classic game with various characters, skills, level system and tons of enemies, but there’s a lot of games that don’t fit this definition that are still RPGs
I'm not sure if I want to go into the full thing because people tend to get defensive about their preconceived notions and make a big, heated argument about it. But I will say this: game genres are defined by gameplay— not by content, by visuals, by storytelling style, or by similarities with other games people assume to be in that genre.
As simply as I can put it— and hopefully not opening up a huge can of worms— I define a role-playing game as a game in which your character(s) play one of several roles, meaning "classes"— each with their own stats and abilities that play differently and support the character(s) differently. You can have a single-character game where the character can choose one or more classes, or you can have multiple characters that each have their own classes, or you can have multiple characters that can choose between their classes. That makes D&D, Pokémon, Kingdom Hearts, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy XIII, and honestly a bunch of multiplayer shooters, etc., RPGs. That does not make Zelda or the first Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior RPGs.
So the biggest problem with humans and categorizations is that humans are highly assumptive, seeing surface-level features and defining items by those, and defining items by outward similarities with other items that they already assume to be of that category. Because of this, what a lot of people do is confuse the adventure genre— games that use exploration, puzzle-solving, and key items in order to progress— and role-playing games, which almost always are adventure games as well. D&D? Both RPG and adventure. Final Fantasy XIII? RPG but not adventure. Zelda? Adventure but not RPG. But in most cases, RPGs are also adventures; so a lot of people through association mistakenly think games with common adventure elements are simply RPGs.
I know a lot of what I'm saying is going to fly over many peoples' heads, and they'll go crazy in the comments. Let's see how long I can ignore them for the sake of my own sanity...
I can imagine not considering the first Dragon Quest an RPG would create a lot of discussion, I can’t really speak for that since I haven’t played it but I guess some of the “canons” must’ve been missing since it used a password system.
Would Dark Souls count as an RPG in your definition? There’s no definite classes but you’re definitely shaping up your character to be a Warrior, Mage, and so on.
I added Dark Souls into the list before I saw this comment; because usually when I talk about this subject, I list it. I try to use variety in my examples, but I just forgot for a moment about listing Dark Souls ^^
Because they come from Japan...
Also probably because the reading direction is flipped
God damn I just tried to read the Wikipedia page on Kaizen and I have never seen so many words used to describe nothing.
You say that probably because many components in it look like common sense.
"Duh, of course the response to a problem should be to rectify it" (simplifying slightly)
Lots of companies don't though. Or they jump to a conclusion about the best solution. Or some middle manager decides he knows what's best and then proceeds to break things.
It's quite useful to have a philosophy that gives authority to non-traditional but logical steps.
Is it the corporate equivalent of getting a tattoo that just says "eggs and ham" in Chinese or something?
I bet they get really mad if you call them business weebs
Basically the Japanese equivalent of shit like "synergy" then?
I mean, that's what people do with models and methodologies right? In my language English terms are used when using an English methodology.
Kaizen comes from Japan, was developed in Japan, and it was quite successful there. It's not that strange to copy it word for word.
The idea behind it is quite different from what tends to happen in traditional Western companies. Since companies want to be better than their competitors and organizational change is hard, it makes sense to look for ready-made tools, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.
Of course, since (organizational) change makes many employees nervous, depending on how the organization goes about it Kaizen could get a bad name.