I am not exactly sure why this difference—a total inversion! -
The boxing and corporate situations don’t seem that different to me. In both cases, the higher ups are providing direction and the people lower down are allowed to ask questions—but might get in trouble for trying to challenge those higher up.
In the situation where you describe talking to a senior statistician, “Why’d you use the mean instead of the median?” sounds a whole lot like “Why don’t we stand like this instead?” in a boxing gym. Those are both “Hey expert who is deservedly above me, please enlighten me”, and both work. If you say to your coach “You’re wrong, this stance is better”, that sounds more like “Really, you should be taking direction from me because I know better than you”. If instead, you were to tell the senior statistician “You’re wrong, in this case the mean is better” in that same tone, I could see him being shocked and annoyed with your arrogance. Especially if you try to condescendingly explain stats 101 considerations that he obviously has taken into account.
I asked the speaker—a mathematics professor I didn’t know—a direct question. He took it poorly, and rejected my question with a cutting remark [...] Part of the problem is that it’s just too easy for the senior. Imagine an undergrad, giving a math talk, trying to do the same thing to a mathematics professor in the audience who asked a question. Be as cutting as you want—nobody is going to laugh at the mathematics professor!
Okay, I think I see where the confusion is coming from now. You seem to be assuming that status markers like position as a professor accurately track actual ability/knowledge that supposedly justifies this position. If you have an bright undergrad and a math professor who doesn’t know enough math to be respected as a math professor, then the undergrad’s position doesn’t stop him from being able to expose the professor as a fraud. Imagine that situation again, where the undergraduate’s criticisms are spot on and the professor can’t address the question without exposing the fact that they don’t actually know math.
This stands out to me pretty strongly because as an undergrad I never shied away from pointing out where my professors made mistakes, and I’ve had it go both ways. My physics professors actually knew physics, and as a results were always secure. On the other hand, my philosophy of science professor didn’t actually know philosophy of science, so when tried to roll me over by posturing I could just keep poking holes until he was visibly fighting back tears and he explicitly asked me to stop correcting him.
Questions of “who is better” in Boxing can be resolved by spending three minutes in the ring with each other (and Go is the same, except it takes an hour). Skill differences in programming, or god forbid project management, are much harder to measure.
Philosophy is even less concretely resolvable than programming yet that was resolved so I don’t think it’s a huge deal, but I do think having a three minute definitive test available does help make these dynamics more clear.
In jiu jitsu, for example, you’re supposed to be nice to the lower belts but you can never offend them as an upper belt beating them up. Nor do you have anything to worry about when rolling with an upper belt that can mop the mat with you at any time they want.
But when a lower belt can demonstrate superiority over an upper belt, that’s when things get tense. That’s why jiu jitsu people can sometimes be weird about strength/quickness/wrestlers/leg locks. Any time a white belt can beat a brown belt, the brown belt has to find a way to square that with their social position—and sometimes that’s tough.
I think the bigger difference is who pays for poor performance. If you’re my boxing student, then your poor performance just means you get punched in the face. So if I’m criticizing your actions I’m just trying to help you achieve your goals of not getting punched in the face. If you’re my employee then your performance hurts my bottom line, and you don’t feel it unless I take action to make you. So if I’m criticizing your actions it’s because if affects me, and I’m probably going to do something to make sure it affects you—so you know there’s pressure to do better or else risk getting fired.
The boxing and corporate situations don’t seem that different to me. In both cases, the higher ups are providing direction and the people lower down are allowed to ask questions—but might get in trouble for trying to challenge those higher up.
In the situation where you describe talking to a senior statistician, “Why’d you use the mean instead of the median?” sounds a whole lot like “Why don’t we stand like this instead?” in a boxing gym. Those are both “Hey expert who is deservedly above me, please enlighten me”, and both work. If you say to your coach “You’re wrong, this stance is better”, that sounds more like “Really, you should be taking direction from me because I know better than you”. If instead, you were to tell the senior statistician “You’re wrong, in this case the mean is better” in that same tone, I could see him being shocked and annoyed with your arrogance. Especially if you try to condescendingly explain stats 101 considerations that he obviously has taken into account.
Okay, I think I see where the confusion is coming from now. You seem to be assuming that status markers like position as a professor accurately track actual ability/knowledge that supposedly justifies this position. If you have an bright undergrad and a math professor who doesn’t know enough math to be respected as a math professor, then the undergrad’s position doesn’t stop him from being able to expose the professor as a fraud. Imagine that situation again, where the undergraduate’s criticisms are spot on and the professor can’t address the question without exposing the fact that they don’t actually know math.
This stands out to me pretty strongly because as an undergrad I never shied away from pointing out where my professors made mistakes, and I’ve had it go both ways. My physics professors actually knew physics, and as a results were always secure. On the other hand, my philosophy of science professor didn’t actually know philosophy of science, so when tried to roll me over by posturing I could just keep poking holes until he was visibly fighting back tears and he explicitly asked me to stop correcting him.
Philosophy is even less concretely resolvable than programming yet that was resolved so I don’t think it’s a huge deal, but I do think having a three minute definitive test available does help make these dynamics more clear.
In jiu jitsu, for example, you’re supposed to be nice to the lower belts but you can never offend them as an upper belt beating them up. Nor do you have anything to worry about when rolling with an upper belt that can mop the mat with you at any time they want.
But when a lower belt can demonstrate superiority over an upper belt, that’s when things get tense. That’s why jiu jitsu people can sometimes be weird about strength/quickness/wrestlers/leg locks. Any time a white belt can beat a brown belt, the brown belt has to find a way to square that with their social position—and sometimes that’s tough.
I think the bigger difference is who pays for poor performance. If you’re my boxing student, then your poor performance just means you get punched in the face. So if I’m criticizing your actions I’m just trying to help you achieve your goals of not getting punched in the face. If you’re my employee then your performance hurts my bottom line, and you don’t feel it unless I take action to make you. So if I’m criticizing your actions it’s because if affects me, and I’m probably going to do something to make sure it affects you—so you know there’s pressure to do better or else risk getting fired.