Back when I worked as a business analyst, about 80% of my work was translating geek into human and back again. It’s a thing. Geek being insurance speak/legalese.
Especially when people claim that they have a share in a trust (they don’t, as trusts don’t have ‘shares’) but their inside-own-head definition of ‘share’ means they think they have a right to benefit from the trust. Unfortunately, the reality often is, they don’t.
What they have is permission given to the trustee to give them some benefit from the trust if the trustee feels like doing so - and that permission can be revoked or just not exercised. The benefit, any benefit, is NOT guaranteed.
But they still use the word ‘share’ to describe their situation. Its not accurate, but who actually cares what reality is anyway? Not the lawyers, not the accountants. And they pay me money to explain this sort of thing to our clients. And sometimes to accountants and lawyers.
Part of the reason I gave up on my relationship with my father is that he started off defensive when learning about computers and devolved into a full on adult tantrum when I told him he didn’t need to know everything at the start. Specifically I was setting up DNS and he wouldn’t let me continue but refused to listen to anything I had to say. Still bothers me. Were I richer I’d get therapy for it but as it is I don’t think there’s any reconciling between us at this point.
I took the best client facing IT guy with me into a meeting today.
Let me just say, he’s an awesome guy and great to work with.
However.
These guys really overestimate what the average person understands. Now I get why they hired me.
Back when I worked as a business analyst, about 80% of my work was translating geek into human and back again. It’s a thing. Geek being insurance speak/legalese.
My job description is “Parts Interpreter”.
I have to translate descriptions like “Thingy”, “Whatchamacallit” and “Doo-dad” into useful descriptions through dialogue with the customer.
It is amazing how often the customer doesn’t want to work with you in a dialogue and doesn’t answer any questions or respond to clarifications.
Yeah, I run into this all the time with legalese.
Especially when people claim that they have a share in a trust (they don’t, as trusts don’t have ‘shares’) but their inside-own-head definition of ‘share’ means they think they have a right to benefit from the trust. Unfortunately, the reality often is, they don’t.
What they have is permission given to the trustee to give them some benefit from the trust if the trustee feels like doing so - and that permission can be revoked or just not exercised. The benefit, any benefit, is NOT guaranteed.
But they still use the word ‘share’ to describe their situation. Its not accurate, but who actually cares what reality is anyway? Not the lawyers, not the accountants. And they pay me money to explain this sort of thing to our clients. And sometimes to accountants and lawyers.
agree
the hard part is not making average people defensive
Part of the reason I gave up on my relationship with my father is that he started off defensive when learning about computers and devolved into a full on adult tantrum when I told him he didn’t need to know everything at the start. Specifically I was setting up DNS and he wouldn’t let me continue but refused to listen to anything I had to say. Still bothers me. Were I richer I’d get therapy for it but as it is I don’t think there’s any reconciling between us at this point.
that could be an age thing
It’s an asshole thing in this case.
You are soooooo right about that.
I almost got offered a job because I could explain Juniper and MLPS even though I don’t have the technical knowledge.
If you have good hygiene and can translate any technical concept to a normal person you’re basically an instant hire in IT.