Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

Much can be gained from a very small amount of effort. Like learning to say "Hello", "Goodbye", "Please" and "Thank you" in the language of the country you visit, the returns are disproportionate to the effort. It's not about being obsessed by how things look and sound, it's about realising there's a choice, and making the choice that makes it easy for the other person to join your side.

There are a few small and simple "tricks" and techniques that can make a world of difference. "Not bothering" is also a choice. I just don't think it's a good one. Investing a small amount of time is better.

Find a good balance.

I remember clearly that I already had understood this when I was 12 and corrected some of the teacher's assertions (such as people not having weight in the Moon because of lack of air). Classmates used to laud my soft and well-mannered way to tell the teacher he was wrong, without saying it explicitely, and leaving him a graceful retreat path.

So either I'm not a proper geek/nerd or the generalization is a bit overextending.

My impression is that most persons do understand that vocal negative critics are a fact of life (and specially online forums) so don't worry too much about them. They're just too visible, but the same happens with ads.

Once I've cleared the constructive comment stuff, I feel the urge to write some snarky comment on how the author's understanding of HTML tags made his cursive text appear without spaces around :-)

I am all for being in control of what exactly you are saying and being alert to unintended slights but this example from TFA

"But we don't have the budget or skills to do that, how would we overcome that?" ... makes the presenter look very bad. ... be diplomatic and tactful ...

You could phrase it as, "This seems like an amazing idea and a great presentation. I wonder how we could secure the budgeting and get the team for it, because it seems like it'd be a profitable if we do, and it'd be a shame to miss this opportunity."

I don't think the first question necessarily insults the speaker, but that aside, does the second version even mean the same thing as the first?

The technique used seems to be an overblown [positive-(watered down)negative- positive] sandwiching. I am not sure it is the most effective way to communicate intent without giving offense.

If I heard something like that in a project meeting I would have to think about what exactly was being said and mentally strip away all the bracketing empty phrases to understand the real concern.

The first question can be modified to lose its sting (assuming a sting exists, I am not so sure, it wold depend very much on shared history, context and tone) by softening it up a bit without the unnecessary padding of the second version.

"What are your thoughts on the budget and skillsets needed to implement this idea?" or the more narrowly focused "How could we secure the budgeting and the team for this idea?" asked in a friendly tone avoids the middle manager speak of the second version (imo).

I've been in meetings (Hello Intuit!) where everyone was constantly trying to avoid giving even the slightest offense and every point was hedged in a lot of positive stroking and pre-declarations of non offensive intent, with sideways glances at the top dog in the room, to the point where no one could make out wtf was actually being said or who had what concerns.

Another example, the second response to his blog post didn't seem to be offensive to me, unless you are predisposed to see offense in any feedback that didn't use the sandwiching technique - positive stroke-mildly negative feedback with more hedging about ultimate altruistic purpose etc-then another positive statement about your intent/the speaker etc.

How much of this is a predisposition of the author vs sound advice that should be followed to get specific effects? Just something to think about.

By all means, be aware of how your speech/writing etc could give offense and avoid such instances where possible. Be careful in your phrasing, tone etc. Be socially aware.

That doesn't mean you have to be longwinded or speak in sandwiched Middle Manager-ese all the time. I think the central point of the article is valid and worth thinking about but the examples aren't very convincing. The article would be stronger with better crafted examples, considering the target audience.

PS: just saying: my only "strategic intent" (heh) with this comment is to provide a bit of a counterpoint here on HN, not to provide acritique feedback to the author etc, which means I don't have to follow the sandwich strategy or pad up my comment with superficial stroking to make him more amenable to my suggestions and so on and so forth.

Are you talking about Superrationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality)?

Still strikes me as changing the rules and then pretending you've said something new about the original unchanged form. Kind of like saying you'd choose white in the "You must choose black game". I'm a bit disappointed if this kind of sloppy logic/mysticism is popular on LessWrong.