Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

  "I don't mean to be rude, but you're an idiot"

"What are the budget and staffing constraints for this project?" I KNOW the project is doomed, but I don't need to be the one to point that out - let the presenter handle it, if they haven't thought about it they can give a vague answer now and figure it out later, or maybe they have thought about it and have a solution I don't suspect. Either way, the focus shifts from "you haven't thought about X" to "what about X?"

This article reads to me like it's about interacting with personality types not of the Myers-Briggs "NT" variety. It seems that most IT professionals are of some NT variation, lots of INTJ programmers so this post would probably ring true for a lot of people.

"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?"

Yes, it's about the intended goal and not the content of the questions. So they're designed to get to the destination differently. The goal is to overcome the issue of budgetary restraint.

You and I might default to doing it the first way, the issue seems obvious, let's acknowledge it, solve it and move on. That's the NT way. Some people, challengers, Myers-Briggs ENTJs and most NTs will fight back and solve the issue and respect is often gained on both sides. If the person it's directed to isn't an NT, that approach will seem abrasive to them. "F" types will not happily play this game.

I don't agree with the author that all communications must be dressed this way, there are personality types that revel in it and fully expect to be challenged in this way. ENTJs in particular will not respect you unless you can do this (And many CEOs are ENTJs). This argument is kind of like saying Java is the best language in the world, everything should be built in Java. Java has its place but it's far from the best tool for every job. I see this as the same thing.

Check out a few of his examples:

#1 is kind of clever pointing out a spelling error. But you have to realize, in normal society that's going to upset and make hostile the person you're addressing. Whether you mean to or not, it comes across as, "I'm demonstrating that I'm more clever than you."

There's a few ways it could be done differently. For instance, an email that says, "Hey Sebastian, I wanted to give you a heads up. I saw your recent post, but you spelled "wisen" as "wizen" - easy spelling error to make, since they're uncommonly used words, but I thought you should know. "Wizen" means for things to dry up and lose water. Cheers and best wishes."

If somebody posted a comment like that aimed at me, I'd think, "Wow, why is this guy working so hard to maintain distance? Is he afraid I'll think we're best friends or something? Or do I really seem so fragile he needs to soften the blow?"

In a meeting at work, I appreciate more tact, but I still don't like being treated like I'm fragile. Treating someone with inappropriate sensitivity is actually a great passive-aggressive way to make them feel like shit. You should only do that on purpose, never accidentally ;-)

Let's look at point #2. "FWIW, I think posts like this are more valuable the more they include real-world examples; it's kind of odd to read a post which says I had theory A of the world but now I hold theory B, without reading about the actual observations."

This is something which makes people trying to help or create shake their head. See, it's potentially a good point. But after someone takes some time to create something and give it away for free, then hearing, "Your work would be more valuable if you did (xyz) instead. Your way is kind of odd."

Didn't he just do the same thing? He got free feedback on something he wrote, and here he is criticizing it without first thanking the guy profusely. Irony upon irony, this is shortly followed by a list of guidelines for social self-awareness.

Context is everything! I appreciate tact at the right times and in the right doses, but misspelling a word is exactly the kind of small error that can be treated lightly, and excessive formality destroys any feeling of frankness or openness. Criticism is always hard to take; excessive solicitude for a person's feelings just adds an implicit criticism of, well, their ability to take criticism. To some extent, this varies by situation. Anything that aggravates the inherent anxiety of the situation -- a superior criticizing a subordinate, or criticism of a sensitive personal characteristic, for example -- indicates more sensitivity.

But there are many situations where directness and informality is better. Actually, I'd rather somebody posted, "Hey, it's 'wised up,' not 'wizened up,' you pompous dickhead," than for them to act like they're afraid my ego will be crushed by having a spelling mistake pointed out. At least I can assume they're kidding about calling me a dickhead.