[deleted]
Red Light Green Light
11–20 of 169 posts
Re: Red Light Green Light
#12I had a very similar experience as a child. I always wondered how other drivers could tell which way we were turning. My parents told me that they can tell from your turn signal. 6-year-old me just thought turn signals entailed the green flashing arrows on the dash (not also on the car’s taillights). I just assumed all drivers were tall enough to see into the other car and tell from their dash (for at least the next year or so)!
Re: Red Light Green Light
#13The problem with this analogy (as the author ties it up to the end point) is it implies you're leading a team that simply can't see the reality.
More often, the change in perspective allows the person in the back seat to see the car that is about to run a red light and smash into you, rather than it being a question of presenting them a better context.
Re: Red Light Green Light
#14I think this highlights the necessity of patience and compassion in everyday interactions. Sure I might be more experienced than my junior devs and sure, often times I have access to the broader picture and direction of the project but if they come up with something that runs to the contrary, the least I should be able to offer them is considerations on my part. As in, sit with them, try to understand why they think that way. This will have two possible effects:
1. I'll know that I have not been communicating enough with them and they are making inferences with limited or distorted assumptions.
2. I have been making incorrect assumptions or inferences.
Needless to say, both of these have their own values. I think this is what is necessary in a teacher as well. Lots of time we say that people with genius thinking does not make a good teacher because they automatically arrive at the correct answer and are usually baffled by those who aren't able to do so. The genius required to be a teacher is the ability to predict the different (and not necessarily correct) ways that people can arrive at a conclusion and identify why and which path someone took for a particular problem... and be kind about it.
Re: Red Light Green Light
#15Similar things happen surprisingly often in companies. Many intense arguments can be diffused by first being specific about what we agree upon.
Just to add to this, one strategy from the rationalist community that I rarely see practiced is to 'taboo' certain words. For example if two engineers are arguing about a solution not being scalable, taboo the word scalable. They both re-explain their POV without using the word scalable at all. It often works like magic and they quickly reach a shared understanding.
Re: Red Light Green Light
#16This anecdote is a ridiculously great example of something I’ve found to be VERY VERY IMPORTANT with parenting (and probably lots else.) You must be incredibly delicate with “wrong” answers otherwise you might gaslight, discourage, or otherwise mess with your child’s ontology. I’ve learned to ask “why do you think that?” When I get a “confident wrong answer” as I call them. A surprising amount of the time my child ha…
Note that (AFAIK), for adults, "why" can get you the wrong response (puts people on the defensive), so (AFAIK) it's recommended to use "what" instead (which tends to get at the "why" you wanted in the first place) - "why do you think that?" -> "what led to you thinking that?" :shrug: It works, sooooo.
I also stay away from second person:
"what led to you thinking that?" -> "what led to that thought?"
My preferred version: "what was the motivation for choosing that?".
It's especially helpful on a team working with legacy software. Because the root cause can sometimes be a historic team decision, no longer attributable to anyone on the current team. Where "led you" can result in the "oh it wasn't my idea" responses, rather than "I think they made that decision because ..." responses.
Re: Red Light Green Light
#17This anecdote is a ridiculously great example of something I’ve found to be VERY VERY IMPORTANT with parenting (and probably lots else.) You must be incredibly delicate with “wrong” answers otherwise you might gaslight, discourage, or otherwise mess with your child’s ontology. I’ve learned to ask “why do you think that?” When I get a “confident wrong answer” as I call them. A surprising amount of the time my child ha…
This why I evaluate future coworkers (interviewer or interviewee) on the speed at which we can align mental models. I have worked with some great engineers with whom I felt like bashing my skull in trying to get them on the same page, and some very middling engineers with whom I was immediately able to understand. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I would rather work with someone I can communicate with than an unapproachable great.
Re: Red Light Green Light
#18Point of View and context are some of the most important things in communication. You can't remove point of view and have a conversation.
Some of the hardest work I do is trying to understand what colleagues are saying.
Re: Red Light Green Light
#19I had a very similar experience as a child. I always wondered how other drivers could tell which way we were turning. My parents told me that they can tell from your turn signal. 6-year-old me just thought turn signals entailed the green flashing arrows on the dash (not also on the car’s taillights). I just assumed all drivers were tall enough to see into the other car and tell from their dash (for at least the next…
Funny, I remember as a child wondering how my parents knew how to get where we were going. I saw the green lights on the dash (and couldn't see the signal lever from the backseat) and just thought that the car was smart enough to give them directions.
Re: Red Light Green Light
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that (AFAIK), for adults, "why" can get you the wrong response (puts people on the defensive), so (AFAIK) it's recommended to use "what" instead (which tends to get at the "why" you wanted in the first place) - "why do you think that?" -> "what led to you thinking that?" :shrug: It works, sooooo.
I also stay away from second person: "what led to you thinking that?" -> "what led to that thought?" My preferred version: "what was the motivation for choosing that?". It's especially helpful on a team working with legacy software. Because the root cause can sometimes be a historic team decision, no longer attributable to anyone on the current team. Where "led you" can result in the "oh it wasn't my idea" responses,…
>what was the motivation for choosing that?".
That had the second person in it, it's just obfuscated with less-than-clear language. "The motivation" belongs to, and is exclusively controlled by, the second person.