Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 372 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#51
I once left a project 4 months in mainly because the boss couldn't communicate with me clearly.

The answer to any "what is X?" or "what's the difference between X and Y" question invariably resulted in an hour-long meandering tour of the whole domain. But not really the whole domain... just tiny inconsequential bits and pieces of it, which I could never pause him long enough to get him to assemble. If you mention that "X is basically Z with 2 exceptions", I need to be able to pause you and ask you what "Z" is.

The first time and the first month this "dive into the deep end" was useful. It takes a while to load a new domain into your head and it's all going to be unclear and ad-hoc at first.

But at some point, I really just needed to know what X, Y, or Z is so I could get on with my work, and I knew I'd never be able to get that answer out of him.

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#52
SWEs are all types of people, but one characteristic that tends to benefit us is a capacity to think about problems. With it comes the burden of overthinking problems. This can spill into overthinking our own personal relationships with the job we have, and even become a source of anxiety.

We're not being paid to be anxious at work, but I personally feel that accepting that this is common is a reasonable basis for having relationships with team members and trying to find a productive manner in which to solve problems together.

One aspect of working on a team with many brilliant, anxious people is that we can become hyper-competitive about the small technical areas we have been a reputation of success around. We start to defend our areas with an overabundance of technical details - a firewall of jargon that can keep others healthily out of our spaces.

Pulling others IN to these spaces is still a traversal of that firewall; there's no playbook for getting the anxious to be less anxious, but I find that treating SWEs as people, and not engineers, has helped me build stronger relationships and earn a little trust. Trust that I spend on helping me get my work done. And hopefully, theirs, too.

One particularly divisive technique I continue to tinker with, is the "zoom out", or the "level set". When I have to broach a new topic, or body of work, with my fellow SWEs, I find it useful to address what the problem is as though we don't even work at the company solving it. This divides everyone into two camps: those annoyed by hearing the obvious, but then those who, in good faith, have no idea how to get involved with the work but would otherwise like to.

I try not to dwell too long during a "level set" because if it's not becoming obvious how to contribute with a little back story, then perhaps the fit isn't very good anyways and I let people scatter. And, to my own point of mental health, I have stopped insisting that anyone can do anything if they put their minds to it.

No one else communicates the way that I do. It's absurd to expect them to. So, to borrow from Postel's Law, I put far more effort into trying to understand how my coworkers perceive the requirements, than I do telling them what the requirements are to me. The time 'wasted' on this extra preparation has time and again saved me from countless hours of meaningless effort. I have saved entire quarters of the year by asking a few extra questions that were not obvious, by not needing to embark at all. Listening, it can be far more productive than speaking.

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#53

They are still faking it and haven't made it yet. Takes about 15-30 seconds to figure out if the person you are talking to understands or is being evasive. In which case you need to adjust and put on kiddy gloves, slow down, and coax information out.

> Takes about 15-30 seconds to figure out if the person you are talking to understands or is being evasive. In which case you need to adjust and put on kiddy gloves, slow down, and coax information out.

Personally I don't find this approach very helpful. It's not always clear to me whether the person Im talking to does not understand the topic thoroughly enough, or whether they actually understand it much more deeply than I do and it's actually more complicated than I currently appreciate. Going in with an open mind is important imo.

I find this to be particularly true with software engineering questions, where a lot of the time you're making a series of compromises based on some assumptions about the use case. Maybe they don't understand a particular piece of code, or maybe it's that they've just spoken to a user who's doing something weird and they're trying to work out how that use case will interact with this code.

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#54
post #27

Here are some altruistic reasons these events might occur: > - don't directly address the point of your question / provide a much complex answer (or even worse, a non-answer) to a simple question > - don't stay focused to the point of the discussion I often dive deeper if the question itself raises suspicions that the question asker might not fully understand the topic. For example, if someone asked: "can you unbatch…

On top of that, sometimes the question cannot be answered as asked. If the question contradicts itself, even if only slightly, no direct answer would be correct.

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#55
I am not about to defend everyone as a decent communicator, but I do want to highlight a difficult scenario -- when discussing complex subjects, experts often strive to provide a complete answer/retort to a question/statement which almost always contains many caveats and a may necessitate pulling in background from tangential areas that comes across as meandering if not viewed through the same lens. Concise is not often accurate, but it's what non-experts want to hear. It's a catch-22, as the seemingly muddy conversation loses them distinction but if they do not pursue that route, then they mislead their audience and bad decisions can be made as a result.

Weaving together an on-the-fly response that both ties off the thought process and presents a narrative that doesn't lose the audience is a skill not many possess without extensive practice (e.g. high-level debate training, trial law, etc..).

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#56
After dealing with devs, customers, account managers, security guys on the customer side and such a bunch, I'm starting to realize something that's tricky. If you don't know a concept exists - or it slips your mind - you cannot include and deal with it in your communication. This might be inconsequential in some cases, or lead to misunderstandings in other situations.

For example - and it feels silly to type this because it's so obvious - as an ops-guy, I know we have to think about service downtime, its duration, our control over the downtime, user impact of the downtime and also the transitive impact of a downtime. This makes it very smooth for me to discuss a maintenance window with a call center manager, because even though our services aren't the same, we're knowing each other concepts. On the other hand, we've had developers who didn't understand how terrifying a rather uncontrolled downtime of unknown length is.

Or another example, some developers simply don't know that we're running a couple dozen instances of their software for different purposes. If you don't know that, "doing an hour or two of tinkering" for this update seems fine, because you just did it once for your test system. On the other hand, we're suddenly looking at literally man weeks of work if we accepted this.

Growing aware of such blind spots is doing good for me, and also growing awareness to the awareness of such blind spots. Some people who are very enjoyable to work with accept they have these blind spots and are happy to dig into them. Others are in fierce denial and more difficult.

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#57
post #19

This might be a case of low context vs high context culture : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c... The rambling could be a way to communicate some context, emotions, while you are expecting a yes/no answer, typically from a low context culture.

I surmise that a significant percentage of communication issues in the workplace are of this type. It's not always 'clear communication' vs 'unclear communication,' but 'communication style I'm familiar with' vs 'communication style I'm unfamiliar with.'

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#59
post #27

Here are some altruistic reasons these events might occur: > - don't directly address the point of your question / provide a much complex answer (or even worse, a non-answer) to a simple question > - don't stay focused to the point of the discussion I often dive deeper if the question itself raises suspicions that the question asker might not fully understand the topic. For example, if someone asked: "can you unbatch…

Sure, some people are not native English speakers, but in OP's case that didn't affect the clarity of their question, even with a couple inferred missing words.

Re: Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

#60
One job I had a serious issue (that kept escalating until I got fired, since the other people involved were more senior) where certain employees never replied my questions properly (and it was my job to ask them) because they kept trying to "read between the lines" and no matter how I tried to phrase my questions, they would misunderstand it.

For example:

I asked a team lead the bare mininum permissions that were absolutely mandatory for the SDK to work, the CEO asked me to make clear what permissions were mandatory and what ones were optional based on features that clients might, or might not, use. The team lead I asked about this, gave me just a list of all permissions used, with no explanation when one or another is needed or not.

So I asked: "Is X permission enough for the SDK to work on iOS?" and the other guy replied: "The W permission is needed to use Popular Feature"

I then asked again: "If there is only X permission on the plist, will the SDK start, on iOS?" and the other guy replied: "But then Another Popular Feature won't work."

I ended having to be extremely precise: "If the programmer uses solely X permission, and attempts to start the SDK, and he doesn't intend to use any features at all, except start the SDK and get it to report RUNNING enum state, will this work?"

Finally he would reply: "Oh, yeah, it should work, oh wait, the programmer would need permission Z too..."

Because of timezones this conversation took over days, delayed projects and got clients angry.

I concluded that some people just assume others won't speak plainly and will attempt to find the hidden meaning.

Another classic issue is when you ask something on Stack Overflow for example, people assume it is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem too much, and will mark your question as duplicate or downvote it... But sometimes you are not asking about "Y" in the XY problem, you literally need to know "X". Wikipedia page there lists as example someone that asks how to get the last 3 characters when what they really wanted was to figure out the extension, but sometimes, people really needed to know the last 3 characters, and it had nothing to do with file extension.

Post reply on HN