81–90 of 372 posts
My favorite form of poor communication: --- ME: Is X true? And if it is, does that mean Y would also true? THEM: Yes, Y would be true. skip a beat ME: Ok, so to be clear, X is true? THEM: No, X isn't true. ME IN MY HEAD: :facepalm: --- This happens all the time , and is why I've learned to simply not write multiple or compound questions per message in Slack. They have to be broken up into single questions I ask one a…
If you are bouncing ideas off other workers who have other responsibilities and don’t really know much about your problem, I suspect they see it as more of a social conversation and don’t feel a responsibility to stay on topic, and will be happier pivoting to things they understand better or find more interesting.
On the other hand, if you are trying to have a deep technical conversation about something you and another expert are working together on, and they can’t stay on topic, there’s a possibility that they aren’t very good at their job. Although, communication is a two way street, and there are probably only a couple people working on your specific problem, so it seems like it would be hard to get a decent enough sample size to figure out which party’s communication skills aren’t up to the task.
Finally there is the case where you are trying to get information from someone who know the problem much better than you. For example, someone who has designed a library that you are trying to use, where they know the internals and you are just trying to figure out the API. In this case, they might decide that they simply can’t describe the API without telling you about internal details that feel, from your point of view, like an expansion of scope and a waste of time. In this case, they might be wrong, but unfortunately it is hard to tell due to the knowledge asymmetry, so there doesn’t seem to be anything to do but go along with them.
Generally a conversation is more productive if everybody knows what everybody else’s incentives and roles are (lots of conversations are just for fun and not intended to be productive, which is probably why we’re used to not really thinking about this before conversing).
Hopefully this answers your question - pretty spot on I'm assuming.
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…
Thanks, corrected the mistakes.
However, I wasn't referring to missing words (which can be inferred) or bad grammar. Actually I wasn't referring to written speech in particular. I was referring mostly to the way one structures their thought and expresses it to someone else.
Also, the question was referring to native speakers (I'm not an English native speaker myself).
My favorite form of poor communication: --- ME: Is X true? And if it is, does that mean Y would also true? THEM: Yes, Y would be true. skip a beat ME: Ok, so to be clear, X is true? THEM: No, X isn't true. ME IN MY HEAD: :facepalm: --- This happens all the time , and is why I've learned to simply not write multiple or compound questions per message in Slack. They have to be broken up into single questions I ask one a…
You asked if Y would be true given that X is true. It's called leading the question. The other party agreed with your assertion, hence the "would" as in "Y would be true, IF X were true," with the emphasis on the if being mine. Then you used that to assume X is true, which they never admitted to, so they corrected you by stating X isn't actually true.
Because mostly successful communication is difficult. People do not entirely understand what they are "saying"; people do not entirely understand what they are "hearing"; people do not achieve consensus on the meaning of the terms utilized beforehand. As a result, people are almost never participating in the same conversation.
Because of a lack of training. Because of particular neurological configuration. Because of past emotional conditioning. Because of social pressures.
Because brains.
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.
[0] https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-bet...
* Social skills lacking due to upbringing and/or medical conditions
* Dwelling a lot on information and not enough on nuance or emotion
* Feeling superior and communicating in a way that advances what you think is important more than what the audience want to know
* Not giving enough value to why the person is asking the question or wants you to articulate your message
* Lacking self-awareness and not even knowing that they are communicating badly
* Too much on their mind to easily detach into communication mode
* Don't care enough about the people they are communicating with so they don't try
* Not considering the intent of the forum they are in. Is this something for noobs, for PMs, for Managers? Is someone asking me for an opinion?
* Sometimes the question/discussion is not as clear as the asker thinks it is, so rubbish in equals rubbish out.
* Sometimes I honestly don't know like when you think you've asked something really clear and the answer is confused, you try again but eventually just have to quit!
People seek what is emotionally comfortable for them. This steers their communication. For example, they may wander off to topics they feel more comfortable with, or where they unconsciously hope for more emotional payoff. You can’t treat people as being rational actors, except in the sense that they may actually be quite rational about achieving their emotional goals. This is often completely subconscious. Another f…
Or they intentionally want to steer the group towards discussing those topics either for their own benefit or because they believe it is the right problem to bring into focus. If they are successful in doing so without coming across as rude, that could be viewed as great communication even if it leaves some questioning communication skills; it really depends on the situation. You see this all the time in political debates and while it's easy for some to see the situation for what it is, it typically rolls off the masses and the candidates are better for moving the debate to topics that are more in-line with their strengths and positioning. If a candidate is able to use such tactics and become elected, it would be incredibly difficult to state that she or he is a poor communicator.