A "No" could have prevented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster
Sure, and it could have also prevented any positive achievement you might like to name.
On Saying No - The Power of Simply Answering, "No."
31–34 of 34 posts
Re: On Saying No - The Power of Simply Answering, "No."
#32Also, try using "fine" as a way of consenting to something rather than "yes" It conveys the same certainty and closure as "no"
I've personally taken a dislike to using two phrases with people, "fine" and "whatever". Both of them, generally, have a negative connotation to them. Especially when talking to a girlfriend/significant other, it just feels crude.
This is very true. My wife particularly hates "fine" and "sure".
Re: On Saying No - The Power of Simply Answering, "No."
#33Being a software engineer often means that you are in the job of fending off well-meaning, but unreasonable requests from clients on a continual basis. Learning how to say "No" repeatedly without coming across as lazy or a jerk is an extremely important skill. I read "The Power of a Positive No" by William Ury (of "Getting to Yes" fame) looking for wisdom in that area. Now, I recommend it to every engineer (and manager) that I know. If everyone read Ury's books, the world would be a much happier, smoother-running place.
Re: On Saying No - The Power of Simply Answering, "No."
#34The subtler point of this article is that a simple no is a good test of your authority- service personnel, students, people he had power over; they had to except his "no." Girlfriend? Not so much. The power in question isn't the added power of using the word- it's the way the word reveals the power dynamics at play. He didn't gain more authority by using the word; the word revealed to him his authority and its limits…
> they had to except his "no." They didn't. They could have asked for explanations, justifications, clarifications. He might have given them or not, might have continued the conversation or not (as he notes he did with a student), but that doesn't mean they had to accept his "no" for an answer.
Well, yes, they could have asked for any number of things, but the end decision still rested with him. Which means, yes, actually, they did have to accept his "no." If he refused to answer any further questions except with "no," they would have to accept that too.
I don't mean accept in the sense of "be at peace with the decision." I mean accept in the sense of "there ain't shit you can do about it, kiddo."