Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Be Kind

boz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 401 posts

Re: Be Kind

#391

Post by pellaeon »

parasubvert wrote: post #356
pellaeon wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many conversations we are planning our next point rather than really deeply observing and listening to the other person I often hear similiar suggestions to be empathic on others, but I find it difficult in practice too. To deeply observe others and to understand their points and to accurately express my points all at the same time is hard for me. Simply considering phrasing and planning my points alone is mentally…

Yes, this all can be improved with practice. But it also means caring differently about the outcome of communication. Like it might take more than one conversation, or it might not matter all that much if you can't get your ideas across to the other person this particular moment. I find I argue a lot less with people as I get older unless I really know the person, because it's so easy to be misinterpreted. I've found…

Good point on caring differently about the outcome, you reminds me that I might be caring too much on winning the conversation much of the time.

> it might not matter all that much if you can't get your ideas across to the other person this particular moment.

Yeah, I have always been eager to get my ideas through (because I want to get things done), with your words I see now I don't need to rush getting ideas through all at once, it should be done in a timely manner.

I guess this is why some people describe me as being too eager or impetuous, I see the reason now.

Socratic approach really seems to be a good suitable way around this, thanks a lot for the tip.

Re: Be Kind

#392

Post by roflc0ptic »

mreiland wrote: post #376
roflc0ptic wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like this response. I especially like that you validate their question and then convincingly explore the nuance to the situation, framing your response around their question. Then you make your ultimate position subjective ("Personally, I prefer...") instead of trying to make it some objective truth ("it's better to be kind."), which allows that the others person's position is also subjective - merely a pers…

The communication was so effective I chose not to respond to it. I personally prefer (there it is!) to work in an environment where being incorrect isn't such a big deal everyone thinks you have to walk around eggshells in order to point it out. I responded to another poster in this thread and told them they may just be in the wrong place. Or to put it another way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4hqFvXm57M&t=01m23s…

But he effectively communicated his mindset quite well, right?

I also think there are degrees to how much one can avoid contradicting others. I also want to be able to take contrary positions in meetings without hedging and without people getting upset or other nonsense. I don't think that has to be avoided by "walking around on eggshells". If it had that effect in my life I would never have adopted it.

Additionally none of my comments are really about cultural proclivities: I am opposed to trying to rigidly enforce communication standards within a group. "Sorry MReiland, you didn't state your position about why we shouldn't be using the braid data structure with enough sensitivity." The thing you're taking a position against sounds terrible but isn't really the thing we're talking about.

Re: Be Kind

#393

Post by mreiland »

roflc0ptic wrote: post #392
mreiland wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The communication was so effective I chose not to respond to it. I personally prefer (there it is!) to work in an environment where being incorrect isn't such a big deal everyone thinks you have to walk around eggshells in order to point it out. I responded to another poster in this thread and told them they may just be in the wrong place. Or to put it another way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4hqFvXm57M&t=01m23s…

But he effectively communicated his mindset quite well, right? I also think there are degrees to how much one can avoid contradicting others. I also want to be able to take contrary positions in meetings without hedging and without people getting upset or other nonsense. I don't think that has to be avoided by "walking around on eggshells". If it had that effect in my life I would never have adopted it. Additionally…

this is the quote that I initially responded to, emphasis mine.

> I see telling people they're wrong as selfish. It's almost never necessary, and in a probabilistic sense is not the most efficient way to make them correct, because instead of just changing their mind, they have to tamp down their ego, avoid getting ticked at you, and then change their mind. Bam: you've just made their lives harder, for the satisfaction of being explicit that you're more correct than they are.

That's the context of this conversation (a statement made by YOU).

If I can't approach someone about improving/fixing/changing something being worked on then I have no interest in working with them, and I have enough control over my own life that I don't have to.

If someone is really going to insist that I need to spend my time trying to work with them, they're going to get dismissed and I'm going to go on with my life.

I have enough control over my own life that I don't have to deal with those sorts of issues. Perhaps if you're working in a job where you feel forced to have to deal with other people's bullshit than you suddenly feel as if it's important to start worrying about this sort of thing, but I'm not there.

And no amount of communication is going to put me there.

Re: Be Kind

#394

Post by beat »

trusche wrote: post #298
beat wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did a lightning talk a while back called "7 Habits of Highly Effective DevOps", adapting the habits and the organization of them to doing DevOps well.

Would you mind sharing your notes on that, if you have any?

Here are the slides, at least. http://www.slideshare.net/davestagner/seven-habits-of-highly...

Re: Be Kind

#395

Post by roflc0ptic »

mreiland wrote: post #393
roflc0ptic wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he effectively communicated his mindset quite well, right? I also think there are degrees to how much one can avoid contradicting others. I also want to be able to take contrary positions in meetings without hedging and without people getting upset or other nonsense. I don't think that has to be avoided by "walking around on eggshells". If it had that effect in my life I would never have adopted it. Additionally…

this is the quote that I initially responded to, emphasis mine. > I see telling people they're wrong as selfish . It's almost never necessary, and in a probabilistic sense is not the most efficient way to make them correct, because instead of just changing their mind, they have to tamp down their ego, avoid getting ticked at you, and then change their mind. Bam: you've just made their lives harder, for the satisfacti…

> If I can't approach someone about improving/fixing/changing something being worked on

I think maybe we're misunderstanding each other. I'm not saying don't approach someone to improve/fix/change something. I'm making a statement about manner of approach. Being unable to approach people when they're wrong is intolerable. Being an asshole about it will make you intolerable. The statement I made is about finding a middle way.

Re: Be Kind

#396

Post by pellaeon »

bsder wrote: post #188

Don't know boz, but would probably like him. Hopefully I will bump into him someday. Somehow, I seem to get along with all of these "raging assholes" that everybody complains about when I meet them. They tend to do interesting stuff, are interesting to talk to, and, generally, aren't attempting to do active harm to you because they're too busy doing stuff. Of course, if they accidentally do something that harms me or…

I've also been holding the same view as you since teenage, I believe the world operates by continuous contradictions and compromises or amendments. I expect myself to honestly directly pointing out the wrong of others, but also to proactively recognize and amend my own faults when others point out.

From my own recent experience and Boz's article, I am forced to realize that not just all people operates this way, I should simply adjust. Though I still genuinely believe this is the most efficient way for people to grow and improve, because this way eliminates all the overhead of misinterpretations.

I guess Boz's personality is close to "the debater" http://www.16personalities.com/entp-personality and so do you and I.

Re: Be Kind

#397

Post by pellaeon »

It leaves me great ponder after reading the comments. After all, is "being kind" the general rule? Should it be a general rule? Or is it just an attitude towards certain kinds of personality (or the belief by people who have these personalities)?

Recently read about the 16 personality types of psychology http://www.16personalities.com/personality-types, I guess Boz is more of a "debater", like myself, who doesn't care much about the attitudes, instead we focus on the idea itself that is being conveyed, to fully understand it, and to dig out all implications and foundations.

The article seems to encourage us to become more like the "diplomats", to understand people's feelings.

Should I change? should we change? or should we just "be kind" to the sensitive people, and be ourself, ie. direct, honest but probably not kind, around other people?

The doubt I have on being kind boils down to overhead, it leaves a huge hole to misinterpretations, and just as people say in the comments, sometimes people see your kindness as unimportance.

For myself, I'd rather be offended then to be "protected by (mis)interpretations" of others on me. I hate to find out people specially crafting their speech in order to convince me. I am intelligent and mature enough to seperate the attitudes and the ideas of speech.

Nevertheless, I do see the value of what's Boz suggesting, I guess being kind is maybe an overstatement, instead, being thoughtful is more conservative, and thus, a more general rule.

Re: Be Kind

#398

Post by gnaritas »

nostrademons wrote: post #377
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, their job is to deal with shitty people with a smile There is so much projection here I'm not even sure where to start. Lets say I'm working with retail worker who has been trained to be as difficult as possible to stop my RMA attempt for something I bought that was broken. I can see things from her point of view and understand her paycheck comes from her financial masters who want her to deny my RMA, but tha…

It's possible to be assertive and insistent and yet still be polite and calm about it. The cynic in me would label this as "fuck you said with a smile", but the pragmatist in me notes that "fuck you" really does get a very different reaction from people when said with a smile. Think of communication as having two layers, an emotional one and a factual one. In your car example, the factual layer remains the same, "You…

And experience says the emotional one is more effective because most people are primarily emotional creatures. Nice and assertive doesn't work as well as pissed off.

Re: Be Kind

#399

Post by bootload »

Ntrails wrote: post #351
bootload wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, totally this. Moreover, I'd like to add anonymously down-voting / reporting someone's opinion just because it's not yours is just as mean-spirited as calling someone names." I've stopped up/down voting all together for similar reasons.

I'd always assumed the intent was to vote when you feel something contributes to the discussion, or is particularly relevant. For example, upvoting when a subject matter expert gives some context, or the person offers a comment that you found interesting. Conversely downvoting when there is a "me too"/contentless comment. Personally I most commonly find myself downvoting what I would describe as either rhetoric or of…

"I'd always assumed the intent was to vote when you feel something contributes to the discussion, or is particularly relevant."

It is. I've decided to just leave the comments (reactions) as they are and signal upvote by commenting. If the post/comment is of no interest, no comment. Voting in some ways has distorted the real intent of the site: "talking about things hackers like".

Imagine of the rating system did away with votes and instead measured the quality of the discourse on something interesting.

Re: Be Kind

#400

Post by mkramlich »

jorgearturo wrote: post #281
mkramlich wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

consider me forewarned. if in twenty years I'm retired living on a golden yacht sailing the icy seas of Europa I hope a non-trivial portion of my income is coming from the royalties on the sales of that T-shirt. and/or from the earnings on my book series The Dread Space Pirate Richard . (srsly) or... savings from my day job. a good strategy has several fallbacks. :-P

Oh hey, you wrote that? You might have mentioned it on another thread because I have it on my amazon wishlist already. xP I've just promoted your book up in the long to-read list.

you have been both very kind and very constructive. email me at groglogic@gmail.com and I'll ensure you always have free copies of all the books and audio episodes. (I did not see your email in your profile otherwise I would have sent this privately.)
Post reply on HN