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

Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 279 posts

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#121

Post by 88913527 »

tharkun__ wrote: post #111
88913527 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier to consider this question with empathy: imagine times where you replied to emails partially, answering some (one), but not all questions. Ask yourself why you did a partial reply. Then, when you ask questions of others, apply those learnings. For me, I tend to 'jump' to the first answer that comes to mind, without reading the full nuance, likely because I'm optimizing at replying sooner, so I can move ont…

imagine times where you replied to emails partially It will be hard for someone that always replies to the first thing only to empathize with this but: This has literally never happened to me. As in, I have never replied partially to something in an email. You will get an answer to each of your items. Granted, you may not get the answer you were looking for but I will answer each and every one, even if it's just a "I…

I don't think this is practically much different then answering one thing. If you give one answer and 3 "I'll get back to you on that"'s-- this creates a promise of a future asynchronous answer, which is only as good as your word. People often have too many tasks, so to get those remaining items on your queue, they'll have to ask you again.

As the recipient, it's more challenging to receive the future promise of an answer with no SLA.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#122

Post by gkop »

tharkun__ wrote: post #111
88913527 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier to consider this question with empathy: imagine times where you replied to emails partially, answering some (one), but not all questions. Ask yourself why you did a partial reply. Then, when you ask questions of others, apply those learnings. For me, I tend to 'jump' to the first answer that comes to mind, without reading the full nuance, likely because I'm optimizing at replying sooner, so I can move ont…

imagine times where you replied to emails partially It will be hard for someone that always replies to the first thing only to empathize with this but: This has literally never happened to me. As in, I have never replied partially to something in an email. You will get an answer to each of your items. Granted, you may not get the answer you were looking for but I will answer each and every one, even if it's just a "I…

What’s the opportunity cost of your thoroughness?

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#123

Post by ford »

This kind of doublespeak/mixed messaging with nuanced private conversations but dead-simple (or worse, spun) public statements is a double-edged sword.

Sure it makes sure that the x% of employees who don't get the nuance won't ask questions about it, but it prevents ambitious employees from learning how decisions are made at higher levels.

Understanding how the organization makes decisions can help you make decisions in your day-to-day work. Not to mention the fact that if you one day have aspirations of leading an organization, you need to understand how decisions are made. When over-generalized public statements are made, it not only conceals this information but corrupts it and can lead people to false understandings of how things are done.

Some of the best insight I've gotten about why my organization and my company makes the decisions it does have come from reading discussions from senior leaders in google doc comments. I wish I could be a fly on the wall for live meetings or private conversations.

In the optimal company, employees who don't want to have to grok the nuance would be able to trust the decisions of the leads. However all decisions should be made in the open so that those who do want to go to the effort of understanding something can learn.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#124

Post by Animats »

This is an observation that goes back to at least Cicero.[1]

Cicero on the primary goal of oratory:

"As, therefore, the two principal qualities required in an Orator, are to be neat and clear in stating the nature of his subject, and warm and forcible in moving the passions; and as he who fires and inflames his audience, will always effect more than he who can barely inform and amuse them..."

Cicero describes the problem the OP reports:

"But let us return to Calvus whom we have just mentioned,—an Orator who had received more literary improvements than Curio, and had a more accurate and delicate manner of speaking, which he conducted with great taste and elegance; but, (by being too minute and nice a critic upon himself,) while he was labouring to correct and refine his language, he suffered all the force and spirit of it to evaporate. In short, it was so exquisitely polished, as to charm the eye of every skilful observer; but it was little noticed by the common people in a crowded Forum, which is the proper theatre of Eloquence."

Nuanced communication not working at scale, 2100 years ago.

[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9776/pg9776-images.html

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#125

Post by alar44 »

whatshisface wrote: post #106
BurningFrog wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I sent an email and I’m important therefore everyone got the message” I see a similar flaw in programmers. "I said it once, and therefore everyone has it memorized", as if people are computers who store every utterance in a file system.

I met someone who did that all the time. Turns out it was a learned behavior from having gotten pushed aside for coming across as too nit-picky one too many times. They turned in to the kind of person that would let other people make mistakes and just watch - and believe it or not, it worked for them! In their environment, that was a bad lesson well-learned.

There is some merit to that approach though. For example, I moved IT support requests from a messaging system to an actual ticketing system. The number of requests actually dropped because if they aren't getting help instantly they'll actually try something rather than just giving up immediately and calling IT. Many many issues just went away because if you have to wait a bit all the braindead "click the button" or "turn on your monitor" issues go away.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#126

Post by evouga »

mcguire wrote: post #52
logicalmonster wrote: post #18

Nuance is hard to convey in groups, but I believe that *a small part of the problem is a lack of design*. Many peoples' eyes glaze over when they see a wall of text in an email and they just skim rather than read. Some simple things to enhance communications can be the following. * Use a few bullet points to put attention on the main points you want to convey. * Without going overboard, use a tasteful amount of graph…

How much do you want to bet most people will read your first bullet point, ignore the rest, and drop all the nuance? Hell, I've learned not to ask more than one question in an email. The first one is the only one to get answered.

I’m rapidly approaching the “email singularity” where it would take me more time to answer one email than the average time between incoming emails.

If I receive an email and it’s something I can quickly answer on my phone while waiting for the bus etc., I’ll do so and you’ll get a quick answer. If the email requires me to sit down and compose a long response (or worse, read a paper, or find and run some code) the email gets put on a priority queue to deal with during dedicated email-answering time.

If I receive an email with multiple questions, and one of them I can answer quickly, I might fire off a partial answer (under the theory that a partial answer now is preferable to a complete answer much later).

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#127

Post by alar44 »

mistermann wrote: post #102
mattmaroon wrote: post #56

I think the problem is that people, even smart people, lack critical thinking skills or don't apply them. It's not the scale that makes the nuanced communication not work, it's the scale that makes you notice it. You could have the same communications with smaller groups and you'd have the same results, you just wouldn't be as likely to get negative feedback indicating it. It's also ironic to me that someone would tr…

> I think the problem is that people, even smart people, lack critical thinking skills or don't apply them. I agree, but I think it's more nuanced than this: smart people can regularly be observed being unable to think critically during conversations (particularly on certain topics), yet the same people can think critically writing code. Assuming this is true (it's certainly quite true), it seems to me that differenc…

The major difference is the synchronicity in communication. When you write code you can sit and ponder. When someone asks you a question in a conversation, you cant just walk away, think about it, and come back 15 minutes later. It's like speed chess vs hours per side. If you have to respond instantly, you move may be good, but you might find a better one given more time.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#128

Post by mistermann »

alar44 wrote: post #127
mistermann wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the problem is that people, even smart people, lack critical thinking skills or don't apply them. I agree, but I think it's more nuanced than this: smart people can regularly be observed being unable to think critically during conversations (particularly on certain topics), yet the same people can think critically writing code. Assuming this is true (it's certainly quite true), it seems to me that differenc…

The major difference is the synchronicity in communication. When you write code you can sit and ponder. When someone asks you a question in a conversation, you cant just walk away, think about it, and come back 15 minutes later. It's like speed chess vs hours per side. If you have to respond instantly, you move may be good, but you might find a better one given more time.

Agreed, but that is possible on forums, but people often can't do it there either. There is something else going on imho.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#129

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

zozbot234 wrote: post #61
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really I was expecting a Goebbels reference by now. Sadly, "Well, we're all human, and humans are complicated" doesn't propagate. "Kill the $X" does. Just look at recent memes. It's terrifying. They defy even logic, yet they work. I wonder if "propaganda" and "propagate" have similar word roots.

Why "wonder" when you could just look it up? When people are so intellectually lazy these days, it's no "wonder" that nuances get lost! (Though maybe you were just going for a joke. Poe's law is a bitch, y'know.)

Fine, sometimes I can be bothered to go to Wikipedia:

> Propaganda is a modern Latin word, ablative singular feminine of the gerundive form of propagare, meaning 'to spread' or 'to propagate', thus propaganda means for that which is to be propagated.[4] Originally this word derived from a new administrative body of the Catholic Church (congregation) created in 1622 as part of the Counter-Reformation, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda.[3][5] Its activity was aimed at "propagating" the Catholic faith in non-Catholic countries.[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Behold the cognate is true.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#130

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

mcguire wrote: post #52
logicalmonster wrote: post #18

Nuance is hard to convey in groups, but I believe that *a small part of the problem is a lack of design*. Many peoples' eyes glaze over when they see a wall of text in an email and they just skim rather than read. Some simple things to enhance communications can be the following. * Use a few bullet points to put attention on the main points you want to convey. * Without going overboard, use a tasteful amount of graph…

How much do you want to bet most people will read your first bullet point, ignore the rest, and drop all the nuance? Hell, I've learned not to ask more than one question in an email. The first one is the only one to get answered.

Yes, it's very strange.

I had this recently with something I wanted to order online. I asked two questions, the second was answered, the first was ignored. So I had to send a second email to ask the first question again.

I'm really curious if it's a symptom of limited modern attention spans, or if you'd find the same issue in vintage hand-written letters.

Post reply on HN