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

151–160 of 279 posts

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#151

Post by def_true_false »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #143
Animats wrote: post #124

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 pro…

That's an interesting quotation, but it doesn't sound like the problem with Curio's was too much nuance. If anything, very plain (albeit clear) speech has a lack of nuance.

I don't think I've seen an author's point demonstrated so neatly in the comments ever before.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#152

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

loteck wrote: post #117

If Dan is right (and I think he is), have a stiff drink nearby and then think about how his point applies to something complicated that is life and death, such as conveying information to the public about a rampant virus.

I agree with your point, but it's got me thinking about how the early mask guidance was so wrong.

Early in the pandemic, virtually all the major health orgs spread the message "masks for the public don't work". Of course, the real issue was that there was a valid fear that there would be a run on masks and not enough for healthcare workers. There was never any significant evidence masks for the public don't work, on the contrary there was at least some flu-based evidenced that they were beneficial, but at best you could say "we don't know".

So I'm very sympathetic to the authorities trying to give simple messages, but in the end the original guidance really bit them in the ass and made a lot of people lose trust. I wonder if the simpler message could have been "don't use a mask, because it means nobody will be left to treat you when your nurse/doctor needs a mask".

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#153

Post by Brian_K_White »

mistermann wrote: post #104
Brian_K_White wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a great example of his point. You just picked a single item and acted as though it were the only consideration in the universe. Did be anywhere say that this interesting phenomenon he observed was the worst thing in the world and made MS intolerable? Did he anywhere say that this was a uniquely MS problem? This article was about dynamics of one-to-many communication with humans, not about why MS sucks.

>> I get the point he's making. But still, if he didn't like the lack of nuance why not find somewhere to work other than Microsoft? > You just picked a single item and acted as though it were the only consideration in the universe . Did he anywhere say that this interesting phenomenon he observed was the worst thing in the world and made MS intolerable ? Did he anywhere say that this was a uniquely MS problem ? This…

I'm charging that he didn't in fact "get the point he's making".

He didn't make a nuanced reaction that recognizes two different truths, he stated one thing and then stated the opposite.

"I'm a generous person but I just want everything for myself." is not an example of nuance. It's an example of one or the other statement simply being untrue.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#156

Post by gkop »

tharkun__ wrote: post #146
gkop wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the opportunity cost of your thoroughness?

That will depend on circumstances obviously ;) I also never said that I will answer your questions right away. Just that I will answer all 7 of them once I do reply. The opportunity cost of looking at my email inbox might be way too high at a particular moment and so I might not even see your message for a full day to begin with. Same w/ a slack message. I might not see your particular message for some time or I migh…

Have you ever faced a volume of questions that you could not reasonably answer to the degree of thoroughness you prefer? How did you deal with it? I mean, you mention at least one tactic in the sibling thread, but what I don’t understand is your apparent unwillingness to attenuate your thoroughness based on circumstances. Probably I am taking you too literally, but am curious, is your position absolute?

(I too appreciate thoroughness, but also believe that for some things in business “worse is better”. IE 90% thoroughness might cost 1/10th as much as 99% thoroughness, it’s certainly possible to over-index on the quality of the answers one provides)

You asked

> Why do the thorough people always have to empathize and not the other way around?

“Answers questions thoroughly” is a behavior, not part of a person’s identity. If someone gives you a partial answer, that may be optimal behavior for the circumstances, you don’t know, that’s where the empathy comes in. Of course empathy should be mutual, but you can’t be blocked on that to obtain a favorable business outcome. Empathy is a tool in your toolbox.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#157

Post by Aerroon »

crispyambulance wrote: post #80
mcguire wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> ...read your first bullet point, ignore the rest, and drop all the nuance? Oh hell yes, this is definitely a thing with lots of people. It's one of those WTF realizations that everyone who works in a corporate environment gets slapped in the face with really hard. There are certain people for which you MUST give 1, maybe 2 sentences at a maximum, address them by name, AND, make sure that they're the only person in…

Perhaps those people have just read too many emails in the past that ended up being a waste of their time? Over time they learned to glance at things and predict what the rest of the email is going to say.

Think about those download websites where you have to find the download link in the middle of all the ads that are masquerading as download buttons. There's a lot of information on those pages, but people become really adept at spotting the real download button. The rest of the information gets ignored.

I think this is why some people insist on verbal communication when you're trying to teach them something. If they get a text guide then they will gloss over things and skip steps leading to failure. With verbal communication you're effectively there to keep them at least mildly focused so that they don't gloss over things.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#158

Post by thaumasiotes »

travisjungroth wrote: post #47
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…

Appropriately, this doesn’t address the essence of the tweets. With two goals, people will use one as an excuse for the other. They’re receiving the communication. Lists and graphics won’t change that.

> With two goals, people will use one as an excuse for the other.

That's a necessary part of having more than one goal. If they weren't in conflict, you'd only have one goal.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#159

Post by jopsen »

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.

Nah, I think people will pick the bullet point that suits them best, ignore the rest, and drop all nuance..

- Don't pick the first bullet point, pick the best :)

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#160

Post by xmprt »

Aeolun wrote: post #145
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…

> Without going overboard, use a tasteful amount of graphic design (bolding one key sentence or whatever). When this happens it screams corporate communication / fluff piece to me, and I generally skip it entirely. What would help more is if we didn’t get so much pointless information in our mailbox.

Somewhat agree. If something is so long that it requires bolding or graphic design to bring out the main point, then it's probably better off shortening it or adding a TL;DR at the top.
Post reply on HN