161–170 of 292 posts
> If I had sent out an email with even a quarter of the typos they had, I probably would've lost my job. Who told you that? Or maybe... what state do you work in? I cannot even imagine starting the HR process to fire someone because of bad emails.
> If I had sent out an email with even a quarter of the typos they had, I probably would've lost my job. Who told you that? Or maybe... what state do you work in? I cannot even imagine starting the HR process to fire someone because of bad emails.
HR has a huge bag of tricks. They can fire anyone for anything and nothing.
Yea, one of them is called "actually doing their jobs." In my company they spend far more time mediating problems than they do thinking up clever ways to fire someone without just cause.
This is almost textbook countersignalling. The same as: - Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways - No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else - Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here
On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. But to expand on the spelling topic, good spelling and grammar is now free with AI tools. It no longer signals being educated. Informal…
But, most writing has purpose. And usually fulfilling that purpose requires readers to comprehend what you're writing. Conversational tone is easy to comprehend, and shockingly less ambiguous than you'd think, especially when tailored to the target audience.
Bad grammar is disrespect. Underlings have to swallow that disrespect. It is just a power game. The next level is simply to insult everyone, and everyone will still remain submissive.
It’s because the higher you are in the chain of corporate command, the less time you have to dedicate to each task. You end up with shorter answers to every note because you wouldn’t have time to reply to all notes and do the strategic things you need to do, otherwise. As an individual contributor on a team, you may have to interface at most with 30 people on a weekly basis. As a second line leader you may have 150 p…
Using the example from the article: "K let circle back nxt week bout it . thnks" I'm not buying your argument. The amount of additional time that it would have taken to write that same message with proper grammar and spelling is minuscule.
> but grammar privilege? That's certainly a first. Here is what I don't understand, and what is not addressed in the post. After you get a response from your boss that reads, "K let circle back nxt week bout it . thnks", doesn't this free you up to relax your style to your comfort level? If you see that your addressee doesn't seem to care for meticulous style, is there much point in stressing over it (and thus, in co…
Unfortunately there is a double standard at play. When people see a sloppy email from a powerful person, they think “they must be so busy that they don’t have time to check grammar”. But when it comes from a low-level employee they think “oh they must be careless or uneducated”.
What is sad is that these people from the start think of good grammar as an effort to "look professional" (which they can then discard), and not as an effort to be clear, an effort which fits into the basic respect one gives other people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can call it whatever you want but people make inferences This is an incorrect definition of a signal. I agree that intention is irrelevant. But a powerful person blending in with their dress isn’t actually sending a signal. There is nothing to perceive because they look like everyone else. The signal is only in if they’re recognized. Your definition of signal is congruous with any trait someone thinks a powerfu…
I've met a few celebrities. When they wear worn, ordinary street clothes, they often go unrecognized. That may be a strong reason why they do that.
Yup. Camouflage isn’t a signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here I live in a wealthy town. It’s less sinister than explicit counter signaling. More that I’ll wear comfortable clothes until they wear out because I have better things to do with my time than shop, and I don’t need to use dress anymore to get the access I want and need.
> and I don’t need to use dress anymore to get the access I want and need. The privilege in that, contrasted with the lack of privilege for those in the inverse situation, is what's sinister.
To folks who code any advantage as sinister, sure. I for one like living in a town that saves seats for locals over tourists.