Everyone says that they value directness, and from what I can tell the vast majority of people actually don't. For example, I had a job interview a couple years ago where the interviewer showed up fifteen minutes late for a thirty minute interview. Eventually he did show up, and the interview proceeds more or less fine, and near the end he asks if I have any questions. I said "is it common to show up fifteen minutes…
Quick question: When the interviewer arrived late, did he start by apologizing?
I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
171–180 of 335 posts
Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#172The writer asks for it, so I will be blunt. They are demanding people have perfectly formed thoughts crafted in a way to give them just the information they wanted with no consideration for the process of thinking or consideration for the person speaking. It is selfish and impossible. Articles like this, I think, expose how bad we have gotten at both speaking and listening. "I personally value directness, so when som…
You say you are being blunt, but then 5 paragraphs of exegesis follows. TL;DR. Talking takes time and effort. So does listening. Be brief. Get to the point.
Without knowing how you arrived at "the point", you are pushing all the work onto the recipient (or worse, every reader of your comment on HN) to verify what you say and how much they can trust you. That could involve researching, checking your credentials, or putting in effort to understand/overlook the emotional tone.
"This is the answer. I have the answer" style dumping of information is a poor form of human-human communication, unless you are directly answering a closed-ended question.
Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably. I would argue that showing up extremely late for an interview that you scheduled is considerably more jerk-ish. It also wasn’t passive aggressive, or at least it wasn’t intended to be. I actually wanted to know if that was just a thing that was common in the company so I could plan accordingly.
Saying something like "Actually, I felt it was unprofessional and disrespectful to not have the interview start at the agreed-upon time" would also be direct, no? The way it's written sounds way more inflammatory.
Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#174There are times when I become very tilted if I feel like someone else is not respecting my time. There are other times when I become similarly frustrated if I feel like someone else is not allowing enough time to discuss something important, or if they seem like they are being dismissive of a topic I care about.
My own emotional response to communication is another input I can use to evaluate reality. My emotions are indicators of certain things, but they are not straightforward, flashing neon signs that explain exactly what's going on in clear and simple terms. The gut thoughts need to be combined with the brain thoughts for a more complete picture, and that increases uncertainty.
The situation also matters. If I am debugging a problem in production that is costing the organization, and therefore me, a lot of money, most of my focus is going to be dedicated to finding and fixing the problem. If you interrupt that with "how was your weekend?" you can probably expect me to be like, "what is wrong with you? can't you see this plane is on fire?". This is my emotional reaction. My rational reaction is - if you aren't helping, you are in the way. This reaction is due 100% to the way I was brought up - when I wasn't helping I WAS in the way, and I would be asked by my parents step aside, watch and learn. And that was the right thing to do because it improved safety and lowered risk.
My point is, there is an infinite pool of influences that contribute to the way people choose to communicate. And the way someone chooses to communicate is not always 100% under their conscious control - some of it is instinct, more like a reflex.
I very much value clear and straight-forward communication that respects everyone's time - in the right context. And my own expectations of this kind of communication has damaged my relationships on numerous occasions as well.
I also very much value the creative process of talking things through - in the right context. I also tend to find this draining. If there is too much of it all at once, I have to recharge somehow.
Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably. I would argue that showing up extremely late for an interview that you scheduled is considerably more jerk-ish. It also wasn’t passive aggressive, or at least it wasn’t intended to be. I actually wanted to know if that was just a thing that was common in the company so I could plan accordingly.
Didn’t your momma teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?? If someone is a jerk to you, and then you’re a jerk to them… you’re still a jerk.
Pointing out something that was objectively douchy isn’t “wrong”. Yes I was a little snarky, and maybe I am a “jerk”, but considering that this person was happy to just waste my time like it was nothing I do think he was entitled to a little embarrassment.
Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#176Everyone says that they value directness, and from what I can tell the vast majority of people actually don't. For example, I had a job interview a couple years ago where the interviewer showed up fifteen minutes late for a thirty minute interview. Eventually he did show up, and the interview proceeds more or less fine, and near the end he asks if I have any questions. I said "is it common to show up fifteen minutes…
Calling that out to that persons face, in that moment, is also inappropriate and rude. You can give that feedback some other time.
Are you saying that instead of directly pointing out something that really bothered me, I should instead of reported him to someone higher up? Should I have bitched on Glassdoor? Oh, I guess I could have complained to the to recruiter where there is a zero percent chance that my complaint actually gets sent to them.
It’s “rude” in that I embarrassed the person for a minute, but it’s not like I went and tattled to their higher-up, or was out for blood or anything. If they’re going to waste half the interview then they can fucking deal with being embarrassed for a few minutes.
Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#177Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#178It’s been my experience that those that most loudly say they value extreme directness like this are also those with the most fragile egos. If you directly tell them something they did is wrong or non-optimal, they conclude that you’re an idiot, don’t change anything (or, worse, double-down), and will sometimes even berate you (directness!). You need to couch your discussions with them more than is usual with others.
:D
Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#179The writer asks for it, so I will be blunt. They are demanding people have perfectly formed thoughts crafted in a way to give them just the information they wanted with no consideration for the process of thinking or consideration for the person speaking. It is selfish and impossible. Articles like this, I think, expose how bad we have gotten at both speaking and listening. "I personally value directness, so when som…
> Communication is mind control. The point isn't the words, it is literally trying to get a person to do something. You're describing manipulating people, not communicating with them. The point of communication between engineers is usually to establish a mutual understanding, not make them do something you want. Through that mutual understanding you both come to agree on what should be done. Often, coming to that mut…
Being specific to misunderstandings is an element that's overlooked.
This advice tends to be taken onboard (often to extremes) by those who take it as a free pass to just say whatever comes to their mind, whenever they like, without explaining how they arrived there. Any excuse to avoid putting in effort to be understood or be conscious of the fact that human beings have emotions.
We are not robots.
I'm glad commenters here are aware of this, as HN sentiment is getting close to the point of treating each other as machines, whilst we train bots to have better communication skill such as empathetic reflection, and allow them more creativity and freedom.
Some people are more patient and sympathetic towards computers making mistakes and not following commands perfectly, or being too verbose, than we are with our fellow human beings.
Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
#180The writer asks for it, so I will be blunt. They are demanding people have perfectly formed thoughts crafted in a way to give them just the information they wanted with no consideration for the process of thinking or consideration for the person speaking. It is selfish and impossible. Articles like this, I think, expose how bad we have gotten at both speaking and listening. "I personally value directness, so when som…
> Communication is mind control. The point isn't the words, it is literally trying to get a person to do something. You're describing manipulating people, not communicating with them. The point of communication between engineers is usually to establish a mutual understanding, not make them do something you want. Through that mutual understanding you both come to agree on what should be done. Often, coming to that mut…
There's a reason software has tutorials as well as reference documentation. Sometimes telling someone something directly isn't as effective at getting them to understand it as explaining it more slowly or obliquely. Sharing your learning journey to arrive at the understanding is (one possibility for) presenting a working path to understanding.
It's also the case that, especially when someone's knowledge diverges a lot from your own, it may not be obvious to them what information is relevant to you — and it may even be surprising to you. As an extreme example, there was a bug where OpenOffice wouldn't print on Tuesdays [1]. This happens a lot with non-technical users, but can also happen with other technical people who don't have the same level of understanding of a particular subsystem (in both directions — if you understand it better they may not know what information is key to understanding its behaviour, and if they understand it better they may not realize what information they're taking for granted that you don't know — e.g. the famous joke about ‘monads are just monoids in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?’). As I've spent more time in technical discussions I've got better at homing in on the information I need — but I can't materialize information that wasn't given to me in the first place. So I'd rather people shotgun information at me than narrow it down to just the one point that they think is relevant.
[1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cupsys/+bug/255161...