Live data from Hacker News

The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

papers.ssrn.com

201–210 of 249 posts

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#201
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And according to a recent internet trend, apparently "OK" is passive-aggressive to. Go figure. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/okay-ok-k-workplace-language_...

OK! - "I get it, stop telling me, leave me alone" OK... - "This is exasperating and I'll just accept it" OK... - "His response was childish; moving on..." OK? - "What you've just said appears to have no bearing on the question I asked nor the conversation at hand. Please explain how it's relevant or get on-topic." OK? - "Did you understand? Please provide a response indicating whether you need additional information.…

OK = Acknowledged or agreed. OK? = Request for acknowledgement or agreement.

Anything else is reading too much into it. If I send someone an email explaining something and I get an, "OK" back, then I assume they've read it (or will read it) and I'll hear more from them if they have more to share.

When speaking in person, the "OK" itself almost completely superfluous as it's merely a vehicle for inflection and other social cues which carry the real meaning, as you noted.

> I'll just go with the sentences that attempt to preclude ambiguity.

And that's what I'd do 99% of the time, but I was specifically pointing to discussion around "OK"

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#202
post #62
post #13

I wonder what would be a more personal (and interesting) question than: - Describe your relationship with your mother - Describe your relationship with your father Completely open-ended, yet, is universal to everyone. Being candid in that area can provide a lot of foundational underpinning to understand someone. But - would people find it awkward? Would they take offense? Feel pain thinking about the answer? As for s…

Let me tell you about my mother.

Tony, please answer the question. We are waiting on you.

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#203
post #130
post #13

I wonder what would be a more personal (and interesting) question than: - Describe your relationship with your mother - Describe your relationship with your father Completely open-ended, yet, is universal to everyone. Being candid in that area can provide a lot of foundational underpinning to understand someone. But - would people find it awkward? Would they take offense? Feel pain thinking about the answer? As for s…

> Describe your relationship with your mother I got this question in a personality test as part of a job interview. I lied.

You did the right thing. People want to be lied to and will punish you for not doing so.

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would you favour naturally oily hands over clean hands? you are sacrificing everybody's hygiene for your own comfort. what do you do around babies and the elderly? despite your superior body chemistry, do you not wash your clothes in soap? would you refuse antiseptic treatment, or condone a team of surgeons with your unhygienic practice to save your life? there is a reason humans harness sanitation: it saves and…

> why would you favour naturally oily hands over clean hands? At the end of the day, with your accelerated oil producing hands, that became that way because you are constantly stripping them of it, your hands are much more goopy than mine. > you are sacrificing everybody's hygiene for your own comfort. what do you do around babies and the elderly? I don't even think about it. Despite your implication of calamity, not…

> > why would you favour naturally oily hands over clean hands?

> At the end of the day, with your accelerated oil producing hands, that became that way because you are constantly stripping them of it, your hands are much more goopy than mine.

my hands are certainly not "goopy", but if you associate soap with that, then you obviously haven't found the right soap for you.

> > you are sacrificing everybody's hygiene for your own comfort. what do you do around babies and the elderly?

> I don't even think about it. Despite your implication of calamity, nothing happens. (Besides, babies are a lot dirtier than me, drooling and sticking everything in their mouths)

this sounds like an uneducated statement to say the least. it's not about dirt (a bit of dirt never harmed anyone), it's about bacteria and diseases, and the risks posed to those with developing or weakened immune systems. could you sleep if a baby you had contact with died from MRSA or diarrhoea? if you are consciously assisting the spread of infection and disease then calamity is the least you deserve.

> > despite your superior body chemistry, do you not wash your clothes in soap?

> Clothes are another matter, they aren't living organisms with evolved mechanisms to survive in a natural environment full of all kinds of microorganisms that could kill you. You need to wash clothes just as you need to take care of any artificial tool.

if you admit to willfully using soap on items that protect and insulate an organism then these could by natural extension include skin. also, the reproductive and therefore evolutionary rates of microorganisms far exceed our own - you and your kin would not evolve quickly enough to survive a pandemic.

> Naturally, we don't need soap. This is a classic marketing technique, create a problem, “hygiene”, then push a solution, buy my soap. Only the soap creates more problems, but nevermind that. Oh if you're really suffering, buy my hand cream.

bacterial infection and disease are not a product of unethical marketing. nor are they some imagined, artificial problem. the suggestion that soap is not needed is conflating to the domain of cosmetics, of which it does not belong. I'm not saying soap is the answer to humanity's demise, it just enables us and other species to thrive. the major example being post-sanitation life expectancy.

> > would you refuse antiseptic treatment, or condone a team of surgeons with your unhygienic practice to save your life?

> Would you take blood pressure medication when you didn't need it? How about put a cast on your arm for a week after lifting a heavy object just in case the bones are slightly weakened? Just because medicine can cure a problem doesn't mean you should use it all the time.

firstly, soap is not a medicine so that analogy is safely dismissed. secondly, those are auto-negating or rhetorical questions, so I'm not inclined to answer. mine were life-or-death scenarios, which you chose not to answer. I wonder why that was. I will not assume you would choose death, but instead presume you acknowledge that you would indeed need soap.

also, since you touched on threat perception. it's not about what could happen, it's about what is happening and what is being done to prevent it.

> > there is a reason humans harness sanitation: it saves and prolongs lives

> An enormous oversimplification. Obviously it saves lives, but if we lived in a world where we never came in contact with any microorganism that might kill us, our defense systems would be weakened to a point where if we were ever exposed to one, we'd all die.

soap does not alter our immune systems. everything we are immune to has nothing to do with the availability of soap. it's more about protection and mitigation against the things we are incapable of becoming immune to.

it's absurd you dare include yourself in that "we". you are the minority here. you are alive for two reasons, the first being you are lucky enough to live in an environment where sanitation is available, and secondly because the majority of mankind grasp basic biological concepts and are not living under some anti-goopiness delusion.

there are several instances in pre-sanitation history where we did nearly all die. to say that you do not need soap is simply insane (etymological pun intended :)

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hits at a fundamental point that has puzzled me about American culture for the longest time. A country that is so heavily steeped in protestant/purtanical Christian roots and yet does not even realize that one of the main components of that creed is NOT taking offense to things. In fact, taking offense to things is as sinful as actually offending someone. It's basically a philosophical method of being a little l…

One explanation that I read recently ( https://aeon.co/essays/what-duelling-can-teach-us-about-taki... ) is that taking offense may often be not so much the magnitude of the slight itself as it is about establishing that you are an equal and therefore have the right to take offense. For example suppose that a trans person takes offense at someone refusing to use their preferred pronoun. The issue may not actually be…

> may not be about the flag itself so much as it is about asserting that Southerners have a right to be treated with respect

This seems extremely generous, and doesn’t match my impression of supporters of the confederate flag I have seen or heard about, many of whom live outside the former confederate states and have nothing to do with the South culturally.

There is a demand to be heard/respected involved, but the demand as far as I can tell is for recognition of white racial superiority and white social hegemony as a legitimate political ideology (which goes hand-in-hand with an implicit threat to non-whites), rather than anything about geography per se.

There’s also a strong element of defiance of what is seen as a subversive culture of pluralism and mutual respect, along the lines of: “I know this symbol is offensive to you, but I declare my right to wave it in your face because you can’t stop me.” This kind of militant offensiveness is attractive to the same sorts of people who “roll coal” to stick it to environmentalists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#206
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Being an asshole -- regardless of reason -- is terrible for the team, no matter how decent they are. Making an effort to conform to social norms of politeness goes a long, long way. Don't get me wrong; feel free to upset people, but they should be upset about the factual content of the message, not the delivery!

I don't know why you assume being an asshole is the trait your GP doesn't want to reveal. Any number of innocuous interests could hurt your reputation in different circles: hunting, being gay, watching anime, practicing (a different/any/no) religion. "What did you do this weekend" is a loaded question if you're a cultural outlier at your workplace. Even decent people often have personal biases that lead to awkwardnes…

Oh, wow. Thank you for revealing my insensitivity to me. I could really have sworn that's how they presented it themselves, but I see now that's far from the truth.

Thoughtful comment. Thanks again!

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not in corporate america. i think you missed the metaphor. you arent alone.

Absolutely in corporate america. M&A's, regulators, other employees looking to slide into your role, etc. etc.

Absolutely not, as per your demonstrative examples. You are confused and, I predict, will now want to quibble about what "genuine" means since youve lost context in the digression. SMH

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#208
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people are sheep and it is unfortunate.

Sheep are rational agents when they are surrounded by wolves.

Best way to predict the future, is to make it happen.

One can drop the metaphors and meet the human beings instead.

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#209
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to get the most out of another while giving little or nothing seems like a strange and rather mercenary way to approach interpersonal interactions. Could you explain how you arrive at this mode of communication?

Well, no. My point was that conversations are not zero-sum games. You produce intimacy via information exchanges, which you both benefit from, though there will always be an information asymmetry between you and your conversation partner. I know analysing social interactions is seen as a rather, if you will forgive the term, "autistic" (or worse, sociopathic) way of looking at things , but some people do not have the…

I don't see anything wrong with analyzing social interactions. I'm not on the spectrum, and I still find value in it. My confusion what at what seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) as an approach to conversations that tried to min/max against information disclosure.

You've clarified that though and it seems much more reasonable, although I'm still not sure why there must be information asymmetry. As an example, I just attended an office holiday party. Myself and a coworker I don't know well had a brief conversation on each other's family visit dynamics during the holiday season. I think we both fairly adequately covered our respective situations, and neither of us could come away thinking, "Wow, he/she knows all about my setup but I still don't know much about theirs". It was pretty equitable.

Re: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions

#210
post #118

I'm a regular reader of Ask a Manager ( https://www.askamanager.org/ ), and one thing that comes up over and over is how both managers and employees will avoid awkward topics ranging from trivial ("your breath smells") to consequential ("you need to step up or you'll be fired!"), to the point of going to extremes like quitting the job, just to avoid having a genuine conversation with somebody. And I'm guilty of this…

> the point of going to extremes like quitting the job, just to avoid having a genuine conversation with somebody. If you genuinely think the ones you saw could have been avoid just by a conversation, I’d wager the main issue was not an awkward situation but a crucial lack of trust, often coming from a toxic culture. I saw a lot of situations where something awkward was going in, ranging from bad hygiene to mild hara…

My experience has been people is afraid of asking, as the article puts it, “sensitive questions”. Afraid of the repercussions: Will they react aggressively/defensively and never talk to me again? Will they feel bad and have depression after that? Among other things.

I say it because it happened at my previous company: After a new team member joined the company (he was like 6, 7 feet away from me), I from time to time started getting weird smells, but it was occasional and it’s not like I was out on a hunt for the origin of the smell. Eventually we had to work together and wow, the smell was really intense (not sure if only that day or what); I immediately told him about it (it was just the two of us). He started using deodorant (that was the reason) more often after that. Weeks after I was drinking with his team, and they started talking about him and how much he had improved his issue, and I asked them if they had told them. They said no, with the reasons I mentioned above.

So, yes, people is different and you have to hopefully measure a bit what you say depending on the person in front of you, but if society wasn’t so sensitive these last years, it’d be easier for everyone to accept criticism so everyone improves. Also, if it’s something that directly affects me, there is NO way I’m not going to try and change/improve the situation.

Post reply on HN