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

Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

jorgegalindo.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 260 posts

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#211

Post by navane »

delichon wrote: post #95
codelikeawolf wrote: post #59

Ever since that back and forth about "East Coast being kind vs West Coast being nice" thing a while back[1], I think it's important to distinguish the two. Because they are noticeably different (at least to me) and shouldn't be used interchangeably. I want someone to be kind to me in a meeting. I think niceness could seriously inhibit progress. A kind person will tell me that an idea I have won't work, but they'll of…

"Tough love" is kind but not nice. There doesn't seem to be a good phrase for the opposite in English but there should be.

Virtue signaling is definitely adjecent

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#212

Post by yobbo »

The reason people sometimes need to be "unkind" is to prevent some cost from being incurred. (Another conceivable reason is personality disorders, but let's assume normal healthy people.)

For normal healthy people, kindness is the default state when it is free. When there are costs, it becomes a luxury only some people can afford.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#213

Post by dingnuts »

BeetleB wrote: post #191
mgh2 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people are nice (convention, norm, culture, etc.) to conform to a set of rules, being kind is the exception to the rule.

Yet another faulty categorization and coopting - this time of both words. Kind is only the exception to the norm if you're in a crappy culture. In some places the ethic is such that kindness is the norm.

there's already a word for using a specific type of soft language regardless as to intent, and it's "polite"

don't know why we need to quibble about the meaning of "nice" or invent a new word when polite will do

politeness, unlike kindness or niceness, has no implication of intent, only tone, which is what's trying to be conveyed

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#214

Post by seadan83 »

delichon wrote: post #95
codelikeawolf wrote: post #59

Ever since that back and forth about "East Coast being kind vs West Coast being nice" thing a while back[1], I think it's important to distinguish the two. Because they are noticeably different (at least to me) and shouldn't be used interchangeably. I want someone to be kind to me in a meeting. I think niceness could seriously inhibit progress. A kind person will tell me that an idea I have won't work, but they'll of…

"Tough love" is kind but not nice. There doesn't seem to be a good phrase for the opposite in English but there should be.

Thinking of cats/dogs - euthanasia seems to also be a good fit for "kind, but not nice"

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#215

Post by mirekrusin »

mrfinn wrote: post #135
mirekrusin wrote: post #13

Being too kind can also be negative, I prefer honesty and reality above the rest.

Honesty doesn't conflict in any way with kindness, but with being "nice". Actually I think is a requirement of being genuinely kind.

Being smart also doesn't conflict with kindness - if anything, they go together.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#216

Post by giraffe333 »

vijucat wrote: post #153

Nice article. Definitely need more kindness in this achievement society. One small crib, though: > In Spanish, we have a saying, "Maestro Liendre: De tó sabe, pero de ná entiende." I don't really know (and don't want) to translate it because it loses its punch, but it fits perfectly here. Wait, why mention it if I, the reader, cannot understand the saying or how it is even relevant to the article, but leave me with t…

TIL: Spanish has a sort of written contractions. I speak conversational Spanish so I’ve heard people talk this way, like Puerto Rico or Dominican Republic speakers shortening things, just hadn’t seen it written before. tó = todo ná = nada

https://www.spanishdict.com/guide/shortening-of-words > There are a few apocopes of very common words that are pronounced and written in informal Spanish as monosyllabic words. These popular apocopes include na, pa, and to, that stand for nada (nothing), para (for), and todo (all). You may find these words written with an apostrophe at the end, but spelling experts advise against it.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#217

Post by ozim »

elteto wrote: post #183
vijucat wrote: post #153

Nice article. Definitely need more kindness in this achievement society. One small crib, though: > In Spanish, we have a saying, "Maestro Liendre: De tó sabe, pero de ná entiende." I don't really know (and don't want) to translate it because it loses its punch, but it fits perfectly here. Wait, why mention it if I, the reader, cannot understand the saying or how it is even relevant to the article, but leave me with t…

“Knows about everything yet understands nothing.”

Spanish version is much more compact and can be pronounced quicker so it can be used as pun.

This English version, you cannot just punch it, there has to be a pause like after "yet" or a comma before yet and then punch is delivered but still "understands nothing" is a mouthful compared to "pero de ná entiende" even though my Spanish is non existing, still feels like I could pronounce it much faster or much easier.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#218

Post by glenstein »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #15
ttoinou wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to be kind only for utilitarian motives, not because it’s a good thing in principle ?

What does it mean for a thing to be good in principle?

I don't understand why they got down voted because this question has a rather obvious answer. Do you motivate a person to behave a specific way because it's instrumentally good for a higher purpose, or because the behavior itself is inherently valuable? That's a perfectly coherent, it makes a real distinction, and it's a legitimate question in this context.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#219

Post by ricardo81 »

erikerikson wrote: post #185
ricardo81 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't disagree with your philosophy and think you have a well considered approach to it. When it comes to social etiquette, empathy, agreeableness, there are definitely a lot of people 'on the scale' around here and that's absolutely fine. There are smart well-balanced people and there's uber-smart people who know more than most about a thing but perhaps lack that social etiquette- and that's fine to me. If they ca…

The point isn't that we should be anyone other than ourselves. We can only be ourselves and we are out best version when comfortable with that. It's simply that learning to express ourselves with kindness and understand the importance of it will make us even more effective. At least being formerly graceless and continuing to develop grace, that has been my experience.

While I can't disagree with your general candour, you might find that I will challenge you on anything else :-) There it is, the allowance to do so.

Re: Do not try to be the smartest in the room; try to be the kindest

#220

Post by alluro2 »

ttoinou wrote: post #11
mydriasis wrote: post #6

Work is hard and stressful. If we're sweet and kind to one-another, we get through it more easily, no matter how smart each of us is individually. Being kind is an investment, and its dividends pay out enormously as your organization grows. Like the article says, it's infectious. I believe that. I believe that if I show kindness, especially to people who are new to the organization, they'll mirror it right back, and…

So you want to be kind only for utilitarian motives, not because it’s a good thing in principle ?

That's not a very kind interpretation of the parent comment - a bit reductionist, don't you think?

I personally don't believe it's possible to "give out" kindness, compassion, friendship solely from an utilitarian position. It would either be fake, and people feel the difference and the desired effect does not follow, or your utilitarian position is a front, in order to justify being kind to unkind people around you judging you.

Post reply on HN