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

221–230 of 279 posts

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#221

Post by LanceH »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #191
theshrike79 wrote: post #170

Whenever articles like this about communication crop up, I like to remind people of Wiio's Laws[0] - from 1978: 1. Communication usually fails, except by accident. 2. If a message can be interpreted in several ways, it will be interpreted in a manner that maximizes the damage. 3. There is always someone who knows better than you what you meant with your message. 4. The more we communicate, the worse communication suc…

5. In mass communication, the important thing is not how things are but how they seem to be. This hits particularly hard for me. End of last year I was finishing a bigger group project where actual PM was AWOL. Perception, especially in corporate environments, is everything.

Then things are interpreted through the lens of "how they are supposed to seem to be."

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#222

Post by MonaroVXR »

jonmc12 wrote: post #72

As another example, Amazon teams communicate product launch requirements via a future press releases including a FAQ (per description in the book "Working Backwards"). Its a communication intended for the masses with a built-in disambiguation addendum. Our natural languages uses incremental inquiry to disambiguate context as opposed to using strong protocol. In "Working Backwards", it's the communicator's job to soli…

> "As another example, Amazon teams communicate product launch requirements via a future press releases including..."

Do you have a source for this, guide and maybe a book about Amazon things?

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#223

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

>when I joined Azure, I asked people what the biggest risk to Azure was and the dominant answer was that if we had more global outages, major customers would lose trust in us and we'd lose them forever, permanently crippling the business

That's a pretty good question to ask, at any job interview. I will use this tip! (won't ask it on the first interview, but it's pretty usefull for a second or third interview)

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#224

Post by patcon »

GCA10 wrote: post #5

Dan Luu is right that public messaging -- and company-wide internal messaging -- tends to be bone simple and incomplete. What's interesting is that the nuances don't completely fade out of site. They exist in quiet and sometimes quite intricate underground conversations. I've joined organizations where it was howlingly clear that the official messaging was not the way the company really ran. That invites the question…

> They exist in quiet and sometimes quite intricate underground conversations.

YES. Nailed it.

In my understand, it's broadcast that is weak at communicating nuance. But if you can figure out how to "tell stories" that propagate via conversation, then your capacity to communicate nuance is GREATLY increased. People will only take in so many bits of information, when they don't feel participant in the making.

I put "tell stories" in scare-quotes because imho they're not truly "told" and they're not truly "stories", at least not in the linear sense. It's more like they're "planted", and they're more like network stories than anything else. To tell them is more like building as escape room than writing a one-pager.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#225

Post by MonaroVXR »

ford wrote: post #123

This kind of doublespeak/mixed messaging with nuanced private conversations but dead-simple (or worse, spun) public statements is a double-edged sword. Sure it makes sure that the x% of employees who don't get the nuance won't ask questions about it, but it prevents ambitious employees from learning how decisions are made at higher levels. Understanding how the organization makes decisions can help you make decisions…

I love to have some insights as well, can you point me in the right direction?

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#226

Post by jiggawatts »

mandmandam wrote: post #218
jiggawatts wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is famous for limiting the length of texts, forcing people to boil down the message to its essence and leave nuance behind. But this is Dan Luu's point exactly . When forced to communicate at scale -- such as public health directive messaging -- there's no choice. Nuance doesn't work, only the simplest, blunt messages "get through". Fauci, like many others, were concerned about panic-buying of masks. It's not…

You act like those were the only two options and outcomes. That's a failure of imagination at best, and a false dichotomy. Some countries were able to issue effective mask wearing guidance - without lying to people, or causing mass mask hoarding. So let's not pretend that wasn't achievable. Let's also not act like we tried other outcomes first; incentives to mask production, disincentives to mask hoarding, etc. Multi…

> Multiple trusted organisations lied to Americans

What choice did they have? They were talking to Americans!

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#228

Post by jjeaff »

timr wrote: post #149
jiggawatts wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it was eye-opening to see just how bad people were at understanding what they were told in the clear, simplified language of public statements regarding COVID. I don't just mean "lay people", I mean the relatively well-educated HN crowd and even some medical professionals misunderstood what was said. Across the entire group, literally every part of what was publicly said by government agencies was misinterprete…

> For example, the "We don't recommend the general public wear masks at this time" was consistently misinterpreted to mean "Masks don't work", which is not what was said at all. Anthony Fauci literally said that "there's no reason for the general public to be walking around with a mask". On television. I'll link to this version, since hilariously, facebook has "fact checked" it: https://www.facebook.com/DeannaForCong…

Am I missing something?

"there's no reason for the general public to be walking around with a mask".

Nothing in that statement says that masks don't work. It also doesn't say there will never be a reason for the general public to walk around wearing masks. It is in the present tense and a single sentence.

In a shortage, you want the masks focused where the infections are coming in, the hospitals. The virus was not widespread at that point, so you are wasting resources by spreading your mask supply so thin.

His statement seems like an acceptable balance of simplicity and the truth. I also remember him couching it with "at this time" though I don't know if that was a common thing he said.

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#229

Post by tudorpavel »

MonaroVXR wrote: post #222
jonmc12 wrote: post #72

As another example, Amazon teams communicate product launch requirements via a future press releases including a FAQ (per description in the book "Working Backwards"). Its a communication intended for the masses with a built-in disambiguation addendum. Our natural languages uses incremental inquiry to disambiguate context as opposed to using strong protocol. In "Working Backwards", it's the communicator's job to soli…

> "As another example, Amazon teams communicate product launch requirements via a future press releases including..." Do you have a source for this, guide and maybe a book about Amazon things?

Working Backwards [0] is the actual name of the book on this subject.

[0] https://www.workingbackwards.com/

Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale

#230

Post by modeless »

You can remove "at scale" and it's still true. You can possibly even remove "nuanced" as well. Try writing an email to just one person. If you put two questions in it you will only get an answer to one of them (if you're lucky).

Human language is an incredibly lossy form of communication. Practically the entire field of philosophy is a consequence of this.

Post reply on HN