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

How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

charity.wtf

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 304 posts

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#271

Post by cf141q5325 »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #197
rcbdev wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By whom? Czechs (wholly western to Poland) are always called "Eastern Europeans" in contemporary media and or any place I have ever worked before.

By just about everyone in Poland, at least. Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA. Let’s not forget that Vienna is actually geographically further East than Prague, though I doubt many Austrians would be comfortable considering themselves Eastern European. Poland is pretty…

>Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA.

I am calling bullshit. It simply referenced the Soviet zone. Eastern Europe was everything behind the iron curtain, including Eastern Germany. Everything else was Western Europe, including countries in the North and South of Europe.

edit: Its also worth mentioning that framing that geopolitical conflict as racist is highly oversimplistic and counterproductive. The only upside i can think of is signaling and the stakes are far too high for such selfish endeavors. Stuff is just complicated and geopolitical conflicts even more so.

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#272

Post by cf141q5325 »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #199
_0ffh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends if you go for geographical location or the iron curtain east/west distinction, which is still used by many and culturally relevant.

Just because it’s used, doesn’t make it valid. I don’t think the historical Iron Curtain is a useful means by which to make that distinction today. Unless you’re willing to proclaim to Berliners that you love being in Berlin despite it being in Eastern Europe. I think you would raise some eyebrows. Or fists.

You can make the exact same argument for Russia and Turkey being European. This kind of vocabulary works through consensus about attached meaning. Usage determines validity. You can tell by there being no agreed upon geographic line on a map going through countries.

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#273

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #271
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By just about everyone in Poland, at least. Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA. Let’s not forget that Vienna is actually geographically further East than Prague, though I doubt many Austrians would be comfortable considering themselves Eastern European. Poland is pretty…

>Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA. I am calling bullshit. It simply referenced the Soviet zone. Eastern Europe was everything behind the iron curtain, including Eastern Germany. Everything else was Western Europe, including countries in the North and South of Europe. e…

…And you're an authority on this topic are you?

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#274

Post by cf141q5325 »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #273
cf141q5325 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA. I am calling bullshit. It simply referenced the Soviet zone. Eastern Europe was everything behind the iron curtain, including Eastern Germany. Everything else was Western Europe, including countries in the North and South of Europe. e…

…And you're an authority on this topic are you?

As one of the idiots living there yes, very much so. Calling the DDR Osteuropa can not be racist.

I would however be happy to hear your qualification on this.

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#275

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #274
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…And you're an authority on this topic are you?

As one of the idiots living there yes, very much so. Calling the DDR Osteuropa can not be racist. I would however be happy to hear your qualification on this.

If that's all it takes to speak authoritatively on the topic, then, greetings from Poland.

I for one wouldn't describe myself as an idiot.

As you are a person who has previously shared Kremlin propaganda on this website, I have nothing more to say to you.

Good day.

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#276

Post by zestyping »

vasco wrote: post #182
glonq wrote: post #2

How timely. My boss just crucified a co-worker today in our meeting and I think something like this could help mend things. Yes, my boss never heard of " praise in public criticize in private ". Welcome to working with a hot-blooded eastern european

Nobody should be crucified either in public or in private. But correcting mistakes and making it explicit to the whole team what the problem was and how we'll minimize the chances of reocurring is best done in front of the team. Everyone learns together, and most importantly, they see how you react to mistakes. They won't be afraid to talk about their mistakes if they see your normal reaction. It'll also feel less ba…

The following case is interesting because it might fall in the space between what various folks on this thread consider acceptable.

An engineer on my team once merged a change that created a security vulnerability, without review. We didn't have any real users on prod yet, and the potential impact was small. But I was still angry because I had given explicit instructions (speaking as the tech lead and the one with the most security experience) that all changes had to go through code review for security issues.

I responded with an email message that was visible to the whole team (about 5 people). I knew it would sting, but I also wanted everyone to know that this was an important line not to cross, because at some point in the near future we did hope to have real users. I wrote, approximately, "You merged this change without review, and that's not okay. I explicitly told you not to do that. As a result, we now have a security vulnerability. Don't ever do that again."

I am paraphrasing from memory, but the tone was not too far off from this: stern, direct criticism without personal attack. At the time, I held myself to a simple standard of communication: stating facts and criticising actions (even bluntly) was acceptable; any criticism of personal attributes was unacceptable. The engineer in question was very hurt and angry with me, and our working relationship was difficult for many weeks after that.

Was I the asshole here? What's your standard of communication, and what would you do, from the point of view of the tech lead or as the engineer?

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#277

Post by cf141q5325 »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #275
cf141q5325 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one of the idiots living there yes, very much so. Calling the DDR Osteuropa can not be racist. I would however be happy to hear your qualification on this.

If that's all it takes to speak authoritatively on the topic, then, greetings from Poland. I for one wouldn't describe myself as an idiot. As you are a person who has previously shared Kremlin propaganda on this website, I have nothing more to say to you. Good day.

>I for one wouldn't describe myself as an idiot.

That might be the problem and the reason for your unsupported overconfidence. And its no wonder given your unwillingness to consider different perspectives.

You are welcome.

edit: I would hope nobody sees that as a confirmation for the stereotype of Poles being racist. I see no reason to not suspect a Russian sock puppet and neither should you.

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#278

Post by zestyping »

kapep wrote: post #78

"the story in my head" sounds really weird to me as a non-native speaker. Is that a common phrase? I guess "The story in my head is that you asked me to send that status email ..." means that this is what they remember. On the other hand "... the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job" sounds like they mean "the sto…

The usual way I hear it and say it is, "I have a story that...".

The intended purpose is to create some space between my mental model (which includes my beliefs about your intentions and feelings) and yours. It allows me to share information about my thoughts while inviting you to offer a different point of view.

Making direct statements about another person's feelings or thoughts ("You're angry", "You think I'm incompetent") will usually offend them or provoke immediate defensiveness. Saying "I have a story..." turns an aggressive-sounding statement into a more vulnerable one.

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#279

Post by watwut »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #258
watwut wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above does not sound like fake nicety to me. More like pure passive aggression and condescending way to tell you you are wrong.

I fail to see the distinction and its relevance. At that point we are discussing intention (stupidity vs malice) which makes it little better then analyzing for sarcasm. Benefit of the doubt goes both ways and the most charitable take is bad enough.

Fake nicety - I pretend to be your friend or thankful or praise you while not thinking much of you.

Passive aggression - I am intentionally trying to insult you or be condescending to you or stanf in your way while keeping plausible deniality.

Intention matters. The above sentence does nit sound like someone pretending to be nice or think well of you. It sounds like someone telling you they don't think much of you, while trying to make it harder for you to address the disagreement.

Re: How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

#280

Post by watwut »

awb wrote: post #259
watwut wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Estimated lifetime prevalence of narcissistic personality disorder varies widely but may be up to 6.2% of the general US population, more in men. Since we work in male dominated field, it is not rare at all and most of us all worked with at least one.

What I’m seeing is 0.5%: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_dis... > Frequency 0.5% https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/narcissisti... > Approximately 0.5% of the United States population, or one 1 in 200 people, has the disorder Regardless, your point does appear valid about male dominated fields: > There are significant gender differences when it comes to the prevalence of the dis…

Literally your first link:

> As of 2018, overall prevalence is estimated to range from 0.8% to 6.2%.[68][69] In 2008 under the DSM-IV, lifetime prevalence of NPD was estimated to be 6.2%, with 7.7% for men and 4.8% for women

Post reply on HN