That said, whenever I walk into a scenario where someone's been plugging away at a problem for a good length of time, especially when it's someone I trust and know to be competent, almost invariably the answer is yes, they did try it, but asking in this way often then illicit the person to explain what went wrong. And after a few rounds of it we've eliminated a number of the more obvious solutions that didn't work, and I'm now up to pace and can try and provide better ones.
Help me ask why you didn't just
281–290 of 363 posts
Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#282I don't know about you, but if I talk to someone about a problem, the "why didn't you just $FOO" suggestions are exactly the ones I'm looking for. Because the tech environment has become so complex that there is probably a simple API I could have used but I wasn't aware of it. How about we stop assuming people are out to hurt us, and start assuming everybody is well-meaning but they have social issues just like me? J…
Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#283"I'm probably missing something - why didn't you just do X?" And honestly I think phrasing isn't that important - if you know someone for months or years and aren't usually a dick - people won't automatically assume the worst. Also this may be cultural. I've worked with English people and with Germans and the level of acceptable criticism and required disclaimers was very different. My own nation (Polish) seems to be…
I'm actually quite surprised that you're the first person I've seen mention this, because in my personal experience this is exactly the answer. People seem to receive that question well regardless of it's form when it comes from someone that is known to be relatively open and non-judgemental.
Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#284Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
The directness here is important. If you start playing word games to imply things (non-threatening, non-accusative) etc., you confuse the message. You know what's worse than a threatening or accusative question? One where the recipient spends their time trying to guess what second meaning might be implied with the obviously convoluted wording. Clear, direct questions that have only one distinct query. >> Would there…
> Some people might be offended or sensitive to direct questions, but that's for them to work through with their therapist. It's a fair position to take, but in some cases where successful communication is a necessity, that stance doesn't cut it. My go-to heuristic is "the wordier the question, the more likely it is to be perceived as well intentioned." So if I'm wondering why someone didn't use sshd, I might say, "S…
Just wanted you to know that I have a conflicting heuristic (which admittedly may or may not be unique to me): "the wordier the question, the more likely it is that the intention is being hidden from me".
Inefficient, wishy-washy, wandering questions set off my spidey sense that tells me I'm not getting the full picture. Earlier in my career, such an interaction would have left me with some risidual anxiety, feeling unsure that I'd been given honest feedback and questioning whether I'd done a good job.
I'm speaking only from the point of view of a review situation of course.
Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#286My take from personal experience: Removing the "just" obviously makes it less condescending: => Why didn't you use sshd? Removing the "you" could make it less personal: => Why was sshd not used here? Removing the past-tense makes it more forward looking (the past can't be changed, but people often defend their past decisions especially because they are unchangeable, the future however is less threatening): => Could s…
IE, I am assuming that you are not an idiot and that you tried the obvious thing and that it didn't work for some reason that I don't understand yet.
Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#287This follows naturally from "What have you tried?", from the "information to include when asking for help", on which Q&A sites seem to agree.
It's rather innocent at face value and it leaves the door wide open for the person to explain what went wrong when they tried, or why they opted against it without trying, etc., without implying anything negative --except to a really frustrated and/or rough-edged person who is determined to receive everything in a negative way.
Yes there are a dozen mentions already for "did you try/have you tried" so here's my grain of sand on that pile.
Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#288I've been successful with a different approach.
Ask "What happened when you tried X," where X is a simple option, instead.
It implies that you think X could have been tried, and opens the door for an explanation for why it didn't work.
If X wasn't tried (and I am surprised how often it was not), then you find out. No chance for misunderstanding, except from the most defensive types.
Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#289The killer combo IMO is "just" (setting up a default position) and "you" (associating an initially assumed-inferior position with a person). That's why phrasings like "why doesn't ssh work here" aren't as bad. They keep things collaborative rather than adversarial. This becomes particularly clear with repetition, with a series of "why don't you just" bearing a stark resemblance to a legal cross-examination. It's better to avoid those two markers unless you know that's what both parties are after (which is fine when it happens BTW).
Re: Help me ask why you didn't just
#290My take from personal experience: Removing the "just" obviously makes it less condescending: => Why didn't you use sshd? Removing the "you" could make it less personal: => Why was sshd not used here? Removing the past-tense makes it more forward looking (the past can't be changed, but people often defend their past decisions especially because they are unchangeable, the future however is less threatening): => Could s…
In a communication course my employer asked me to take a while back we were taught to a) never ask a yes-no question and b) never ask "why". So I would reformulate simply as "How would sshd function in this setting?"
"I made a game on the web!" "How would your game work as a native app?"
"I made a thing that syncs files!" "How would you build this with Git?"
The two word answer I'm always going to be tempted to give is just: "I/It wouldn't."
To me, this is no longer asking the reasons why I made a technical decision, it's asking me to consider an alternate reality where I didn't make that decision, and to try and suss out what that reality might look like. And my purely instinctive, gut reaction to that is, "why are you wasting my time asking about things I didn't build, ask me about the thing I built or go away. It's not my job to re-architecture and reconsider all of my things under your random restrictions."
If a boss asked me a question like that: "How would Postgress work in this setting", I would politely reformat their question in my head, but unless I knew them quite well I would be quietly annoyed. But when someone asks me a direct "why" question, I feel like they're being more respectful, and I feel free to give a range of answers:
- "Why wouldn't your game work as a native app?" "It has some complicated tradeoffs that would take too long to enumerate."
- "Why not use Git?" "It has some specific tradeoffs, that I can go into more detail about: X, Y, and Z."
- or even, "Why not use Rust?" "I'm just not familiar with that technology, so I used something I already knew."
I'm not disputing that there are probably people who have different reactions. But I am immediately skeptical of any rule that uses the word "never". People just aren't that uniform.