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

Red Light Green Light

jamessevedge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Red Light Green Light

#31

Post by mdavis6890 »

aeternum wrote: post #15

Similar things happen surprisingly often in companies. Many intense arguments can be diffused by first being specific about what we agree upon. Just to add to this, one strategy from the rationalist community that I rarely see practiced is to 'taboo' certain words. For example if two engineers are arguing about a solution not being scalable, taboo the word scalable. They both re-explain their POV without using the wo…

I have never heard of this approach before, but it sounds flipping great. I will now look for arguments that I can start and then later solve with this method. Winners all around!

Re: Red Light Green Light

#32

Post by JumpCrisscross »

JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #13

The problem with this analogy (as the author ties it up to the end point) is it implies you're leading a team that simply can't see the reality. More often, the change in perspective allows the person in the back seat to see the car that is about to run a red light and smash into you, rather than it being a question of presenting them a better context.

> it implies you're leading a team that simply can't see the reality

If everyone on the team has the same level of visibility into everything, there is insufficient specialization and/or utilization.

The child in the analogy wasn't blinded from seeing the light ahead. He could theoretically access that information. But in practice, he didn't, and that lead to a miscommunication.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#33

Post by MattSayar »

RangerScience wrote: post #10
Waterluvian wrote: post #6

This anecdote is a ridiculously great example of something I’ve found to be VERY VERY IMPORTANT with parenting (and probably lots else.) You must be incredibly delicate with “wrong” answers otherwise you might gaslight, discourage, or otherwise mess with your child’s ontology. I’ve learned to ask “why do you think that?” When I get a “confident wrong answer” as I call them. A surprising amount of the time my child ha…

Note that (AFAIK), for adults, "why" can get you the wrong response (puts people on the defensive), so (AFAIK) it's recommended to use "what" instead (which tends to get at the "why" you wanted in the first place) - "why do you think that?" -> "what led to you thinking that?" :shrug: It works, sooooo.

I prefer "What makes you say that?"

Re: Red Light Green Light

#34

Post by jonnycomputer »

JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #13

The problem with this analogy (as the author ties it up to the end point) is it implies you're leading a team that simply can't see the reality. More often, the change in perspective allows the person in the back seat to see the car that is about to run a red light and smash into you, rather than it being a question of presenting them a better context.

The child wasn't seeing something that wasn't real. The child was looking at a different light. The miscommunication occurred because neither realized that they were looking at different lights.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#36

Post by drewcoo »

RangerScience wrote: post #10
Waterluvian wrote: post #6

This anecdote is a ridiculously great example of something I’ve found to be VERY VERY IMPORTANT with parenting (and probably lots else.) You must be incredibly delicate with “wrong” answers otherwise you might gaslight, discourage, or otherwise mess with your child’s ontology. I’ve learned to ask “why do you think that?” When I get a “confident wrong answer” as I call them. A surprising amount of the time my child ha…

Note that (AFAIK), for adults, "why" can get you the wrong response (puts people on the defensive), so (AFAIK) it's recommended to use "what" instead (which tends to get at the "why" you wanted in the first place) - "why do you think that?" -> "what led to you thinking that?" :shrug: It works, sooooo.

Why is clearly a personal judgement. What is something other, not the person, and we can even possibly feign objectivity and share a point of view of the matter.

Like the saying goes, nobody likes a "whys guy."

Re: Red Light Green Light

#37

Post by RangerScience »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #16
RangerScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that (AFAIK), for adults, "why" can get you the wrong response (puts people on the defensive), so (AFAIK) it's recommended to use "what" instead (which tends to get at the "why" you wanted in the first place) - "why do you think that?" -> "what led to you thinking that?" :shrug: It works, sooooo.

I also stay away from second person: "what led to you thinking that?" -> "what led to that thought?" My preferred version: "what was the motivation for choosing that?". It's especially helpful on a team working with legacy software. Because the root cause can sometimes be a historic team decision, no longer attributable to anyone on the current team. Where "led you" can result in the "oh it wasn't my idea" responses,…

Oh that's excellent, thank you!

Re: Red Light Green Light

#38

Post by khendron »

Waterluvian wrote: post #6

This anecdote is a ridiculously great example of something I’ve found to be VERY VERY IMPORTANT with parenting (and probably lots else.) You must be incredibly delicate with “wrong” answers otherwise you might gaslight, discourage, or otherwise mess with your child’s ontology. I’ve learned to ask “why do you think that?” When I get a “confident wrong answer” as I call them. A surprising amount of the time my child ha…

This makes me recall the time I was riding on the bus, and there was a little boy (maybe 4 years old) with his mum. The little boy was proudly reading the numbers off the other buses he saw drive by.

"7, 23, 5, 86," the boy proudly stated. Then a bus numbered "5X" came by.

"What's that?" The boy said, pointing in confusion.

"That's the bus number!" his mom said.

"X is a number now?" the poor kid asked in a painful tone. You could just hear his understanding of the world crumbling around him.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#39

Post by metadat »

butwhywhyoh wrote: post #35

Quoted post unavailable.

> This woman comes off as incredibly weird and arrogant. Her first instinct is that her son is color blind, and then her next immediate instinct is to assign blame to her husband for that? She then goes on to run "experiments" on her child _FOR THREE WEEKS_ rather than just ask him a few simple questions that likely would have eliminated the confusion.

Why so judgemental on the mom, butwhywhyoh?

Being a parent is a difficult challenge in the best of circumstances. She's not claiming to have been an adept empath-of-children, so I don't understand where this is coming from.

Is it possible this speaks more about you and your parental relationships?

Half-joking here, if at all. This is an extremely common behavioral-baggage pattern that most of us hu-mans carry with us one way or another.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#40

Post by puffoflogic »

lupire wrote: post #28
RangerScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that (AFAIK), for adults, "why" can get you the wrong response (puts people on the defensive), so (AFAIK) it's recommended to use "what" instead (which tends to get at the "why" you wanted in the first place) - "why do you think that?" -> "what led to you thinking that?" :shrug: It works, sooooo.

Please don't. Euphemism treadmills destroy langauge.

It seems to me that euphemism treadmills also create language.

That doesn't mean we should permit them, but there should be a better reason than "this will lead to change".

Post reply on HN