[dead]
"No Feigning Surprise"
51–60 of 80 posts
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm... the reactions to this post are rather revealing about the HN community. One quite positive, and sharing an excellent link (thanks). One neutral, and sharing the xkcd link I referenced (thanks). A couple of anonymous downvotes. I assume because it says something positive about someone, and we'll have none of that, here, thank you very much.
The concept of not feigning surprise may be related to the linked xkcd comic, but I don’t see any indication that it’s the “original”, and I downvoted several comments that seemed keen to steal thunder from the post by trying to frame it as just a rehash of a popular comic.
I sincerely wasn't trying to "steal her thunder," as my preface to the comment makes clear. Lots of people reference xkcd, myself, included[0]. It doesn't cheapen her post, one, tiny bit. I did change it, so it doesn't say "original." Good point.
It's entirely possible that people can be decent to each other. I know, I know, that's crazy talk, but I'm kind of relentlessly positive. I have had plenty of negative fuel, but I guess I'm just a Pollyanna.
[0] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qQDAuhGvBvBlZVH2zn_V...
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#53This is a reference to one the Recurse Center's social rules: https://www.recurse.com/social-rules I was really impressed with how successful RC is at maintaining an environment where people can learn and grow. Part of that is certainly selection effects- the point of center is self directed growth around programming, and there's an interview process that I assume filters especially hostile people. But I think the so…
It seems arbitrary. Surprise (genuine or feigned, it can be hard to tell) can be followed up with ridicule, excitement, encouragement, etc. That's what's actually impactful, surely...
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of not feigning surprise may be related to the linked xkcd comic, but I don’t see any indication that it’s the “original”, and I downvoted several comments that seemed keen to steal thunder from the post by trying to frame it as just a rehash of a popular comic.
I sincerely wasn't trying to "steal her thunder," as my preface to the comment makes clear. Lots of people reference xkcd, myself, included[0]. It doesn't cheapen her post, one, tiny bit. I did change it, so it doesn't say "original." Good point. It's entirely possible that people can be decent to each other. I know, I know, that's crazy talk, but I'm kind of relentlessly positive. I have had plenty of negative fuel,…
> It's entirely possible that people can be decent to each other. I know, I know, that's crazy talk
This is nearly comical phrasing given the topic of the page.
I provided enough context about the specific kind of comment I found to be in bad faith that I don’t understand why you felt concerned that I took offense to any mentions of xkcd.
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not always best to communicate openly. Honesty without kindness is cruelty. It does a learner no good to hear that you are shocked by a skill deficit. If you're planning to be around people who are in a learning space, you should not be surprised if they don't know something. And even if you are surprised, it is kinder to not show it. I don't think this rule is universal. If you're in a professional environment…
> I don't think this rule is universal. Counterpoint: Most workplaces would be best served by a team of developers who help up level each other without causing morale issues when knowledge gaps, which everyone has, inevitably show up. This type of environment is the best for software development organizations specifically because most software development shops that have more than one person working on a codebase or…
I definitely agree that kindness as a default is never a bad choice. There does come a time when a skill deficit becomes too much of a drag to the team and a sign of irresponsibility on the part of the practitioner, but it's the exception.
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#56You don't know that No Feigning Surprise is actually from an xkcd comic, before it was a wizardzines post? U+1F632
Oh did you just start an HN emoji standard.
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
People doing that are doing it intentionally, and they aren't going to follow your rule. People who are open to listening are not pretending to be surprised in order to put somebody down. They are actually surprised and (perhaps) unintentionally hurting somebody. If that somebody is hurt, they need to ask themselves which hurts more, having somebody surprised you didn't know something (aka they think you are smart),…
If somebody says something rude to me, why would my reaction be to try to decide if I’m glad they were rude unintentionally?
Reread what I wrote. The point is it is more rude to assume somebody is ignorant than it is to assume they are knowledgeable.
This is telling people to assume people are ignorant or at least pretend you think they are ignorant.
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is being surprised somebody doesn't know something putting them down, or is being unsurprised they are ignorant putting them down?
> Is being surprised somebody doesn't know something putting them down Yes. > is being unsurprised they are ignorant putting them down Again, the whole reason to just declare this as a rule is so that you’re not put in a position to try to decide if somebody is ignorant or not. You set a social guideline, and if people break it, you point it out, and it doesn’t matter why they did it.
By demonstrating an assumption that everybody knows nothing? I fail to see how that is beneficial. It is rude to everybody.
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sincerely wasn't trying to "steal her thunder," as my preface to the comment makes clear. Lots of people reference xkcd, myself, included[0]. It doesn't cheapen her post, one, tiny bit. I did change it, so it doesn't say "original." Good point. It's entirely possible that people can be decent to each other. I know, I know, that's crazy talk, but I'm kind of relentlessly positive. I have had plenty of negative fuel,…
> It's entirely possible that people can be decent to each other. I know, I know, that's crazy talk This is nearly comical phrasing given the topic of the page. I provided enough context about the specific kind of comment I found to be in bad faith that I don’t understand why you felt concerned that I took offense to any mentions of xkcd.
It was meant to be comical, and, judging from some of the comment threads in the posting, I think a lot of folks are really, really uncomfortable, being positive, or seeing other folks trying to be positive.
I tend to hang with a fairly ... unkempt ... crowd, IRL. Many of them have been through serious personal trauma, and have great difficulty seeing anything good in life, or in others.
They are a minority, in society, in general, but some communities tend to gather them in greater numbers (like the one in which I participate, which is about people trying to heal from trauma, amongst other things).
It's not unusual to encounter folks that sincerely believe that expressing optimism, open-mindedness, or kindness is an expression of weakness, to be treated with contempt. They sincerely believe that these expressions of positive energy are fake -often for good reason, as they have seen plenty of fake good faith.
I have learned not to allow myself to be drawn into their world, which often means that I am treated with contempt.
I shrug it off, and continue to be positive, anyway. I enjoy Julia Evans, because she remains relentlessly positive, in a community that is often ... unreceptive ... to that kind of energy.
Re: "No Feigning Surprise"
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is being surprised somebody doesn't know something putting them down Yes. > is being unsurprised they are ignorant putting them down Again, the whole reason to just declare this as a rule is so that you’re not put in a position to try to decide if somebody is ignorant or not. You set a social guideline, and if people break it, you point it out, and it doesn’t matter why they did it.
By demonstrating an assumption that everybody knows nothing? I fail to see how that is beneficial. It is rude to everybody .
You're the one who's extrapolated that the rule asks you to assume ignorance. The post, and the Recurse Center guidelines it's built on top of, don't make that claim.
If I say it's a social guideline to not tell somebody about something wrong with their outfit unless they can fix it in under 5 minutes, I'm not suggesting you go around assuming that everybody knows they have a stain on their shirt. I'm telling you it's net-negative to point it out to them.