3 ms·

> There is also no reason why Bob can't adapt his communication to whoever is saying "your foo implementation sucks". Except that it's a lot easier to not say

> There is also no reason why Bob can't adapt his communication to whoever is saying "your foo implementation sucks". Except that it's a lot easier to not say "your work sucks" than it is to not feel upset when someone does. And most people will indeed adapt over time, so it's a pretty silly reason not to hire someone. >I find it to be an exercise which saps my mental energy and distracts me from increasing shareholder value. The thing is, I don't feel like I need to actively think about people's feelings to not say "this sucks". I just do it naturally in response to different social contexts.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's easier for you. For me the reverse is true. One reason to avoid hiring people who don't fit the culture is to avoid entryism. If a group allows just anyone to enter, the newcomers may gain power and destroy the original culture. This is particularly true if a culture is significantly outside the norm. For example, witness Github's transformation from flat hierarchy and meritocracy to traditional corporate hierarchical politics: http://danieltenner.com/2016/02/06/github-the-quiet-death-of-one-mans-dream/ http://danieltenner.com/2016/02/06/github-the-quiet-death-of... The thing is, I don't feel like I need to actively think about people's feelings to not say "this sucks". I just do it naturally in response to different social contexts. I don't need to actively suppress negative feelings when people give me factual feedback. It just happens naturally. People are different. If I'm interpreting your posts right, it sounds like you feel your personality profile should be privileged over others and that all organizations should adapt to suit you (leaving me unable to find a place that suits me). Perhaps I'm wildly misreading you and interpreting differences in mood affiliation for differences in beliefs? Could you clarify what you are advocating for?
- aninhumer 11y ago
  >It's easier for you. For me the reverse is true. What I mean is it's easier for you not to say "sucks" than it is for them not to feel upset. Speech is active, but emotions are passive. >I don't need to actively suppress negative feelings when people give me factual feedback. I have no problem with merely "factual" feedback. What you're talking about goes beyond the facts to put a negative and personal spin on it. Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts ("this SQL is bad because...") in favour of that negativity. >If I'm interpreting your posts right, it sounds like you feel your personality profile should be privileged over others and that all organizations should adapt to suit you I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative language" is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn, because it's a widely applicable skill.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    It's not easy for me to actively model the mental states of others at all times and tailor my words in order to prevent those states from entering negative territory. I can do it, but it's not as simple as you imply. Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts ("this SQL is bad because...") in favour of that negativity. Or it suppresses the actual facts because I didn't feel like writing a longwinded example. "Too few examples" and "too little detail" is a critique people rarely make of me. I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative language" is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn, because it's a widely applicable skill. I have learned - anyone outside the mainstream has to. But I think you underestimate the effort that it takes to adapt to a culture or way of thinking alien to your own. But that's not the question here. The question is whether it's acceptable for a group of people with non-mainstream tastes to build and protect a culture where their preferred modes of interaction are the default, and to prevent others who might change that culture from entering. I get the impression you are saying it isn't. Is my impression correct? I believe you are probably right that 80% of people think like you and 5% think like me. I don't believe that this implies that 100% of organizations should cater to you. On the contrary I think if you don't like my organization with a niche culture, it should be very easy to find a more feelings-driven organization and shift to it.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

It's easier for you. For me the reverse is true. One reason to avoid hiring people who don't fit the culture is to avoid entryism. If a group allows just anyone to enter, the newcomers may gain power and destroy the original culture. This is particularly true if a culture is significantly outside the norm. For example, witness Github's transformation from flat hierarchy and meritocracy to traditional corporate hierarchical politics: http://danieltenner.com/2016/02/06/github-the-quiet-death-of-one-mans-dream/ http://danieltenner.com/2016/02/06/github-the-quiet-death-of... The thing is, I don't feel like I need to actively think about people's feelings to not say "this sucks". I just do it naturally in response to different social contexts. I don't need to actively suppress negative feelings when people give me factual feedback. It just happens naturally. People are different. If I'm interpreting your posts right, it sounds like you feel your personality profile should be privileged over others and that all organizations should adapt to suit you (leaving me unable to find a place that suits me). Perhaps I'm wildly misreading you and interpreting differences in mood affiliation for differences in beliefs? Could you clarify what you are advocating for?

aninhumer 11y ago
>It's easier for you. For me the reverse is true. What I mean is it's easier for you not to say "sucks" than it is for them not to feel upset. Speech is active, but emotions are passive. >I don't need to actively suppress negative feelings when people give me factual feedback. I have no problem with merely "factual" feedback. What you're talking about goes beyond the facts to put a negative and personal spin on it. Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts ("this SQL is bad because...") in favour of that negativity. >If I'm interpreting your posts right, it sounds like you feel your personality profile should be privileged over others and that all organizations should adapt to suit you I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative language" is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn, because it's a widely applicable skill.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's not easy for me to actively model the mental states of others at all times and tailor my words in order to prevent those states from entering negative territory. I can do it, but it's not as simple as you imply. Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts ("this SQL is bad because...") in favour of that negativity. Or it suppresses the actual facts because I didn't feel like writing a longwinded example. "Too few examples" and "too little detail" is a critique people rarely make of me. I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative language" is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn, because it's a widely applicable skill. I have learned - anyone outside the mainstream has to. But I think you underestimate the effort that it takes to adapt to a culture or way of thinking alien to your own. But that's not the question here. The question is whether it's acceptable for a group of people with non-mainstream tastes to build and protect a culture where their preferred modes of interaction are the default, and to prevent others who might change that culture from entering. I get the impression you are saying it isn't. Is my impression correct? I believe you are probably right that 80% of people think like you and 5% think like me. I don't believe that this implies that 100% of organizations should cater to you. On the contrary I think if you don't like my organization with a niche culture, it should be very easy to find a more feelings-driven organization and shift to it.