7 ms·

People often conflate "kindness" with "kid gloves" (for lack of a better term). Being kind doesn't have to mean giving "compliment sandwiches" all the time, or

• Ainsleylopo 9y ago
  I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do, •••••••••>> http://www.joinmate2.com http://www.joinmate2.com
• ryanSrich 9y ago
  Because by today's standards that's not kindness. Being thoughtful, articulate, but well stated and polite is not considered kind, but "mean". Any attempt to understand, evaluate or otherwise politely disagree is met by a mob of twitter accounts ready to call you a critical asshole and troll at every turn. I'm not sure why the industry has shifted this way. My only guess is it's generational.
  • BenchRouter 9y ago
    > Being thoughtful, articulate, but well stated and polite is not considered kind, but "mean". According to who? Certainly not the article: It puts forward Allen's comment as an example of being kind. > Any attempt to understand, evaluate or otherwise politely disagree is met by a mob of twitter accounts ready to call you a critical asshole and troll at every turn You could easily change your statement to "any attempt to do anything is met by a mob of twitter accounts ready to call you an asshole" and it would be just as true. I don't think twitter outrage is a good metric for anything, because it's extremely contradictory, arbitrary, and capricious.
• TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  > In many contexts, being kind just means being a professional. Which, taken to its logical conclusion, means that some important figures in our industry (e.g. Linus Torvalds) act quite unprofessionally. Sadly, this seems to be true.
  • tomjen3 9y ago
    I hate the word professional, because it comes with a lot of stupid baggage (in particular, it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter if I am in a suit or a hoaddy), but I can agree with that small part of it.
  • pdonis 9y ago
    > Which, taken to its logical conclusion, means that some important figures in our industry (e.g. Linus Torvalds) act quite unprofessionally. No, it doesn't. It means that the people Linus has to say harsh things do are being unprofessional--because, as Linus himself said in the quote given in the article, when he tries to say things kindly--"Please don't do that"--people don't listen. If those people were being professional, they would realize that when Linus says "Please don't do that", they need to listen. The article even acknowledges this: "If you really have trust and conviction that your peers are not wasting your time, you pay attention when they say something - a “please don’t do that”, to quote Linus’ example, ends up being one of the more strongly worded pieces of guidance you can get." So the problem isn't Linus, it's all the people who don't take the time to realize that it's not a waste of time to pay attention to what he says--so he has to shout to make himself heard.
    • JoshTriplett 9y ago
      That's a self-fulfilling problem, though: if you have a community of people built around flames and attacks, then anything short of that may have a harder time getting noticed and acknowledged. It raises the noise floor, and drowns out other signals. Build a community that doesn't have that problem, and people will respect disagreement and "don't do that" without the accompanying toxicity.
      • 9y ago
• clairity 9y ago
  basketball analogy time... =) as a (volunteer) coach, one of the things i often have to correct is making lob passes (slow, often misplaced and disrupting of the flow of action). some kids mistakenly believe they are being nice by giving their teammate a soft pass, but i tell them the kind thing to do is making the direct pass. it gets the ball there faster, it's more likely to be in stride, and makes it harder for the defense to recover or steal. that means it's more likely to lead to a basket and less likely to lead to a turnover for the receiving teammate. (tl;dr: direct is better and more appreciated than roundabout)
  • BenchRouter 9y ago
    We're not disagreeing. Allen's feedback is direct, to me. What's indirect about it?
    • clairity 9y ago
      yes, we're not disagreeing, i was just providing a parallel anecdote supporting the point that kindness is not necessarily mushy.
      • BenchRouter 9y ago
        Ah, my apologies!
        • Aisha3242 9y ago
          I've made $76,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student.I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money.It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. ........... http://www.joinmate2.Com http://www.joinmate2.Com
    • graphememes 9y ago
      Given his comment without context that is hard to express.
• csallen 9y ago
  A lot of what makes the particular comment that you cited polite is that Allen is placing the "blame" on himself rather than the other party. He's saying, "I'm confused" rather than, "What you did makes no sense." There are plenty of opportunities to do this when giving criticism/feedback. Not only does it make it easier for the other person to hear, but it also helps you save face if your feedback ends up being wrong.
  • BenchRouter 9y ago
    > Allen is placing the "blame" on himself rather than the other party. FWIW I don't see this as placing blame on himself, at all: I see it as Allen just stating a fact. Allen is confused and seeking clarification. Confusion can happen for all sorts of reasons with varying parties or circumstances being the cause. Allen might similarly say "I'm confused" upon reading the time cube website, but Allen's not to blame for that. I agree with you though that largely politeness comes from being internally focused ("I don't understand, I don't agree, I didn't know") as opposed to externally focused ("You did something confusing, You did something wrong, You didn't tell me"). One instance where it pays to be selfish, I suppose!
    • rdiddly 9y ago
      That's why "blame" is in quotes. He's not literally blaming himself. But since you presumably have to start out the communication with a statement of its purpose, he takes that opportunity afforded by the first sentence, to frame the whole message in terms of "help me understand" instead of "you suck."
      • eropple 9y ago
        I might suggest phrasing it as that he's assuming a charitable view of the other party, and acting like it. The word "blame", even scare quoted, makes people defensive.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I see you put it in quotes because, I guess, you felt the word is less than optimal, so I'll propose an alternative; Rather than "blame", I suppose we're to say Allen accepts responsibility for his confusion and makes an effort to enrol others in his attempts to seek clarity. That way the opportunity arises for any involved to say "ah, I see, thank you". If we hear what people are saying with a sense of goodwill, and read their words charitably, we give less cause for animosity to arise.
• jasode 9y ago
  >I guess I don't see what's so difficult about that particular type of kindness. It's not about "difficulty" ... as in one takes 5 calories to type out "that's stupid" but the polite sentence takes the same effort or less. It's about effectiveness and possibly the false cause & effect we attach to one style of communication vs another. E.g. Linux may be successful because Linus is direct and blunt. (It keeps idiots wasting everyone's time away.) Or, Linux is not reaching its full potential because Linus is crude. (It drives talented contributors who are repulsed by crude language away.) We don't know which scenario is superior because we can't replay history in 2 separate universes. To your particular example, I personally don't like the "I'm confused by this." That is what I call unnecessary "prelude". It's redundant prelude because Allen's next paragraph clearly asks 2 questions so of course he's confused. Also, Allen writes: "Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?" Again, my personality doesn't require business language ceremony of "can you take a step back..." Allen can delete "I'm confused" and "take step back" and get directly to the point: "Can you explain your goal here?" However, I want to emphasize that even though I don't like ceremonial language ("polite" as some may call it), I accept that some people require prelude & ceremony so I do write many of my emails similar to Allen's style.
  • mjevans 9y ago
    I think Linus and Gordon Ramsey are probably cut from similar cloth. The average person remembers them both for the times when they're shouting and trying to quickly end something while maintaining social dominance in a particular situation. The kindness and softer approaches are forgotten; all of those times when things aren't in need of a strong shove back to positive territory.
    • Aisha3242 9y ago
      I quit working at shoprite and now I make $35h - $80h...how? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier. ........... http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k
  • BenchRouter 9y ago
• fossuser 9y ago
  I think a more specific word for this is empathy. It takes a level of emotional intelligence to communicate in a way which gets to the core of the issue while not making the other person feel bad about it. It can also be a respect thing (when you think someone is wrong first tell them how they're right). This leads to people feeling included and creates higher bandwidth conversations about whatever the real issue is, it also makes people feel more comfortable in general and happier as a part of the group. I think when people behave like Linus (or executives/founders sometimes do) it's a tantrum/status play. You can only behave like that if you're in some position of power, otherwise people will just dismiss you. This is too bad since people in those positions have a disproportionate ability to actively choose to act against their status (things like Zuck sitting with everyone or in a glass office everyone can see into) which then flows downstream culturally. Cultures that act 'unkind' or without empathy are a shame because they drive away people who can't deal with the abrasiveness (which often makes things worse), they make people afraid to ask questions and ultimately hurt the group. You can be direct and empathetic at the same time. If you're in a position of power you have a responsibility to not behave like an ass (or at least you should).
  • humanrebar 9y ago
    > It takes a level of emotional intelligence to communicate in a way which gets to the core of the issue while not making the other person feel bad about it. I don't know. Sometimes the core of an issue is that someone messed up, bullied someone, didn't listen, or something along those lines. In some cases people should feel bad. We don't have to go out of our way to make them feel bad. They did it to themselves. And, to be clear, they shouldn't feel condemned. They should feel like they have a productive path forward. But glossing over important issues to avoid uncomfortable feelings isn't really kind in the long run. Empathy is admirable and humanizing, and maybe we are short on it, but I'm not sold that it's always kinder.
    • fossuser 9y ago
      I think you can do both - be empathetic without glossing over the issue. That's basically the idea of 'radical candor' (https://www.radicalcandor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/radical-candor-2x2.png https://www.radicalcandor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/rad...) and I think the main thing you're getting at.
• walterstucco 9y ago
  It moves the responsibility to a level where not all of us are. It's like asking everybody to not smell or to not look ugly. Some people are considered rude for a lot of reasons, mainly cultural, but what they have to say has value regardless Instead of asking people to be kind (which often means comply to my system of values) we should ask people not to be judgemental and be open minded, which is something that can be learned by everybody
  • BenchRouter 9y ago
    > Instead of asking people to be kind (which often means comply to my system of values) we should ask people not to be judgemental and be open minded, which is something that can be learned by everybody You're arguing semantics here; in almost all cases that is what kindness means in these contexts.
    • walterstucco 9y ago
      Being Italian I sincerely cannot talk about semantics in English, my English is not good enough to argue about it. I appreciate the fact that in English I can be more direct without being told that I'm rude though; it happens a lot more when I'm having a conversation in Italian. I think language shapes the way people think, Italian has so many different and polite ways to be assholes that kindness to me it's more in the intentions people have than in the way they express them.
• backtoyoujim 9y ago
  The "I'm confused" response requires the signal getting past the amygdala. The other type of response that you mentioned doesn't require that.
• crispyambulance 9y ago
  I totally am on the side of empathy and making an effort to be as kind as possible. HOWEVER, that preface "I'm confused...[followed by pointed criticism disguised as a question]" often comes off as condescending, rude, and disingenuous. It is often infuriating to the target and those who are witnessing it. There's always a polite way to say things without masking what you really mean. It may be difficult to come up with the words and sometimes it just isn't feasible, but that's OK, if folks are willing to give each other "a pass" every once in a while and tolerate an occasional outburst.
  • smallnamespace 9y ago
    Someone does X, which you think is potentially wrong because you don't understand it, but you're not completely sure yourself that it is wrong (because not everything that is correct is always immediately understandable). Saying "I'm confused" seems like an exact honest description of the situation, no prevarication involved.
  • erikpukinskis 9y ago
    If you're lying, and you're not actually confused then yes, that's horrible communication. You should only say you're confused if you are legitimately puzzling over what seems to be a contradiction. On the other hand, if the other party sees a request for clarification and interpretation it as a passive aggressive criticism, then that's pathological on their end.
  • tonyarkles 9y ago
    It really depends on the phrasing of it. "I'm confused, why on earth did you write that web app in perl in 2017?" does certainly come across as condescending. "I'm confused, we don't usually use perl. What's the benefit here?" opens it up for a discussion. The secret, I've found, is to assume that everyone is doing their best with what they've got. Everyone has a different set of information, background, experience, etc. Maybe you'll have an opportunity to teach them something; maybe they'll have an opportunity to teach you something.