5 ms·

>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

by 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
It seems as though you just don't like Allen's writing style. You haven't really pointed out anything unnecessarily polite, and his comment would've been just as polite with all of the edits you're suggesting. I don't think redundancy or prelude are necessarily the mark of politeness. It's usually just a mark of writing style. For example, you said: > To your particular example, I personally don't like the But "personally" is redundant - of course it's your personal opinion. You just used it to emphasize that you don't like Allen's writing style, correct?
- jasode 9y ago
  >I don't think redundancy or prelude is necessarily the mark of politeness. It's usually just a mark of writing style. But to _your perception_, it's politeness. (You previously wrote: "It's direct ("I'm confused"), but polite.") On the other hand, I categorized it as prelude. To attempt a meta observation, it seems people require "social lubrication" in the communication. Otherwise, it sounds harsh. The lubrication is a mark of kindness. I don't require lubrication and harsh language like Linus' writing style doesn't bother me. The difference is that I would probably use "kinder" language in more situations than he would depending on the recipient. >But "personally" is redundant - of course it's your personal opinion. Right... to be meta, it's a restatement of my last sentence. "I personally don't like" is _softer_ than "I don't like" which sounds more like I'm a dictator. If you and I were founder & cofounder where we have "spirited" debate, I'd leave out the redundant "personally". If you were my employee that needs softer language, I put in the redundancies.
  - BenchRouter 9y ago
    > But to _your perception_, it's politeness That's not at all why Allen's comment is polite, and this is very much what I mean by "kindness requires no effort." It's polite because it isn't actively negative towards the other person. That's all it takes. Redundancy is irrelevant. Allen could've easily written: > What you wrote makes no fucking sense and it's dumb as hell. Which is both redundant and impolite. > If you were my employee that needs softer language, I put in the redundancies. Just to be redundant myself, redundancy is only loosely correlated with politeness. There are plenty of examples of terse, polite speech (and the inverse as well). You don't need to do this, and I would argue it's a hallmark of your particular writing style more than anything else.
JoshTriplett 9y ago
"Can you take a step back and" isn't "ceremony", it's an intentional phrasing to produce the desired effect and context change in the reader. It's very easy to get caught up in the minutiae, and phrasing like "Can you take a step back" is a request to switch to higher-level considerations. "Can you explain your goal here?" could produce a result like "Well, I'm trying to do X so I can Y", whereupon you then have to say "No, no, go up a level; why are you trying to Y?". "Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?" encourages someone to provide a considered response, and up-level their reasoning. That holds especially true when your job is to provide that broader picture for others, and the person you're talking to might not have your perspective. Having had to give the equivalent of the "No, no, I meant" follow-up response there more than once, I've learned to provide the additional signals to up-level.
- jasode 9y ago
  >"Can you take a step back and" isn't "ceremony", it's an intentional phrasing Then it depends on how we perceive word choices. To me, "take a step back" has become so overused that it's a "dead metaphor".[1] It has become the opposite of "intentional phrasing" and its most common use is prelude and lubrication. I'm not saying you're wrong in interpreting "take a step back" more literally. (Literal interpretation is the premise of what your comment dissecting it is based on). Most of the time, you can ignore it based on the way most people insert "take a step back" into their business-speak. Also, I doubt that surveying 10 random business people what "take a step back" means would result in 6+ out of 10 defining it as "higher-level concerns". It seems like "take a step back" acts more like a discourse marker.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_metaphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_metaphor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_marker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_marker
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    That's entirely plausible, and it depends on the environment. My point wasn't to focus on that particular phrase (the choice of which may vary by environment), but to more generally suggest that phrases that might seem semantically empty may in fact have a purpose beyond making something come across as less blunt. The higher-level point: you're trying to produce a certain reaction in the reader/listener, and every word and phrase you use will contribute to that reaction. Even if you don't care about how they feel for its own sake, there's value in producing the reaction you want and avoiding the reaction you don't. So, in my case, I've had direct experience with specific choices of phrasing producing undesirable results (and in a way being insufficiently direct), so I've adopted other phrasings that produce the results I do want. The specific things that work for you may vary. > Also, I doubt that surveying 10 random business people what "take a step back" means would result in 6+ out of 10 defining it as "higher-level concerns". It seems like "take a step back" acts more like a discourse marker.[2] In the specific context of the whole phrase ("Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?"), I'd consider it semantically meaningful. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets used in semantically null ways, as well. But even if it were simply a "discourse marker", that shouldn't be automatically discounted and deleted either. To make an analogy to another form of behavior: I've seen a lot of hackers follow a certain counterproductive chain of reasoning regarding fashion. "This makes no sense and shouldn't be a thing that matters. I'm going to treat it as a thing that doesn't matter." (It's a form of the is-ought fallacy.) As opposed to the rather more effective reasoning: "This is a real social signal that turns out to matter, even though I don't think it should. It costs me little to play the game and obtain the results I want." I'll freely admit to using empathy both because I care about other people and because I've in practice found it incredibly effective.
rdiddly 9y ago
Not every question unequivocally indicates confusion though. There are at least two kinds of questions. The policeman isn't confused when he asks you where you were at 9pm on June 12th. That's an interrogation, an inquisition, and contains an implicit accusation. The most common response is resistance, obfuscation and/or defending one's position at all costs (no matter how foolish that position might be). So starting off with "Can you explain your goal here?" is concise and isn't horrible. But without any other signal or adornment, it risks being read as the above kind of question. Leading off with "I'm confused" is for indicating that the subsequent questions are the other kind - "please help me with my problem" type deal. It's not strictly necessary to the meaning, but likely has a positive effect in how the questions are interpreted and answered. It's like declaring a variable before you use it. The compiler doesn't need to figure out what type it is (and possibly get it wrong). "Take a step back" is also used productively here, indicating "whoa whoa there sparky, before we talk about what you're doing, we need to answer why you're even doing it." In other words "I want to talk about something further upstream" or in yet other words, "Let's stop and look at the big picture." Actually it's pretty concise when you consider all the meaning that's crammed into it.
coldtea 9y ago
>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. The difficulty is in suppressing knee-jerk reactions and hardwired negative emotions, not on the energy level required.
- jasode 9y ago
  >, not on the energy level required. It was about energy in this case because I was responding to BenchRouter's specific context for "difficulty" when he wrote: "expend the extra effort to type out "this is stupid"". (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14782723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14782723)

by jasode 9y ago

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

It seems as though you just don't like Allen's writing style. You haven't really pointed out anything unnecessarily polite, and his comment would've been just as polite with all of the edits you're suggesting. I don't think redundancy or prelude are necessarily the mark of politeness. It's usually just a mark of writing style. For example, you said: > To your particular example, I personally don't like the But "personally" is redundant - of course it's your personal opinion. You just used it to emphasize that you don't like Allen's writing style, correct?

jasode 9y ago
>I don't think redundancy or prelude is necessarily the mark of politeness. It's usually just a mark of writing style. But to _your perception_, it's politeness. (You previously wrote: "It's direct ("I'm confused"), but polite.") On the other hand, I categorized it as prelude. To attempt a meta observation, it seems people require "social lubrication" in the communication. Otherwise, it sounds harsh. The lubrication is a mark of kindness. I don't require lubrication and harsh language like Linus' writing style doesn't bother me. The difference is that I would probably use "kinder" language in more situations than he would depending on the recipient. >But "personally" is redundant - of course it's your personal opinion. Right... to be meta, it's a restatement of my last sentence. "I personally don't like" is _softer_ than "I don't like" which sounds more like I'm a dictator. If you and I were founder & cofounder where we have "spirited" debate, I'd leave out the redundant "personally". If you were my employee that needs softer language, I put in the redundancies.
- BenchRouter 9y ago
  > But to _your perception_, it's politeness That's not at all why Allen's comment is polite, and this is very much what I mean by "kindness requires no effort." It's polite because it isn't actively negative towards the other person. That's all it takes. Redundancy is irrelevant. Allen could've easily written: > What you wrote makes no fucking sense and it's dumb as hell. Which is both redundant and impolite. > If you were my employee that needs softer language, I put in the redundancies. Just to be redundant myself, redundancy is only loosely correlated with politeness. There are plenty of examples of terse, polite speech (and the inverse as well). You don't need to do this, and I would argue it's a hallmark of your particular writing style more than anything else.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

"Can you take a step back and" isn't "ceremony", it's an intentional phrasing to produce the desired effect and context change in the reader. It's very easy to get caught up in the minutiae, and phrasing like "Can you take a step back" is a request to switch to higher-level considerations. "Can you explain your goal here?" could produce a result like "Well, I'm trying to do X so I can Y", whereupon you then have to say "No, no, go up a level; why are you trying to Y?". "Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?" encourages someone to provide a considered response, and up-level their reasoning. That holds especially true when your job is to provide that broader picture for others, and the person you're talking to might not have your perspective. Having had to give the equivalent of the "No, no, I meant" follow-up response there more than once, I've learned to provide the additional signals to up-level.

jasode 9y ago
>"Can you take a step back and" isn't "ceremony", it's an intentional phrasing Then it depends on how we perceive word choices. To me, "take a step back" has become so overused that it's a "dead metaphor".[1] It has become the opposite of "intentional phrasing" and its most common use is prelude and lubrication. I'm not saying you're wrong in interpreting "take a step back" more literally. (Literal interpretation is the premise of what your comment dissecting it is based on). Most of the time, you can ignore it based on the way most people insert "take a step back" into their business-speak. Also, I doubt that surveying 10 random business people what "take a step back" means would result in 6+ out of 10 defining it as "higher-level concerns". It seems like "take a step back" acts more like a discourse marker.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_metaphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_metaphor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_marker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_marker
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  That's entirely plausible, and it depends on the environment. My point wasn't to focus on that particular phrase (the choice of which may vary by environment), but to more generally suggest that phrases that might seem semantically empty may in fact have a purpose beyond making something come across as less blunt. The higher-level point: you're trying to produce a certain reaction in the reader/listener, and every word and phrase you use will contribute to that reaction. Even if you don't care about how they feel for its own sake, there's value in producing the reaction you want and avoiding the reaction you don't. So, in my case, I've had direct experience with specific choices of phrasing producing undesirable results (and in a way being insufficiently direct), so I've adopted other phrasings that produce the results I do want. The specific things that work for you may vary. > Also, I doubt that surveying 10 random business people what "take a step back" means would result in 6+ out of 10 defining it as "higher-level concerns". It seems like "take a step back" acts more like a discourse marker.[2] In the specific context of the whole phrase ("Can you take a step back and explain your goal here?"), I'd consider it semantically meaningful. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets used in semantically null ways, as well. But even if it were simply a "discourse marker", that shouldn't be automatically discounted and deleted either. To make an analogy to another form of behavior: I've seen a lot of hackers follow a certain counterproductive chain of reasoning regarding fashion. "This makes no sense and shouldn't be a thing that matters. I'm going to treat it as a thing that doesn't matter." (It's a form of the is-ought fallacy.) As opposed to the rather more effective reasoning: "This is a real social signal that turns out to matter, even though I don't think it should. It costs me little to play the game and obtain the results I want." I'll freely admit to using empathy both because I care about other people and because I've in practice found it incredibly effective.

rdiddly 9y ago

Not every question unequivocally indicates confusion though. There are at least two kinds of questions. The policeman isn't confused when he asks you where you were at 9pm on June 12th. That's an interrogation, an inquisition, and contains an implicit accusation. The most common response is resistance, obfuscation and/or defending one's position at all costs (no matter how foolish that position might be). So starting off with "Can you explain your goal here?" is concise and isn't horrible. But without any other signal or adornment, it risks being read as the above kind of question. Leading off with "I'm confused" is for indicating that the subsequent questions are the other kind - "please help me with my problem" type deal. It's not strictly necessary to the meaning, but likely has a positive effect in how the questions are interpreted and answered. It's like declaring a variable before you use it. The compiler doesn't need to figure out what type it is (and possibly get it wrong). "Take a step back" is also used productively here, indicating "whoa whoa there sparky, before we talk about what you're doing, we need to answer why you're even doing it." In other words "I want to talk about something further upstream" or in yet other words, "Let's stop and look at the big picture." Actually it's pretty concise when you consider all the meaning that's crammed into it.

coldtea 9y ago

>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. The difficulty is in suppressing knee-jerk reactions and hardwired negative emotions, not on the energy level required.

jasode 9y ago
>, not on the energy level required. It was about energy in this case because I was responding to BenchRouter's specific context for "difficulty" when he wrote: "expend the extra effort to type out "this is stupid"". (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14782723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14782723)