5 ms·

There is a straightforward list of specific behaviors early in the article. None of it is defined by how anyone else feels; that's just the effect of someone wh

There is a straightforward list of specific behaviors early in the article. None of it is defined by how anyone else feels; that's just the effect of someone who engages in that asshole behavior on a regular basis. The next comment down and probably half of the readers are trying to figure out if they're the asshole themselves, so I don't know where you got the idea that "you" are never the asshole. (Sure is great how HN shows me this wonderful comment on top because it happened to be posted 9 minutes before I loaded the comments)

sz4kerto 7y ago
I'm somewhat satirical of course. However: "Here’s a simple test: if someone walks away from another person feeling bad about themselves, they were probably interacting with an asshole." I'll tell you that eg as manager there is no way that some of your conversations won't end with the other person feeling somewhat bad about themselves. You have to fire people. You have to explain that some behavior was clearly wrong. Sometimes you need to explain that despite best efforts the person is just simply not developing quickly enough professionally. That hurts, however you put it (you can do it carefully, sure). Hey, you will need to explain assholes that they're doing the wrong thing. Are you sure you can do this without making them feel bad about themselves? Just be very careful with labeling people. It's usually not a great strategy, especially if you use terms like asshole. Try to be emphatic, understanding. Labeling people is one way of being an asshole.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ptx 7y ago
  Most conversations are (hopefully) not about firing the other person, unless the company is rapidly imploding. I think this is an implicit precondition of the test – it's about unnecessarily making someone feel bad, on the assumption that most conversations are not of the sort where the message to be communicated is inherently and necessarily bad news.
cousin_it 7y ago
I agree with sz4kerto, these rules are too vague. For example, the rule against "starting shit and troublemaking" can end up being mostly used by assholes against non-assholes.
Nasrudith 7y ago
I can't help but regard some on the list with suspicion as being far more own fragile ego driven than any actual assholishness. More "you made the sociopath angry by not going along with his bullshit" ones which I see in the anti smart "jerks" one. Some of them are unconditionally valid of course but the list includes questionable ones. * Publicly calling out and blaming others What if they actually are to blame or deserve to be called out? Putting it on the never list is a bad idea but it should probably be a last or N to last resort. * Stirring shit and troublemaking That is dangerously ambiguous as terms to include both in terms of what qualifies as stirring shit. If it is actually trying to rile people up fine but that exact phrase could be used for anyone who goes against the grain. Trying to stop bad practices which /will/ lead to literal disaster because "we have always done it that way" or reporting misconduct can also be called the exact same thing. Related cluster * Ignoring people trying to contribute * Dismissing the opinions and ideas of others without discussion * Undermining someone’s confidence for asking questions There is one major problem with this sub-block. It never stops to ask if the "victim" is themselves massively wrong and doesn't get the hint that they are themselves negative in productivity and not even getting any learning out of it. To be frank the case where they aren't ignorant or even inept but an outright idiot who doesn't take a hint. Like saying insisting the company should make their next car run on water and doesn't listen to why that is thermodynamically impossible (it would actually run on whatever substance it reacts with). While there are values to considering alternative approaches and departure from conventional wisdom willful ignorance isn't equal to actual expertise no matter how "polite" it may be to treat as such. This may be where the you are never the asshole perception really creeps in - despite all of the talk about two way communications and feelings of others that the other party may be in the wrong and not "the asshole". It can look like every reference to the others is really just obfuscated grammar for myself to make the writer sound less self centered and like they have more support than theh really do.
- glangdale 7y ago
  I had a similar reaction. Haven't we all run into the opinionated junior who dominates a 10 person meeting and won't shut up, take advice, or focus on executing their job competently before chasing some "prestige project"? There are better and worse ways to deal with that person, but after a while, most merely human people will do things on this list rather than (for the nth time) gently explain that said junior needs to "pull their head in".
Grue3 7y ago
>The next comment down and probably half of the readers are trying to figure out if they're the asshole themselves Well, you see, most of the readers aren't the management. The management will read this article thinking they're saints and half of their subordinates are assholes. And most of them are, under the author's definition. So you can see how regular employees might be put off by an article like this.
mpweiher 7y ago
> "None of it is defined by how anyone else feels" Number 3 in the list: Tersely worded group e-mails that make people feel uncomfortable So literally not true. And a lot of the other items are only slightly less literal.

sz4kerto 7y ago

I'm somewhat satirical of course. However: "Here’s a simple test: if someone walks away from another person feeling bad about themselves, they were probably interacting with an asshole." I'll tell you that eg as manager there is no way that some of your conversations won't end with the other person feeling somewhat bad about themselves. You have to fire people. You have to explain that some behavior was clearly wrong. Sometimes you need to explain that despite best efforts the person is just simply not developing quickly enough professionally. That hurts, however you put it (you can do it carefully, sure). Hey, you will need to explain assholes that they're doing the wrong thing. Are you sure you can do this without making them feel bad about themselves? Just be very careful with labeling people. It's usually not a great strategy, especially if you use terms like asshole. Try to be emphatic, understanding. Labeling people is one way of being an asshole.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ptx 7y ago
Most conversations are (hopefully) not about firing the other person, unless the company is rapidly imploding. I think this is an implicit precondition of the test – it's about unnecessarily making someone feel bad, on the assumption that most conversations are not of the sort where the message to be communicated is inherently and necessarily bad news.

cousin_it 7y ago

I agree with sz4kerto, these rules are too vague. For example, the rule against "starting shit and troublemaking" can end up being mostly used by assholes against non-assholes.

Nasrudith 7y ago

I can't help but regard some on the list with suspicion as being far more own fragile ego driven than any actual assholishness. More "you made the sociopath angry by not going along with his bullshit" ones which I see in the anti smart "jerks" one. Some of them are unconditionally valid of course but the list includes questionable ones. * Publicly calling out and blaming others What if they actually are to blame or deserve to be called out? Putting it on the never list is a bad idea but it should probably be a last or N to last resort. * Stirring shit and troublemaking That is dangerously ambiguous as terms to include both in terms of what qualifies as stirring shit. If it is actually trying to rile people up fine but that exact phrase could be used for anyone who goes against the grain. Trying to stop bad practices which /will/ lead to literal disaster because "we have always done it that way" or reporting misconduct can also be called the exact same thing. Related cluster * Ignoring people trying to contribute * Dismissing the opinions and ideas of others without discussion * Undermining someone’s confidence for asking questions There is one major problem with this sub-block. It never stops to ask if the "victim" is themselves massively wrong and doesn't get the hint that they are themselves negative in productivity and not even getting any learning out of it. To be frank the case where they aren't ignorant or even inept but an outright idiot who doesn't take a hint. Like saying insisting the company should make their next car run on water and doesn't listen to why that is thermodynamically impossible (it would actually run on whatever substance it reacts with). While there are values to considering alternative approaches and departure from conventional wisdom willful ignorance isn't equal to actual expertise no matter how "polite" it may be to treat as such. This may be where the you are never the asshole perception really creeps in - despite all of the talk about two way communications and feelings of others that the other party may be in the wrong and not "the asshole". It can look like every reference to the others is really just obfuscated grammar for myself to make the writer sound less self centered and like they have more support than theh really do.

glangdale 7y ago
I had a similar reaction. Haven't we all run into the opinionated junior who dominates a 10 person meeting and won't shut up, take advice, or focus on executing their job competently before chasing some "prestige project"? There are better and worse ways to deal with that person, but after a while, most merely human people will do things on this list rather than (for the nth time) gently explain that said junior needs to "pull their head in".

Grue3 7y ago

>The next comment down and probably half of the readers are trying to figure out if they're the asshole themselves Well, you see, most of the readers aren't the management. The management will read this article thinking they're saints and half of their subordinates are assholes. And most of them are, under the author's definition. So you can see how regular employees might be put off by an article like this.

mpweiher 7y ago

> "None of it is defined by how anyone else feels" Number 3 in the list: Tersely worded group e-mails that make people feel uncomfortable So literally not true. And a lot of the other items are only slightly less literal.