3 ms·

This kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic approach to dialectic is always left wanting when contrasted with cold hard logic and evidence. Criticism is not bad, but is

This kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic approach to dialectic is always left wanting when contrasted with cold hard logic and evidence. Criticism is not bad, but is inherent to any sort of give-and-take discussion framework, and especially to the unequal manager-employee relationships that HN has projected onto this thread; we should be wary of advice given by people who cannot take it. Ultimately, we cannot take full responsibility for how an argument will be received; we might try our best to tailor the argument to the listener, but we can never guarantee that we'll bridge the communication gap. Frankly, these situations make me doubt whether there's any point to looking for insights about language in these sorts of ventures, as all I can see are ways to divest responsibility while holding onto power. For example, I think that we should always have "Level 3 conversations". Anything less sounds horribly thoughtless and automatic. And having them one-on-one is the worst possible way to have them, since one-on-one conversations are when individual charisma is at its strongest and most reality-bending.

ignoramous 7y ago
> This kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic approach to dialectic is always left wanting when contrasted with cold hard logic and evidence I can see why you'd say that. It certainly feels that way too. Some of the points though are worth a consideration, if nothing more... as communication is hard but key to co-founders and a promising startup's success. > For example, I think that we should always have "Level 3 conversations". Anything less sounds horribly thoughtless and automatic. For the same reason you can't communicate with kids the way you would with adults, I believe there might be even more nuances with the way communication among adults need to take place to be more effective. > Frankly, these situations make me doubt whether there's any point to looking for insights about language in these sorts of ventures, as all I can see are ways to divest responsibility while holding onto power. Agree. Though, rhetoric is key and I believe at some level theorising abt communication is not without end-goals. I've personally known folks whose communication skills have worked wonders for their personal and professional life.

ignoramous 7y ago

> This kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic approach to dialectic is always left wanting when contrasted with cold hard logic and evidence I can see why you'd say that. It certainly feels that way too. Some of the points though are worth a consideration, if nothing more... as communication is hard but key to co-founders and a promising startup's success. > For example, I think that we should always have "Level 3 conversations". Anything less sounds horribly thoughtless and automatic. For the same reason you can't communicate with kids the way you would with adults, I believe there might be even more nuances with the way communication among adults need to take place to be more effective. > Frankly, these situations make me doubt whether there's any point to looking for insights about language in these sorts of ventures, as all I can see are ways to divest responsibility while holding onto power. Agree. Though, rhetoric is key and I believe at some level theorising abt communication is not without end-goals. I've personally known folks whose communication skills have worked wonders for their personal and professional life.