4 ms·

Yes. That’s why I find dev.to and to be a rather uninteresting place. It’s 90% niceties and explaining .map over and over again. Similar things can be observe

Yes. That’s why I find dev.to and to be a rather uninteresting place. It’s 90% niceties and explaining .map over and over again. Similar things can be observed in many meetups and some companies. Everything is awesome. Everybody is nice. People shy away from deciding anything. Even the simple act of two people wanting to go through the same door at the same time is an impossible conundrum. No matter how important psychological safety is (and it really is), a constant state of coddling serves nobody.

darkmighty 7y ago
I think the main danger is when truth and improvement is compromised in favor of niceness. Sometimes you are wrong, and that's definitely not a comfortable position to be in. It's not going to feel good to have it pointed out. And yet it's imperative that it is communicated. Wise individuals should not attribute the discomfort to the person pointing things out, but to mistakes themselves of course. There are cases where marking errors is done to belittle, offend, portray incompetence, etc.; however it shouldn't be too hard to avoid those perils -- it's just a matter of showing how mistakes are (mostly, and to a measure) inevitable, not disqualify the person for the mistake (i.e. recognize it's something that is not inherent and can be fixed). Avoid broadcasting mishaps (communicate one-to-one), be supportive when pointing things out, and the environment is going to be better for everyone. Superficial niceness might be worse than sincere harshness indeed. But the best is bold sincerity and support, which ultimately creates trust and robust, enduring relations.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Even the simple act of two people wanting to go through the same door at the same time is an impossible conundrum. Tangential, but I hit this issue very often with couple of friends during university years; two of us wanted to go through a door, and get stuck in a "you go", "no, you go", "I insist" loop. At some point I said, "you know what, let's do rock-paper-scissors, if you lose you go first". It immediately caught on with my friends, and ever since that, when attempting to go through a door at the same time, we'd just exchange looks, and immediately play a wordless round of rock-paper-scissor to resolve the conflict, while the rest of the class looked at us and asked "WTF just happened?!".
- natrik 7y ago
  Disregarding the amusement from the game you might get, why waste time when attempting to go through a door. The rest of the class might be annoyed at waiting while you decide who goes through the door first...
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    When we started to do rock-paper-scissors, the process became really quick - about two seconds to notice the situation, exchange the looks, shake our fists three times and show rock/paper/scissor. Sometimes it took a bit longer if there was a tie in the first round - but never long enough for anyone else to be bothered.
- mLuby 7y ago
  So you took a negative result (deadlock) and solved it in a mutually beneficial way (break deadlock + in-group reinforcement). That's awesome.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  This is known as a "Canadian Standoff".
- sicariusnoctis 7y ago
  Haha, that reminds me of whenever one of my friends and I used to come across a door. We'd both hold it open and say "you first, I insist" and stand there. One time, I believe it went on for a solid 20 minutes. (Other... "unusual" behaviors include standing in the pouring rain for an entire hour till the other gives up, passing the party leadership onto each other for a solid 10 minutes until one of us starts the game queue...)
- hydrox24 7y ago
  > Even the simple act of two people wanting to go through the same door at the same time is an impossible conundrum. I believe that the optimal solution to this problem is to offer, and then if there is a counter-offer, take it. If the other person is offended then they have followed the letter of the social law but do not understand it in their hearts. In addition, it is often polite to take what is offered to you.

darkmighty 7y ago

I think the main danger is when truth and improvement is compromised in favor of niceness. Sometimes you are wrong, and that's definitely not a comfortable position to be in. It's not going to feel good to have it pointed out. And yet it's imperative that it is communicated. Wise individuals should not attribute the discomfort to the person pointing things out, but to mistakes themselves of course. There are cases where marking errors is done to belittle, offend, portray incompetence, etc.; however it shouldn't be too hard to avoid those perils -- it's just a matter of showing how mistakes are (mostly, and to a measure) inevitable, not disqualify the person for the mistake (i.e. recognize it's something that is not inherent and can be fixed). Avoid broadcasting mishaps (communicate one-to-one), be supportive when pointing things out, and the environment is going to be better for everyone. Superficial niceness might be worse than sincere harshness indeed. But the best is bold sincerity and support, which ultimately creates trust and robust, enduring relations.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> Even the simple act of two people wanting to go through the same door at the same time is an impossible conundrum. Tangential, but I hit this issue very often with couple of friends during university years; two of us wanted to go through a door, and get stuck in a "you go", "no, you go", "I insist" loop. At some point I said, "you know what, let's do rock-paper-scissors, if you lose you go first". It immediately caught on with my friends, and ever since that, when attempting to go through a door at the same time, we'd just exchange looks, and immediately play a wordless round of rock-paper-scissor to resolve the conflict, while the rest of the class looked at us and asked "WTF just happened?!".

natrik 7y ago
Disregarding the amusement from the game you might get, why waste time when attempting to go through a door. The rest of the class might be annoyed at waiting while you decide who goes through the door first...
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  When we started to do rock-paper-scissors, the process became really quick - about two seconds to notice the situation, exchange the looks, shake our fists three times and show rock/paper/scissor. Sometimes it took a bit longer if there was a tie in the first round - but never long enough for anyone else to be bothered.
mLuby 7y ago
So you took a negative result (deadlock) and solved it in a mutually beneficial way (break deadlock + in-group reinforcement). That's awesome.
BurningFrog 7y ago
This is known as a "Canadian Standoff".
sicariusnoctis 7y ago
Haha, that reminds me of whenever one of my friends and I used to come across a door. We'd both hold it open and say "you first, I insist" and stand there. One time, I believe it went on for a solid 20 minutes. (Other... "unusual" behaviors include standing in the pouring rain for an entire hour till the other gives up, passing the party leadership onto each other for a solid 10 minutes until one of us starts the game queue...)
hydrox24 7y ago
> Even the simple act of two people wanting to go through the same door at the same time is an impossible conundrum. I believe that the optimal solution to this problem is to offer, and then if there is a counter-offer, take it. If the other person is offended then they have followed the letter of the social law but do not understand it in their hearts. In addition, it is often polite to take what is offered to you.