3 ms·

I assume most user manuals would be at least somewhat dishonest. No one is going to write "I'm touchy and thin-skinned, make sure to sound at least a little com

by bloat 6y ago

I assume most user manuals would be at least somewhat dishonest. No one is going to write "I'm touchy and thin-skinned, make sure to sound at least a little complimentary when giving me feedback."

toast0 6y ago
I've seen plenty of posters or whatnot suggesting that constructive (negative) feedback be surrounded by complements. Yes, it makes it more likely to be heard, but it's also a policy saying everyone here is touchy and thin-skinned.
csydas 6y ago
It's only dishonest in that the words in the manual are static and not changing, while our moods, attitudes, and maturity are. What you write down even during the calmest and most level-headed of times is not true 100% of the time and in every single situation -- people are more complicated than that. I think the general idea behind the idea in the article is good (be more direct in what you're looking for in an interaction or what you're not wanting in an interaction); I immigrated from the US to another country, and the number of senseless social rules and bureaucracy that are common in the US have an immense emotional toll that I don't think is appreciated well enough and address properly as an issue. The article's intention, as I understand it, is to remove a lot of these rulesets that basically benefit absolutely no one except for management that doesn't want to deal with the emotional side of employee wellbeing (or any wellbeing really, but that's another subject) Where the article gets it wrong I think is formalizing it into a manual, as it gives the wrong impression to me, and it's even offensive to my sensibilities. I'm not a kitchen appliance you read the manual for and once you press these buttons you get the desired feature enabled; I'm a human being, like everyone else, and have complex thoughts and feelings, and my reaction and decisions will change. What worked one day some time back is not necessarily how I'm going to feel every single day for the rest of my life. If we're going to keep the manual analogy, sure, let's do it, but let's extend the analogy a bit: - Humans get frequent updates: firmware, bug fixes, hot fixes, security patches, and rollups - Each one comes with a readme and a changeset doc - Not everyone is allowed access to the same level of details as others for each update If you want to keep current with me, I'll gladly share my "manual" with you, but don't be surprised if a feature you relied on in an older version is deprecated or even removed in a newer version. Humans change -- we don't have a manual, just a current status. There is some level of predictability, but everyone has the potential to change.

by bloat 6y ago

I assume most user manuals would be at least somewhat dishonest. No one is going to write "I'm touchy and thin-skinned, make sure to sound at least a little complimentary when giving me feedback."

toast0 6y ago

I've seen plenty of posters or whatnot suggesting that constructive (negative) feedback be surrounded by complements. Yes, it makes it more likely to be heard, but it's also a policy saying everyone here is touchy and thin-skinned.

csydas 6y ago

It's only dishonest in that the words in the manual are static and not changing, while our moods, attitudes, and maturity are. What you write down even during the calmest and most level-headed of times is not true 100% of the time and in every single situation -- people are more complicated than that. I think the general idea behind the idea in the article is good (be more direct in what you're looking for in an interaction or what you're not wanting in an interaction); I immigrated from the US to another country, and the number of senseless social rules and bureaucracy that are common in the US have an immense emotional toll that I don't think is appreciated well enough and address properly as an issue. The article's intention, as I understand it, is to remove a lot of these rulesets that basically benefit absolutely no one except for management that doesn't want to deal with the emotional side of employee wellbeing (or any wellbeing really, but that's another subject) Where the article gets it wrong I think is formalizing it into a manual, as it gives the wrong impression to me, and it's even offensive to my sensibilities. I'm not a kitchen appliance you read the manual for and once you press these buttons you get the desired feature enabled; I'm a human being, like everyone else, and have complex thoughts and feelings, and my reaction and decisions will change. What worked one day some time back is not necessarily how I'm going to feel every single day for the rest of my life. If we're going to keep the manual analogy, sure, let's do it, but let's extend the analogy a bit: - Humans get frequent updates: firmware, bug fixes, hot fixes, security patches, and rollups - Each one comes with a readme and a changeset doc - Not everyone is allowed access to the same level of details as others for each update If you want to keep current with me, I'll gladly share my "manual" with you, but don't be surprised if a feature you relied on in an older version is deprecated or even removed in a newer version. Humans change -- we don't have a manual, just a current status. There is some level of predictability, but everyone has the potential to change.