9 ms·

> lacks experience in X and Y which are key in product space Z. Obviously you didn't post the feedback, but I wonder how this was phrased. If the feedback was

> lacks experience in X and Y which are key in product space Z. Obviously you didn't post the feedback, but I wonder how this was phrased. If the feedback was "improve X and Y", I think I sympathize with the panelist. The feedback was solicited! If it was framed as "unlikely to succeed because inexperienced in X and Y" then I think that crossed a line from critical feedback to a somewhat demeaning comment, even if it was right. Regardless of how it actually played out, there's a good lesson here that you should be mindful of how your communication is understood. It's not enough to be right, it's important to speak in a way that makes sure what you're conveying is delivered in a useful way.

whatshisface 6y ago
What the people in this thread are saying is that when there's nothing to gain by speaking, the most foolproof way to be mindful of how your communication is understood is to not communicate. That's a great life principle that goes a whole lot farther than this particular subject.
- threwawasy1228 6y ago
  Completely agree, in the face of a person who is possibly hostile, or just in general a person that generates a lot of uncertainty what incentive could you give me not to stay silent? People need to think about it in terms of incentives, what incentive do I have to try communicating with an incredible mindfulness and scrutiny that I might then fail at. The failure to do so properly could have potentially endless downsides? The default incentive is always going to be avoidance as much as possible. Not because of any desire to be sexist, but because is the instinctive path of least resistance.
  - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
    > or just in general a person that generates a lot of uncertainty what incentive could you give me not to stay silent? not OP but the silence is a feature that allows you to actively listen[1] which is impossible when trying to come up with an answer while the other person still speaks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening
    - threwawasy1228 6y ago
      I don't think anyone is accusing people of not listening to each other, at least not in the context of this thread. The issue is people actively listen, and then decline to provide any meaningful feedback on what they just heard as a means to avoid controversy. Me listening to someone doesn't do much good if I decline to contribute to the conversation afterwards.
- fastball 6y ago
  "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." - Joshua/WOPR edit: clarified provenance to the best of my ability.
  - still_grokking 6y ago
    I guess the internet is wrong in some places. It was the computer WOPR who said this in the WarGames movie.
    - fastball 6y ago
      I believe in the film NORAD names their Supercomputer WOPR, but the AI gives itself the name Joshua. Not sure, it's been a while. Guess it's time for a rewatch!
      - protomyth 6y ago
        The person who built the AI named it after his dead son.
  - neycoda 6y ago
    ^ this The problem is that in the investing world, often not playing is losing.
    - kamaal 6y ago
      This is also known as 'Half of winning is showing up'. Heroes are mostly martyrs. Bulk of winning is done by showing up every day and doing small improvements, slowly albeit steadily. This is today's culture is called 'below average' or 'mediocrity'. Consistent sustained mediocrity, and occasional 1% progress is 99% of success.
tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
There are better and worse ways to communicate, sure. But fundamentally, you cannot control how people interpret the words that you say.
- ntr-- 6y ago
  I disagree. Effective communication requires effort, but many people speak impulsively and fail to convey what they actually mean. If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood then either their thoughts need to be distilled further or the statement needs to be carefully worded. If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?
  - ip26 6y ago
    I disagree I am deeply aggrieved by your clear insinuation that your parent comment is a dim-witted noodlehead.
  - j16sdiz 6y ago
    Sure. But distilling an idea can take lots of time. In the startup partner scenario, one want quick, honest feedback and start the discussion to refine the idea. Holding up ideas from your partner is... Less then ideal.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    You're not wrong, but the key insight is that one key technique for careful wording is "clamming up". Personal example. A friend mentioned that a new hire at her work didn't have to go through as much interview training as her, and she was wondering if she should take offense. If she were a guy, I would have said something along the lines of "come on, 'amount of interview training' isn't a real status marker, you're getting worked up over nothing". But I strive to be an effective communicator, so I couldn't just bluntly refute her feelings like that; it'd sound like I'm denying the very real ways that women can be subtly mistreated in the workplace. Instead I clammed up, and she ended up deciding to file an HR complaint, which is unlikely to have a positive impact on her career. Is there any way I could have told her what I thought without being misunderstood? Sure, maybe, if we'd had 30 minutes to sit down and talk about a bunch of abstract principles. Is there a strategy that would have fit inside the 30 seconds of conversation we had on the topic? I don't think so.
random5634 6y ago
A good point. It was basically as part of scoring of ideas. I think in the weaknesses box the panelist had noted lack of experience / plans with respect to X and Y. So while I would make a suggestion, this was probably more in critique space. The issue was more - unless you'd been in the space, you wouldn't realize that THIS issue was actually perhaps very important in the products success. Since I'd been a part of a business that had gotten TROMPED on for a similar set of non-product issues - it hit home.
rowanG077 6y ago
It might be demeaning. But it's still not sexist.

whatshisface 6y ago

What the people in this thread are saying is that when there's nothing to gain by speaking, the most foolproof way to be mindful of how your communication is understood is to not communicate. That's a great life principle that goes a whole lot farther than this particular subject.

threwawasy1228 6y ago
Completely agree, in the face of a person who is possibly hostile, or just in general a person that generates a lot of uncertainty what incentive could you give me not to stay silent? People need to think about it in terms of incentives, what incentive do I have to try communicating with an incredible mindfulness and scrutiny that I might then fail at. The failure to do so properly could have potentially endless downsides? The default incentive is always going to be avoidance as much as possible. Not because of any desire to be sexist, but because is the instinctive path of least resistance.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  > or just in general a person that generates a lot of uncertainty what incentive could you give me not to stay silent? not OP but the silence is a feature that allows you to actively listen[1] which is impossible when trying to come up with an answer while the other person still speaks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening
  - threwawasy1228 6y ago
    I don't think anyone is accusing people of not listening to each other, at least not in the context of this thread. The issue is people actively listen, and then decline to provide any meaningful feedback on what they just heard as a means to avoid controversy. Me listening to someone doesn't do much good if I decline to contribute to the conversation afterwards.
fastball 6y ago
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." - Joshua/WOPR edit: clarified provenance to the best of my ability.
- still_grokking 6y ago
  I guess the internet is wrong in some places. It was the computer WOPR who said this in the WarGames movie.
  - fastball 6y ago
    I believe in the film NORAD names their Supercomputer WOPR, but the AI gives itself the name Joshua. Not sure, it's been a while. Guess it's time for a rewatch!
    - protomyth 6y ago
      The person who built the AI named it after his dead son.
- neycoda 6y ago
  ^ this The problem is that in the investing world, often not playing is losing.
  - kamaal 6y ago
    This is also known as 'Half of winning is showing up'. Heroes are mostly martyrs. Bulk of winning is done by showing up every day and doing small improvements, slowly albeit steadily. This is today's culture is called 'below average' or 'mediocrity'. Consistent sustained mediocrity, and occasional 1% progress is 99% of success.

tenaciousDaniel 6y ago

There are better and worse ways to communicate, sure. But fundamentally, you cannot control how people interpret the words that you say.

ntr-- 6y ago
I disagree. Effective communication requires effort, but many people speak impulsively and fail to convey what they actually mean. If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood then either their thoughts need to be distilled further or the statement needs to be carefully worded. If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?
- ip26 6y ago
  I disagree I am deeply aggrieved by your clear insinuation that your parent comment is a dim-witted noodlehead.
- j16sdiz 6y ago
  Sure. But distilling an idea can take lots of time. In the startup partner scenario, one want quick, honest feedback and start the discussion to refine the idea. Holding up ideas from your partner is... Less then ideal.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  You're not wrong, but the key insight is that one key technique for careful wording is "clamming up". Personal example. A friend mentioned that a new hire at her work didn't have to go through as much interview training as her, and she was wondering if she should take offense. If she were a guy, I would have said something along the lines of "come on, 'amount of interview training' isn't a real status marker, you're getting worked up over nothing". But I strive to be an effective communicator, so I couldn't just bluntly refute her feelings like that; it'd sound like I'm denying the very real ways that women can be subtly mistreated in the workplace. Instead I clammed up, and she ended up deciding to file an HR complaint, which is unlikely to have a positive impact on her career. Is there any way I could have told her what I thought without being misunderstood? Sure, maybe, if we'd had 30 minutes to sit down and talk about a bunch of abstract principles. Is there a strategy that would have fit inside the 30 seconds of conversation we had on the topic? I don't think so.

random5634 6y ago

A good point. It was basically as part of scoring of ideas. I think in the weaknesses box the panelist had noted lack of experience / plans with respect to X and Y. So while I would make a suggestion, this was probably more in critique space. The issue was more - unless you'd been in the space, you wouldn't realize that THIS issue was actually perhaps very important in the products success. Since I'd been a part of a business that had gotten TROMPED on for a similar set of non-product issues - it hit home.

rowanG077 6y ago

It might be demeaning. But it's still not sexist.