7 ms·

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.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I am unsure. I would say maybe if there is a lot of trust there. I offered candid responses before with mixed results. I did get into minor trouble but nothing horrible. Looking back at the experiences though, I still think twice before responding and I am a very talkative person.. In short, I am not sure you could have helped her there. Frankly, the person, whose first reaction is running to HR is not likely to be my best friend.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Create a fake female role model employee that was previously at the company. Talk about how that role model was successful despite challenges X and Y because she did Z. Of course the problem with this is that the facade will crumble at some point because the person doesn't exist.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Someone I know got their career start as a janitor. Their first boss would teach technique by saying things like, "We used to have this guy, he mopped the floor like this (demonstrating), can you believe that? I do this now."
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    > Is there a strategy that would have fit inside the 30 seconds of conversation What about: "I personally wouldn't have cared about that." -- then you didn't say what you thought she should do, instead just what you yourself would (not) have done. And she could have used that as a data point when making her own decision. And, optionally continue with: "you got more education than X, I wonder if that might as well mean that the company decided to invest more money in you, maybe a good thing for you. Maybe X could have filed a complaint about that as well"
- tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
  Your comment only works if it’s possible to construct your words so precisely that there is no way to misinterpret them. You honestly believe that’s possible?
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Upvote. Need to know. Ready to make Wish spell.
    - tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
      Ironically, I’m honestly unable to interpret your response. Are you listing examples of sentences that are 100% unambiguous, in conjunction with a third sentence that is unintelligible? If that is the case, then it doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s impossible to create unambiguous statements. What we’re talking about here is complex conversational speech, especially in regards to sensitive topics that people feel strongly about. And specifically, we’re talking about the usage of such speech in everyday interactions, in which words have to be formed on the fly at a rapid pace.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        nothing nearly as heady, mate. Just pointing out the obvious trope about wish spells backfiring because unambiguous wording is absurdly difficult. It's all throughout media -- so your argument must be something that people should be able to easily intuit. I'm agreeing with you.
        tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
        Ah, apologies, I misinterpreted (because language is hard) :p
        reddit_clone 6y ago
        Brings to mind the (quite funny) movie 'Bedazzled'. However Brendan Fraser's character tries to phrase his wishes, the devil finds a way to mess him up.
- silly-silly 6y ago
  The other party. You can't fix broken people.
- seneca 6y ago
  So, we're mostly engineers here. Let's use an engineering metaphor. We're trying to achieve interpreters communication. We need to send some piece of data. We'll simplify down to three elements: the serialization process, the communication medium, and the deserializatiom process. The serialization process is our speaker. How well can we represent our data in a line protocol? Do we lose fine details, maybe data types get converted? Do things get entirely mistranslated, like a zero value becoming a null? A speaker can do a poor job converting their thoughts (data) into words (serialization format). The medium is how the data gets exchanged. Maybe details are lost (again) via headers being stripped, or sourced getting over written. People can lose a lot of information based on medium as well, in particular text based communication, different cultural context, or just a noisy room. Finally, there's deserialization. No matter how well formed your line protocol, how reliable your medium, the receiver can have a library that incorrectly decodes the data. Ints can become strings, zeros can become nulls, formatting can be lost. So, as you said the speaker is responsible for being thoughtful and careful, but even if they are the listener can get the wrong message due to their own flaws or even just circumstances. And that is leaving aside intentional misrepresentation, which is a problems unto itself.
  - corv 6y ago
    There is also a related idea in engineering, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept" It seems to me this can defuse some communication issues between people too
    - _0ffh 6y ago
      Yes, in this context "be liberal in what you accept" really nicely mirrors the good old "assume good faith".
  - mbrodersen 6y ago
    You forgot 99.99999% of what matters when communicating: the context/culture/shared model of the world. You can send a single word and in one context it is a death sentence and in another context it shows that you are part of the group.
- busterarm 6y ago
  > If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is? Not everyone that you speak to is objective or level headed. Maybe they're low-sugar and crashing. Maybe their dog just died. You have absolutely no way to prepare for all of the ways someone will be ill-equpped to handle their day. And this is probably a high percentage of people at any given time. But we can't afford a society where everyone treads on egg shells.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  No matter how well you believe you have expressed yourself, it is always possible for someone to take your words the wrong way (not the way you intended them to be taken). You can, and should, take the time to craft what you say so that it best (given constraints) represents what you want the person to understand, but that is not always enough. Sometimes, people hear what they expect to hear, not what you say.
  - _0ffh 6y ago
    Yup, language is a sort of compressed code that exploits model biases. If the receiver's model is biased in a different way than the sender's model decoding fidelity plummets. Put differently, expectation is half of sensing. That insight goes back at least as far as Helmholtz.
    - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
      please also take into account that unlike theoretical systems the real world is a constantly moving target. the moment that I've formed an opinion it is probably already outdated within the nano-second an additional thought has entered my subconscious and is waiting to be integrated into what I think is my "truth".
- coldtea 6y ago
  >If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is? Others too. First because "Effective communication requires effort" from BOTH sides. And also because others can deliberately misinterpret your words for their own gain, or because they're biased, or because they've been primed by factors outside your control, or for lots of other reasons... >If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood That has been the case for everybody for the entirety of history. There are better or worse ways to express something, but there's no foolproof way to express even the simplest thing in a way that you "wont be misunderstood". Sometimes even saying "yes" or "no" with the wrong tone (or what the other person perceives as the wrong tone) can be misunderstood.
  - Geezus_42 6y ago
    This speaks directly to the parents point. https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY
  - ntr-- 6y ago
    > Others too. > First because "Effective communication requires effort" from BOTH sides. Yes, but we only have control over our own side and have to make it as easy as possible for the receiver to do their part.
- grammarnazzzi 6y ago
  >If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is? This is backwards. You have no control over how other people think, behave or react, let alone how they interpret your words. Your words can be effective or ineffective conveyors of your thoughts. You are responsible for your words. Your listeners can be effective or ineffective listeners. They are responsible for their interpretation.
bastawhiz 6y ago
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to be sure you're communicating thoughtfully.
- snicksnak 6y ago
  In general, but the risk-reward ration is now way off, as the author of the article mentions, so why risk it if you potentially face harsh repercussions.
  - bastawhiz 6y ago
    If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions. Post your message publicly. If you were thoughtful, no reasonable person should be able to look at your communication and fault you. If you weren't thoughtful, you deserve the scorn for proving the point of the person who called you out. If you're not confident that you can be a decent and empathetic person in your communication with others, then yes, I suppose that's a good reason to avoid putting yourself in a position where your foot can enter your mouth.
    - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
      This is a fantasy. For every person who thinks you're being reasonable, it's highly likely there's another one who takes offense of some kind. Even if only 5-10% of people took offense, it's not worth it to speak your mind.
      - matkoniecz 6y ago
        Even if 0.1% of people will try to start witch hunt it is still better to avoid answering.
        prawn 6y ago
        This reminds me of the idea of physical risk for someone with a lifespan of a 1,000 years. If you're 60 with an average lifespan of 70, your actions are risking 10 years of life. If you're 60 with a potential lifespan of 1,000 years, you're effectively risking everything and might be inclined to be more risk averse. When public discourse magnifies the risk of your comments, you'll tend to be risk averse also. Once upon a time, your opinion would be spoken almost all the time, and perhaps put in a letter rarely. The effort for anyone to raise hell over a minor quibble would involve spreading the word, and doing so enough to find the rare people with a tendency to join you. Go back decades and that is infinitely less likely. Now, chances are your comment is in writing or recorded, and even if it isn't, the quibbler can broadcast their version of events to increasingly wider circles in seconds, at no cost and with virtually no effort. I delete half of the comments I start writing online, thinking "What's the point? At best, one person appreciates it. At worst, thousands want to argue."
neycoda 6y ago
Them having their own interpretation doesn't mean you did anything wrong, nor that they should have no expectation of reason. Thoughtfulness is for the aware, and many investors aren't even aware of how they can be raked over the coals by a bloodthirsty mainstream outrage machine for something minor, petty, completely misinterpreted, or intentionally twisted for click bait.

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.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I am unsure. I would say maybe if there is a lot of trust there. I offered candid responses before with mixed results. I did get into minor trouble but nothing horrible. Looking back at the experiences though, I still think twice before responding and I am a very talkative person.. In short, I am not sure you could have helped her there. Frankly, the person, whose first reaction is running to HR is not likely to be my best friend.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Create a fake female role model employee that was previously at the company. Talk about how that role model was successful despite challenges X and Y because she did Z. Of course the problem with this is that the facade will crumble at some point because the person doesn't exist.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Someone I know got their career start as a janitor. Their first boss would teach technique by saying things like, "We used to have this guy, he mopped the floor like this (demonstrating), can you believe that? I do this now."
- cutemonster 6y ago
  > Is there a strategy that would have fit inside the 30 seconds of conversation What about: "I personally wouldn't have cared about that." -- then you didn't say what you thought she should do, instead just what you yourself would (not) have done. And she could have used that as a data point when making her own decision. And, optionally continue with: "you got more education than X, I wonder if that might as well mean that the company decided to invest more money in you, maybe a good thing for you. Maybe X could have filed a complaint about that as well"
tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
Your comment only works if it’s possible to construct your words so precisely that there is no way to misinterpret them. You honestly believe that’s possible?
- busterarm 6y ago
  Upvote. Need to know. Ready to make Wish spell.
  - tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
    Ironically, I’m honestly unable to interpret your response. Are you listing examples of sentences that are 100% unambiguous, in conjunction with a third sentence that is unintelligible? If that is the case, then it doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s impossible to create unambiguous statements. What we’re talking about here is complex conversational speech, especially in regards to sensitive topics that people feel strongly about. And specifically, we’re talking about the usage of such speech in everyday interactions, in which words have to be formed on the fly at a rapid pace.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      nothing nearly as heady, mate. Just pointing out the obvious trope about wish spells backfiring because unambiguous wording is absurdly difficult. It's all throughout media -- so your argument must be something that people should be able to easily intuit. I'm agreeing with you.
      - tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
        Ah, apologies, I misinterpreted (because language is hard) :p
      - reddit_clone 6y ago
        Brings to mind the (quite funny) movie 'Bedazzled'. However Brendan Fraser's character tries to phrase his wishes, the devil finds a way to mess him up.
silly-silly 6y ago
The other party. You can't fix broken people.
seneca 6y ago
So, we're mostly engineers here. Let's use an engineering metaphor. We're trying to achieve interpreters communication. We need to send some piece of data. We'll simplify down to three elements: the serialization process, the communication medium, and the deserializatiom process. The serialization process is our speaker. How well can we represent our data in a line protocol? Do we lose fine details, maybe data types get converted? Do things get entirely mistranslated, like a zero value becoming a null? A speaker can do a poor job converting their thoughts (data) into words (serialization format). The medium is how the data gets exchanged. Maybe details are lost (again) via headers being stripped, or sourced getting over written. People can lose a lot of information based on medium as well, in particular text based communication, different cultural context, or just a noisy room. Finally, there's deserialization. No matter how well formed your line protocol, how reliable your medium, the receiver can have a library that incorrectly decodes the data. Ints can become strings, zeros can become nulls, formatting can be lost. So, as you said the speaker is responsible for being thoughtful and careful, but even if they are the listener can get the wrong message due to their own flaws or even just circumstances. And that is leaving aside intentional misrepresentation, which is a problems unto itself.
- corv 6y ago
  There is also a related idea in engineering, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept" It seems to me this can defuse some communication issues between people too
  - _0ffh 6y ago
    Yes, in this context "be liberal in what you accept" really nicely mirrors the good old "assume good faith".
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  You forgot 99.99999% of what matters when communicating: the context/culture/shared model of the world. You can send a single word and in one context it is a death sentence and in another context it shows that you are part of the group.
busterarm 6y ago
> If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is? Not everyone that you speak to is objective or level headed. Maybe they're low-sugar and crashing. Maybe their dog just died. You have absolutely no way to prepare for all of the ways someone will be ill-equpped to handle their day. And this is probably a high percentage of people at any given time. But we can't afford a society where everyone treads on egg shells.
RHSeeger 6y ago
No matter how well you believe you have expressed yourself, it is always possible for someone to take your words the wrong way (not the way you intended them to be taken). You can, and should, take the time to craft what you say so that it best (given constraints) represents what you want the person to understand, but that is not always enough. Sometimes, people hear what they expect to hear, not what you say.
- _0ffh 6y ago
  Yup, language is a sort of compressed code that exploits model biases. If the receiver's model is biased in a different way than the sender's model decoding fidelity plummets. Put differently, expectation is half of sensing. That insight goes back at least as far as Helmholtz.
  - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
    please also take into account that unlike theoretical systems the real world is a constantly moving target. the moment that I've formed an opinion it is probably already outdated within the nano-second an additional thought has entered my subconscious and is waiting to be integrated into what I think is my "truth".
coldtea 6y ago
>If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is? Others too. First because "Effective communication requires effort" from BOTH sides. And also because others can deliberately misinterpret your words for their own gain, or because they're biased, or because they've been primed by factors outside your control, or for lots of other reasons... >If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood That has been the case for everybody for the entirety of history. There are better or worse ways to express something, but there's no foolproof way to express even the simplest thing in a way that you "wont be misunderstood". Sometimes even saying "yes" or "no" with the wrong tone (or what the other person perceives as the wrong tone) can be misunderstood.
- Geezus_42 6y ago
  This speaks directly to the parents point. https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY
- ntr-- 6y ago
  > Others too. > First because "Effective communication requires effort" from BOTH sides. Yes, but we only have control over our own side and have to make it as easy as possible for the receiver to do their part.
grammarnazzzi 6y ago
>If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is? This is backwards. You have no control over how other people think, behave or react, let alone how they interpret your words. Your words can be effective or ineffective conveyors of your thoughts. You are responsible for your words. Your listeners can be effective or ineffective listeners. They are responsible for their interpretation.

bastawhiz 6y ago

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to be sure you're communicating thoughtfully.

snicksnak 6y ago
In general, but the risk-reward ration is now way off, as the author of the article mentions, so why risk it if you potentially face harsh repercussions.
- bastawhiz 6y ago
  If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions. Post your message publicly. If you were thoughtful, no reasonable person should be able to look at your communication and fault you. If you weren't thoughtful, you deserve the scorn for proving the point of the person who called you out. If you're not confident that you can be a decent and empathetic person in your communication with others, then yes, I suppose that's a good reason to avoid putting yourself in a position where your foot can enter your mouth.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    This is a fantasy. For every person who thinks you're being reasonable, it's highly likely there's another one who takes offense of some kind. Even if only 5-10% of people took offense, it's not worth it to speak your mind.
    - matkoniecz 6y ago
      Even if 0.1% of people will try to start witch hunt it is still better to avoid answering.
      - prawn 6y ago
        This reminds me of the idea of physical risk for someone with a lifespan of a 1,000 years. If you're 60 with an average lifespan of 70, your actions are risking 10 years of life. If you're 60 with a potential lifespan of 1,000 years, you're effectively risking everything and might be inclined to be more risk averse. When public discourse magnifies the risk of your comments, you'll tend to be risk averse also. Once upon a time, your opinion would be spoken almost all the time, and perhaps put in a letter rarely. The effort for anyone to raise hell over a minor quibble would involve spreading the word, and doing so enough to find the rare people with a tendency to join you. Go back decades and that is infinitely less likely. Now, chances are your comment is in writing or recorded, and even if it isn't, the quibbler can broadcast their version of events to increasingly wider circles in seconds, at no cost and with virtually no effort. I delete half of the comments I start writing online, thinking "What's the point? At best, one person appreciates it. At worst, thousands want to argue."

neycoda 6y ago

Them having their own interpretation doesn't mean you did anything wrong, nor that they should have no expectation of reason. Thoughtfulness is for the aware, and many investors aren't even aware of how they can be raked over the coals by a bloodthirsty mainstream outrage machine for something minor, petty, completely misinterpreted, or intentionally twisted for click bait.