12 ms·

Saying the Difficult Things

154 points by ethangk 5y ago

afcapel 5y ago
There's a common misconception that awkward conversations should be avoided because they are difficult and elicit drama. But that's just magical thinking. Believing that to make something go away you just need to stop thinking about it. Push it out of your conscience. But not talking about something doesn't magically make it disappear. Things you don't talk about are still there, lurking in the shadows, subconsciously influencing everything you do.
- notriddle 5y ago
  You’re assuming that talking about the awkward situation will help fix it. If it’s something like code review, it might. If it’s world politics, it probably won’t. Even if you do actually convince him that his pet solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is a bad idea, he was never in a position to put his terrible plan into action anyway, so the whole conversation accomplished nothing.
  - afcapel 5y ago
    That's exactly the problem: assuming that the only valid reason to talk about an awkward situation is to convince the other person that they are wrong or change their behaviour. We can talk about about awkward things, nobody has to convince anyone of anything. You can listen to the other person and just come to understand how they feel and why. You don't need to feel the same way, just have a better understanding of why they feel how they feel. If more people did this the world would be a much better place. It'd accomplish a lot, I think.
    - OnACoffeeBreak 5y ago
      That is exactly the point. It's not about proving your point or bring proven right or wrong. It's about understanding the other point of view. That's what discussion is all about.
      - watwut 5y ago
        Sometimes, fully understanding other position means you will perceive them as even more threat.
    - notriddle 5y ago
      But what’s the point? Political conversations, even civil ones where everyone walks away understanding each other’s POV and agree to disagree, usually aren’t going to accomplish anything concrete, because very few people have the opportunity to affect government policy. The best case scenario is that talking about politics doesn’t make your relationship worse. The most likely outcome, as you’ve noticed, is that we both leave convinced that each other are idiots. The good outcomes of more ordinary conversation, where we learn from each other and put what you learn into action, doesn’t exist. So what’s the point?
      - Swizec 5y ago
        It accomplishes a better understanding between people and a less divisive society. Which is also what we need to stick it to the man. They want us to fight and bicker and be divided into camps and never agree on anything. That’s how they can keep doing whatever they want. Even better if we convince each other that talking about this stuff is taboo and unproductive. Remember: A populace than can work together is a scary populace, if you’re in power.
        XorNot 5y ago
        A huge number of people are extremely eager to tell you their long-winded justification on why some group of people should be exterminated. I don't see how there's any value in trying to understand that because the division is built right into the premise.
      - BeetleB 5y ago
        > But what’s the point? Political conversations, even civil ones where everyone walks away understanding each other’s POV and agree to disagree, usually aren’t going to accomplish anything concrete, because very few people have the opportunity to affect government policy. That's true of most conversations - not just political ones. Why put them in a special bucket? > The best case scenario is that talking about politics doesn’t make your relationship worse. This is silly. There are lots of good case scenarios. Even "I enjoyed the conversation" is a good case scenario, and there are many better outcomes. > The good outcomes of more ordinary conversation, where we learn from each other and put what you learn into action, doesn’t exist. If you've convinced yourself an entity doesn't exist, then it will not exist for you.
  - mc32 5y ago
    There are people who will make any excuse not to talk about the exact thing they want to avoid and it's more trouble than it's worth pulling teeth trying to find a way to talk about the issue. They just don't want to face it at all.
akmodi 5y ago
That's a neat insight. I think I knew it intuitively, but I had never put in a structured manner like that. Would a fair tldr be "you need to be willing to give hard feedback in order to build the trust to actually get hard feedback"?
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  The other side needs to be ready to take it.
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
There are two aspects to that: 1. being able to take the difficult thing, even offensive, but also not holding the grudge. 2. being able to give in a way that doesn’t come across offensive. Saying that honest thing as the person who can take it can be potentially damaging because it’s easy to lose the feeling for _how to say it_. Not everyone can take it the same way as _we_ take it, even when they claim they can. This kind of clarity requires trust from both sides. Edit: it comes down to taking the ego out. Put your conscious self next to your physical self and focus on actions and emotions, not words.
paulpauper 5y ago
it is like a middle-out compression version of an earlier PG column
mxmilkiib 5y ago
Also related; toxic positivity, or FONO (fear of negative outlook)
krono 5y ago
Dutch directness. We'll tell you that new suit you just purchased and are extremely excited about makes you look like a clown. We'll tell a higher-up why his new plan is stupid and that we're not very excited to waste our time on it, a complete stranger might walk up to you and tell you out in the open that your fly is down, you zip it up and no one will think anything of it. It's accepted, it's respected, and it's even expected. Unfortunately, more often than not, it's also not at all appreciated by people from foreign cultures and we have to be really careful with our words.
- sn41 5y ago
  Yes, it will land you in deep trouble with most Asian cultures. They may glower and not say anything, but you can expect that mentally, they would have crossed you off. This is unfortunately the reality.
- jcims 5y ago
  I'm from the US and have a bunch of Dutch in-laws that also happen to be quite successful. The first time I met them was on a work trip to Apeldoorn. I brought my wife and youngster and we went to stay with them for a long weekend in Amsterdam. I couldn't figure out what was going on, because this tendency you describe was on full display right from the beginning. They invited us into their home then started giving us shit as soon as we walked in the front door. I thought they were just snobs and wanted to say fuck your stupid staircases and stroopwafel ain't shit (lying of course), but held my tongue because it wasn't my family. My wife on the other hand wasn't as restrained and gave it right back. Hearing Oom Rob laugh at her precision strikes made it all clear. We got along great after that and really had a fantastic time. For what it's worth, I find Russians are expert at this as well.
  - krono 5y ago
    That is beautiful haha They had your best interests at heart even if it might not have come across that way. I'm glad you figured that out back then and the relation didn't turn sour! I personally haven't met many Russians, but many Romanians seem to share this trait as well
smitty1e 5y ago
It takes time and commitment to build up the trust. And the list of people whose judgement I trust is short indeed. One of the better strategies is to locate a wise person and make a regular commitment to meet with them and give them permission to really dig into your motives. The spouse is an obvious choice, but someone to whom you're not attached is also useful for this sort of thing.
neandrake 5y ago
As part of practicing giving the hard feedback you can also practice framing the feedback to have the best impact. I've found focusing the feedback around behaviors and observed outcomes is the best. E.g. instead of "please stop posting excessive memes on code reviews", "when you post memes on code reviews it pollutes the timeline and makes it difficult for reviewers".
- b3morales 5y ago
  Absolutely, and this has a flip side: when you try to articulate the actual harm, sometimes you realize there isn't one. And then you can learn to calibrate your own perspective about what's truly a problem as opposed to just a personal annoyance. Which lets you focus your energy and communicate more effectively.
- Fr0styMatt88 5y ago
  For criticisms of things like code (or art), I think of that as "criticize the thing and not the person". Bad: "You don't know what you're doing. This is poorly-written code that will perform badly on bigger datasets. " Good: "The runtime of this code is prone to grow exponentially. A different algorithm will get around this. " As much as possible I try and criticize from the viewpoint of wanting to make the work better instead of from wanting to bring down the person that did it. Edit: To add - I will very possibly be _wrong_ about the definition of better, which is something else I try and keep in mind.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    If the person is to blame, focusing on the mistake rather than the person may just be misdirection. I think the big difference in the US is not (just) that people may have fragile egos, but that (pos related) the consequences are more serious - don't match up and you'll be fired.
- watwut 5y ago
  In here, I would opted for: "could we remove meme plugin from code review software?" And then pushed for that.
agf 5y ago
I've unfortunately not found this to be true. I regularly say the difficult things, sometimes ultimately productively, sometimes not; sometimes I'm successful at structuring the feedback so people don't feel "attacked", sometimes I'm not. However, through all of that, I honestly feel I've only received the same kind of communication in return from people I've build trust with in other ways, generally through friendship of some sort. Very interested in suggestions as to how to better translate a willingness to say the difficult things into getting other people to do it too, even to those without a preexisting personal basis of trust.
- vicda 5y ago
  With no preexisting trust? Ask them to give their honest feedback as a favor. Make it into a cooperative discussion so they don't feel like they're the only one criticizing the subject. You need to prove to them that it is safe to discuss those thing with you first, you being by default direct can give some people the opposite impression.
  - agf 5y ago
    > you being by default direct can give some people the opposite impression Definitely rings true. > Make it into a cooperative discussion so they don't feel like they're the only one criticizing the subject If these are people I have time to have regular 1:1s with, then what you're saying does make sense. But there are a lot of people I work with where the benefits from saying the difficult thing would be large that I don't work closely enough with to be able to spend that kind of time. I guess what I'm really asking is how to translate that into a culture; either raise the average trust level or lower the required trust level for difficult conversations.
aantix 5y ago
".. that people fear asking difficult/sensitive questions far more than being asked difficult/sensitive questions. That implies that in most social situations, people are afraid to talk about the juicy stuff because they falsely believe other people don’t want to talk about it. It’s yet another example of how nobody gives a shit nearly as much as we think they do. " [mark manson] I Didn’t Want to Offend You: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3437468 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3437468
- ogennadi 5y ago
  > Across our studies, individuals formed similarly favorable impressions of partners who asked non-sensitive (e.g., “Are you a morning person?”) and sensitive (e.g., “What are your views on abortion?”) questions, despite askers’ reticence to ask sensitive questions.
DoreenMichele 5y ago
It's surprisingly short. I tend to be fairly direct. Some people see me as rude. Others see me as refreshing. That has a lot to do with cultural expectations on their part. Some people are "honest" as an excuse to be mean. There can be subtext and other things going on, especially in a group situation. I like some saying I heard that "Those who like the brutal truth like brutality more than truth." You can usually be honest without being ugly to people (though sometimes the truth about them is what's ugly and then there's no good answer, just a least worst answer).
cudgy 5y ago
Seems satisfying for oneself, but detrimental to one’s social network.
CobrastanJorji 5y ago
I like this and think it reads true. Asides from the content, I also like the writing style and wish more pieces were similarly succinct and not weighted down with unnecessary pages of text before getting to the point. That said, ending the piece with an allusion to "The Road Not Taken," a poem about how meaningless decisions make you incorrectly feel like you're in control, is an odd choice.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  > ending the piece with an allusion to "The Road Not Taken," a poem about how meaningless decisions make you incorrectly feel like you're in control, is an odd choice. I remember liking this poem but I never knew about this interpretation of it. I looked it up on Wikipedia and Wikipedia agrees with you, kind of. > It is a frequently misunderstood poem, often read simply as a poem that champions the idea of "following your own path," but rather it expresses some irony regarding such an idea. > [...] > According to Lawrance Thompson, Frost's biographer, as Frost was once about to read the poem, he commented to his audience, "You have to be careful of that one; it's a tricky poem—very tricky," perhaps intending to suggest the poem's ironic possibilities. > Thompson suggests that the poem's narrator is "one who habitually wastes energy in regretting any choice made: belatedly but wistfully he sighs over the attractive alternative rejected." Thompson also says that when introducing the poem in readings, Frost would say that the speaker was based on his friend Edward Thomas. In Frost's words, Thomas was "a person who, whichever road he went, would be sorry he didn't go the other. He was hard on himself that way." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Not_Taken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Not_Taken
- ethangk 5y ago
  Thanks! And I read The Road Not Taken years ago when I was considering leaving San Francisco and it turns out I'd taken the completely wrong message away from it. Thanks for pointing that out
  - CobrastanJorji 5y ago
    Everyone does. That's what's amazing about the poem. On a first read, it's a life-changing message about positivity so strong that it's endlessly requoted worldwide. Do you know how hard it is to write a poem that good? There are perhaps not even 100 of them in all of history. And yet on a second or third or tenth reading, you start to realize that he was also writing a much more cynical poem with the opposite message. I can't even imagine how hard it is to wrap a meaning like that into the first kind of poem. Robert Frost is frickin' amazing.
benjamir 5y ago
Uff facepalm. The post is something every grown up should have figured out by himself very early. I have friends from nearly all -- sure, there are limits -- of the political spectrum exactly because of that. But nice somebody found it worth posting and hn found it worthwhile picking up.
- float4 5y ago
  Wow, you're clearly smarter/wiser than the author and people who upvoted this story. Thanks for letting us know!
simonswords82 5y ago
This is true and the author is right in my view but it's also important to keep in mind "do not utter harsh truths casually". If you have to deliver information to somebody by all means do it directly but do it thoughtfully and if necessary with some compassion.
- niek_pas 5y ago
  This is an important point. Communication is not about dumping information on your conversational partner, but about doing so timely, appropriately, and with empathy.
  - ethangk 5y ago
    Yup, this is what I was getting at. Wielding the truth as a blunt tool isn't productive. I'm looking to strengthen my relationships and build trust through honesty, not fool around with 'radical honesty' for the sake of it.
roenxi 5y ago
This post has missed the trick; the reason people don't pass on hard truths is because they are worried about how the truth-reciever will respond. The entire game of getting honest feedback is making people think that if they give honest feedback then the situation will end well for them. How feedback is asked for is completely irrelevant. What you do with the feedback might be relevant. What happens to the truth-teller after giving feedback is critical and often overlooked.
- HKH2 5y ago
  Right. If we are in a culture where me being offended is your problem, no matter how neutral you've tried to word things, then we can't get out of the situation you've outlined. I think it can be solved by everyone working on their own triggers, and taking ownership of their own feelings, but that doesn't seem too popular, so we continue with the facade.
svilen_dobrev 5y ago
IMO hearing the difficult stuff (without jumping sky or ignoring it) is harder than saying it. But it depends. Most times, any prelude might help to prepare the receiver. My take on this in team setting: (community of trust.. but rarely happens) http://svilendobrev.com/rabota/doverie.html http://svilendobrev.com/rabota/doverie.html
sigg3 5y ago
Worcestershire sauce.
bambax 5y ago
> For the longest time, I’d told myself that I was open to feedback and hard conversations because I’d repeatedly said to people that I’m always happy to hear it. I don't know the author, but in my experience, this is usually false. People who tell you to be frank and that they are able and willing to receive any kind of feedback, usually aren't. It's a power play. They say this to appear strong, but if you take them up to their word and actually tell them the truth, they either get upset or completely shut you down. I have had many experiences of this, and one again pretty recently. Some things are best left unsaid. Unthought even, maybe.
- ethangk 5y ago
  I think you've touched on something really important. There are definitely times where my emotional reaction to something doesn't line up with how I'd ideally feel. Most of the time I can moderate my response, sometimes not. But I think getting better at this comes with practise, and without inviting those kinds of conversations, I'll never get better. > They say this to appear strong, but if you take them up to their word and actually tell them the truth, they either get upset or completely shut you down. I have had many experiences of this, and one again pretty recently. Are these people you'd consider yourself very close with?
  - bambax 5y ago
    > Are these people you'd consider yourself very close with? The recent incident, no, not at all. But I had an abusive ascendant as a child, who would encourage us to "speak our mind" and then punish us for it. I can spot the type for quite a long way away. Unfortunately, being able to spot them doesn't prevent one from falling victim yet again. We tell ourselves it will be better this time -- well, it usually isn't.
    - ethangk 5y ago
      > I had an abusive ascendant as a child, who would encourage us to "speak our mind" and then punish us for it. I'm really sorry that happened to you, it sounds traumatic. I can understand why you'd be hesitant to share honest feedback with others after going through that. > The recent incident, no, not at all I wrote this post with people who I'm close with, or interested in being close with, in mind. For a random person I'm going to have a one-off interaction with, or someone who I won't interact with regularly, I'd weigh up whether it's worth it or not. If I mean nothing to them, I doubt honest feedback would be received well
DanBC 5y ago
I get really confused when these kinds of posts get lots of upvotes. There's almost no insight here. And the tiny little glimpse of insight he has -- they flub it. The valuable part is not "being direct with other people so they can be direct with me". The valuable part is "creating psychological safety so that people can be direct with me". This is much harder, because you'll need to take into account how they work. Some people need the praise sandwich, others just need to be told, others will only want to be told what's wrong if you'll also tell them how to fix it.
- ethangk 5y ago
  Thanks for the feedback! The flub comment made me chuckle. This comment made me think of a post by Sandy Maguire that I read a little while back (https://sandymaguire.me/blog/building-over-the-abyss/ https://sandymaguire.me/blog/building-over-the-abyss/) > When I go back and read LessWrong, I’m awestruck by the apparent dissonance between my memories of it and the material in front of me. All I can remember about reading LW is a consistent and unending stream of insights. Mind-shattering insights. When I read it now however, my experience is also consistent and unending, though instead of insights I now say “obviously – who would think this is worthwhile to write about?” > I take this to imply that I have internalized LessWrong. I’ve learned the majority of what it was trying to impart on me, and it’s become second nature. This has made my life better. What's obvious to you may not be obvious to others as you've internalised the earlier steps. I also feel like the psychological safety part requires a foundation of trust (and honesty). If someone who's lied to me a bunch of times in the past is giving me feedback, regardless of how it's framed, I'm not going to trust that feedback. It's unlikely that I'll be receptive to it, even if it's totally valid
supernova87a 5y ago
I've found that one way to think about receiving difficult or challenging feedback is that people don't bother giving feedback to those they don't care about or don't have to work with again. It takes thought and emotional investment for someone to go to the trouble of giving such feedback. Of course, that only holds true in certain work environments where you have choices and consequences, and the person giving the feedback also has this mentality...
HKH2 5y ago
If you don't show you're capable of understanding what I do, by doing what I do, why should I trust you?
DayDollar 5y ago
I found that its often countries with a military draft and mission based command structure, were the best discussion cultures come from. Everyone can have a say, everyone can contribute, the power-hierarchy can ignored as long as that is helping to archieve the goal. This communication culture, leaches into the civilian live and then into company culture. It also can lead to furious conflict, as those in command feel "undermined", but its hard to argue with the results and outcome. And people will not easily back down because you are the top-dog, you will have to convince them with good arguments. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-h...
kodah 5y ago
No real skin in the game here, but watching Americans tell the world how rude it is, is fairly hilarious. Americans are not more rude on average in my experience, but they're usually more passive aggressive and use coded language. I'd prefer someone be rude to my face.

154 points by ethangk 5y ago

There's a common misconception that awkward conversations should be avoided because they are difficult and elicit drama. But that's just magical thinking. Believing that to make something go away you just need to stop thinking about it. Push it out of your conscience. But not talking about something doesn't magically make it disappear. Things you don't talk about are still there, lurking in the shadows, subconsciously influencing everything you do.

notriddle 5y ago
You’re assuming that talking about the awkward situation will help fix it. If it’s something like code review, it might. If it’s world politics, it probably won’t. Even if you do actually convince him that his pet solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is a bad idea, he was never in a position to put his terrible plan into action anyway, so the whole conversation accomplished nothing.
- afcapel 5y ago
  That's exactly the problem: assuming that the only valid reason to talk about an awkward situation is to convince the other person that they are wrong or change their behaviour. We can talk about about awkward things, nobody has to convince anyone of anything. You can listen to the other person and just come to understand how they feel and why. You don't need to feel the same way, just have a better understanding of why they feel how they feel. If more people did this the world would be a much better place. It'd accomplish a lot, I think.
  - OnACoffeeBreak 5y ago
    That is exactly the point. It's not about proving your point or bring proven right or wrong. It's about understanding the other point of view. That's what discussion is all about.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Sometimes, fully understanding other position means you will perceive them as even more threat.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    But what’s the point? Political conversations, even civil ones where everyone walks away understanding each other’s POV and agree to disagree, usually aren’t going to accomplish anything concrete, because very few people have the opportunity to affect government policy. The best case scenario is that talking about politics doesn’t make your relationship worse. The most likely outcome, as you’ve noticed, is that we both leave convinced that each other are idiots. The good outcomes of more ordinary conversation, where we learn from each other and put what you learn into action, doesn’t exist. So what’s the point?
    - Swizec 5y ago
      It accomplishes a better understanding between people and a less divisive society. Which is also what we need to stick it to the man. They want us to fight and bicker and be divided into camps and never agree on anything. That’s how they can keep doing whatever they want. Even better if we convince each other that talking about this stuff is taboo and unproductive. Remember: A populace than can work together is a scary populace, if you’re in power.
      - XorNot 5y ago
        A huge number of people are extremely eager to tell you their long-winded justification on why some group of people should be exterminated. I don't see how there's any value in trying to understand that because the division is built right into the premise.
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      > But what’s the point? Political conversations, even civil ones where everyone walks away understanding each other’s POV and agree to disagree, usually aren’t going to accomplish anything concrete, because very few people have the opportunity to affect government policy. That's true of most conversations - not just political ones. Why put them in a special bucket? > The best case scenario is that talking about politics doesn’t make your relationship worse. This is silly. There are lots of good case scenarios. Even "I enjoyed the conversation" is a good case scenario, and there are many better outcomes. > The good outcomes of more ordinary conversation, where we learn from each other and put what you learn into action, doesn’t exist. If you've convinced yourself an entity doesn't exist, then it will not exist for you.
- mc32 5y ago
  There are people who will make any excuse not to talk about the exact thing they want to avoid and it's more trouble than it's worth pulling teeth trying to find a way to talk about the issue. They just don't want to face it at all.

akmodi 5y ago

That's a neat insight. I think I knew it intuitively, but I had never put in a structured manner like that. Would a fair tldr be "you need to be willing to give hard feedback in order to build the trust to actually get hard feedback"?

rad_gruchalski 5y ago
The other side needs to be ready to take it.

rad_gruchalski 5y ago

There are two aspects to that: 1. being able to take the difficult thing, even offensive, but also not holding the grudge. 2. being able to give in a way that doesn’t come across offensive. Saying that honest thing as the person who can take it can be potentially damaging because it’s easy to lose the feeling for _how to say it_. Not everyone can take it the same way as _we_ take it, even when they claim they can. This kind of clarity requires trust from both sides. Edit: it comes down to taking the ego out. Put your conscious self next to your physical self and focus on actions and emotions, not words.

paulpauper 5y ago

it is like a middle-out compression version of an earlier PG column

mxmilkiib 5y ago

Also related; toxic positivity, or FONO (fear of negative outlook)

krono 5y ago

Dutch directness. We'll tell you that new suit you just purchased and are extremely excited about makes you look like a clown. We'll tell a higher-up why his new plan is stupid and that we're not very excited to waste our time on it, a complete stranger might walk up to you and tell you out in the open that your fly is down, you zip it up and no one will think anything of it. It's accepted, it's respected, and it's even expected. Unfortunately, more often than not, it's also not at all appreciated by people from foreign cultures and we have to be really careful with our words.

sn41 5y ago
Yes, it will land you in deep trouble with most Asian cultures. They may glower and not say anything, but you can expect that mentally, they would have crossed you off. This is unfortunately the reality.
jcims 5y ago
I'm from the US and have a bunch of Dutch in-laws that also happen to be quite successful. The first time I met them was on a work trip to Apeldoorn. I brought my wife and youngster and we went to stay with them for a long weekend in Amsterdam. I couldn't figure out what was going on, because this tendency you describe was on full display right from the beginning. They invited us into their home then started giving us shit as soon as we walked in the front door. I thought they were just snobs and wanted to say fuck your stupid staircases and stroopwafel ain't shit (lying of course), but held my tongue because it wasn't my family. My wife on the other hand wasn't as restrained and gave it right back. Hearing Oom Rob laugh at her precision strikes made it all clear. We got along great after that and really had a fantastic time. For what it's worth, I find Russians are expert at this as well.
- krono 5y ago
  That is beautiful haha They had your best interests at heart even if it might not have come across that way. I'm glad you figured that out back then and the relation didn't turn sour! I personally haven't met many Russians, but many Romanians seem to share this trait as well

smitty1e 5y ago

It takes time and commitment to build up the trust. And the list of people whose judgement I trust is short indeed. One of the better strategies is to locate a wise person and make a regular commitment to meet with them and give them permission to really dig into your motives. The spouse is an obvious choice, but someone to whom you're not attached is also useful for this sort of thing.

neandrake 5y ago

As part of practicing giving the hard feedback you can also practice framing the feedback to have the best impact. I've found focusing the feedback around behaviors and observed outcomes is the best. E.g. instead of "please stop posting excessive memes on code reviews", "when you post memes on code reviews it pollutes the timeline and makes it difficult for reviewers".

b3morales 5y ago
Absolutely, and this has a flip side: when you try to articulate the actual harm, sometimes you realize there isn't one. And then you can learn to calibrate your own perspective about what's truly a problem as opposed to just a personal annoyance. Which lets you focus your energy and communicate more effectively.
Fr0styMatt88 5y ago
For criticisms of things like code (or art), I think of that as "criticize the thing and not the person". Bad: "You don't know what you're doing. This is poorly-written code that will perform badly on bigger datasets. " Good: "The runtime of this code is prone to grow exponentially. A different algorithm will get around this. " As much as possible I try and criticize from the viewpoint of wanting to make the work better instead of from wanting to bring down the person that did it. Edit: To add - I will very possibly be _wrong_ about the definition of better, which is something else I try and keep in mind.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  If the person is to blame, focusing on the mistake rather than the person may just be misdirection. I think the big difference in the US is not (just) that people may have fragile egos, but that (pos related) the consequences are more serious - don't match up and you'll be fired.
watwut 5y ago
In here, I would opted for: "could we remove meme plugin from code review software?" And then pushed for that.

agf 5y ago

I've unfortunately not found this to be true. I regularly say the difficult things, sometimes ultimately productively, sometimes not; sometimes I'm successful at structuring the feedback so people don't feel "attacked", sometimes I'm not. However, through all of that, I honestly feel I've only received the same kind of communication in return from people I've build trust with in other ways, generally through friendship of some sort. Very interested in suggestions as to how to better translate a willingness to say the difficult things into getting other people to do it too, even to those without a preexisting personal basis of trust.

vicda 5y ago
With no preexisting trust? Ask them to give their honest feedback as a favor. Make it into a cooperative discussion so they don't feel like they're the only one criticizing the subject. You need to prove to them that it is safe to discuss those thing with you first, you being by default direct can give some people the opposite impression.
- agf 5y ago
  > you being by default direct can give some people the opposite impression Definitely rings true. > Make it into a cooperative discussion so they don't feel like they're the only one criticizing the subject If these are people I have time to have regular 1:1s with, then what you're saying does make sense. But there are a lot of people I work with where the benefits from saying the difficult thing would be large that I don't work closely enough with to be able to spend that kind of time. I guess what I'm really asking is how to translate that into a culture; either raise the average trust level or lower the required trust level for difficult conversations.

aantix 5y ago

".. that people fear asking difficult/sensitive questions far more than being asked difficult/sensitive questions. That implies that in most social situations, people are afraid to talk about the juicy stuff because they falsely believe other people don’t want to talk about it. It’s yet another example of how nobody gives a shit nearly as much as we think they do. " [mark manson] I Didn’t Want to Offend You: The Cost of Avoiding Sensitive Questions https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3437468 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3437468

ogennadi 5y ago
> Across our studies, individuals formed similarly favorable impressions of partners who asked non-sensitive (e.g., “Are you a morning person?”) and sensitive (e.g., “What are your views on abortion?”) questions, despite askers’ reticence to ask sensitive questions.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

It's surprisingly short. I tend to be fairly direct. Some people see me as rude. Others see me as refreshing. That has a lot to do with cultural expectations on their part. Some people are "honest" as an excuse to be mean. There can be subtext and other things going on, especially in a group situation. I like some saying I heard that "Those who like the brutal truth like brutality more than truth." You can usually be honest without being ugly to people (though sometimes the truth about them is what's ugly and then there's no good answer, just a least worst answer).

cudgy 5y ago

Seems satisfying for oneself, but detrimental to one’s social network.

CobrastanJorji 5y ago

I like this and think it reads true. Asides from the content, I also like the writing style and wish more pieces were similarly succinct and not weighted down with unnecessary pages of text before getting to the point. That said, ending the piece with an allusion to "The Road Not Taken," a poem about how meaningless decisions make you incorrectly feel like you're in control, is an odd choice.

codetrotter 5y ago
> ending the piece with an allusion to "The Road Not Taken," a poem about how meaningless decisions make you incorrectly feel like you're in control, is an odd choice. I remember liking this poem but I never knew about this interpretation of it. I looked it up on Wikipedia and Wikipedia agrees with you, kind of. > It is a frequently misunderstood poem, often read simply as a poem that champions the idea of "following your own path," but rather it expresses some irony regarding such an idea. > [...] > According to Lawrance Thompson, Frost's biographer, as Frost was once about to read the poem, he commented to his audience, "You have to be careful of that one; it's a tricky poem—very tricky," perhaps intending to suggest the poem's ironic possibilities. > Thompson suggests that the poem's narrator is "one who habitually wastes energy in regretting any choice made: belatedly but wistfully he sighs over the attractive alternative rejected." Thompson also says that when introducing the poem in readings, Frost would say that the speaker was based on his friend Edward Thomas. In Frost's words, Thomas was "a person who, whichever road he went, would be sorry he didn't go the other. He was hard on himself that way." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Not_Taken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Not_Taken
ethangk 5y ago
Thanks! And I read The Road Not Taken years ago when I was considering leaving San Francisco and it turns out I'd taken the completely wrong message away from it. Thanks for pointing that out
- CobrastanJorji 5y ago
  Everyone does. That's what's amazing about the poem. On a first read, it's a life-changing message about positivity so strong that it's endlessly requoted worldwide. Do you know how hard it is to write a poem that good? There are perhaps not even 100 of them in all of history. And yet on a second or third or tenth reading, you start to realize that he was also writing a much more cynical poem with the opposite message. I can't even imagine how hard it is to wrap a meaning like that into the first kind of poem. Robert Frost is frickin' amazing.

benjamir 5y ago

Uff facepalm. The post is something every grown up should have figured out by himself very early. I have friends from nearly all -- sure, there are limits -- of the political spectrum exactly because of that. But nice somebody found it worth posting and hn found it worthwhile picking up.

float4 5y ago
Wow, you're clearly smarter/wiser than the author and people who upvoted this story. Thanks for letting us know!

simonswords82 5y ago

This is true and the author is right in my view but it's also important to keep in mind "do not utter harsh truths casually". If you have to deliver information to somebody by all means do it directly but do it thoughtfully and if necessary with some compassion.

niek_pas 5y ago
This is an important point. Communication is not about dumping information on your conversational partner, but about doing so timely, appropriately, and with empathy.
- ethangk 5y ago
  Yup, this is what I was getting at. Wielding the truth as a blunt tool isn't productive. I'm looking to strengthen my relationships and build trust through honesty, not fool around with 'radical honesty' for the sake of it.

roenxi 5y ago

This post has missed the trick; the reason people don't pass on hard truths is because they are worried about how the truth-reciever will respond. The entire game of getting honest feedback is making people think that if they give honest feedback then the situation will end well for them. How feedback is asked for is completely irrelevant. What you do with the feedback might be relevant. What happens to the truth-teller after giving feedback is critical and often overlooked.

HKH2 5y ago
Right. If we are in a culture where me being offended is your problem, no matter how neutral you've tried to word things, then we can't get out of the situation you've outlined. I think it can be solved by everyone working on their own triggers, and taking ownership of their own feelings, but that doesn't seem too popular, so we continue with the facade.

svilen_dobrev 5y ago

IMO hearing the difficult stuff (without jumping sky or ignoring it) is harder than saying it. But it depends. Most times, any prelude might help to prepare the receiver. My take on this in team setting: (community of trust.. but rarely happens) http://svilendobrev.com/rabota/doverie.html http://svilendobrev.com/rabota/doverie.html

sigg3 5y ago

Worcestershire sauce.

bambax 5y ago

> For the longest time, I’d told myself that I was open to feedback and hard conversations because I’d repeatedly said to people that I’m always happy to hear it. I don't know the author, but in my experience, this is usually false. People who tell you to be frank and that they are able and willing to receive any kind of feedback, usually aren't. It's a power play. They say this to appear strong, but if you take them up to their word and actually tell them the truth, they either get upset or completely shut you down. I have had many experiences of this, and one again pretty recently. Some things are best left unsaid. Unthought even, maybe.

ethangk 5y ago
I think you've touched on something really important. There are definitely times where my emotional reaction to something doesn't line up with how I'd ideally feel. Most of the time I can moderate my response, sometimes not. But I think getting better at this comes with practise, and without inviting those kinds of conversations, I'll never get better. > They say this to appear strong, but if you take them up to their word and actually tell them the truth, they either get upset or completely shut you down. I have had many experiences of this, and one again pretty recently. Are these people you'd consider yourself very close with?
- bambax 5y ago
  > Are these people you'd consider yourself very close with? The recent incident, no, not at all. But I had an abusive ascendant as a child, who would encourage us to "speak our mind" and then punish us for it. I can spot the type for quite a long way away. Unfortunately, being able to spot them doesn't prevent one from falling victim yet again. We tell ourselves it will be better this time -- well, it usually isn't.
  - ethangk 5y ago
    > I had an abusive ascendant as a child, who would encourage us to "speak our mind" and then punish us for it. I'm really sorry that happened to you, it sounds traumatic. I can understand why you'd be hesitant to share honest feedback with others after going through that. > The recent incident, no, not at all I wrote this post with people who I'm close with, or interested in being close with, in mind. For a random person I'm going to have a one-off interaction with, or someone who I won't interact with regularly, I'd weigh up whether it's worth it or not. If I mean nothing to them, I doubt honest feedback would be received well

DanBC 5y ago

I get really confused when these kinds of posts get lots of upvotes. There's almost no insight here. And the tiny little glimpse of insight he has -- they flub it. The valuable part is not "being direct with other people so they can be direct with me". The valuable part is "creating psychological safety so that people can be direct with me". This is much harder, because you'll need to take into account how they work. Some people need the praise sandwich, others just need to be told, others will only want to be told what's wrong if you'll also tell them how to fix it.

ethangk 5y ago
Thanks for the feedback! The flub comment made me chuckle. This comment made me think of a post by Sandy Maguire that I read a little while back (https://sandymaguire.me/blog/building-over-the-abyss/ https://sandymaguire.me/blog/building-over-the-abyss/) > When I go back and read LessWrong, I’m awestruck by the apparent dissonance between my memories of it and the material in front of me. All I can remember about reading LW is a consistent and unending stream of insights. Mind-shattering insights. When I read it now however, my experience is also consistent and unending, though instead of insights I now say “obviously – who would think this is worthwhile to write about?” > I take this to imply that I have internalized LessWrong. I’ve learned the majority of what it was trying to impart on me, and it’s become second nature. This has made my life better. What's obvious to you may not be obvious to others as you've internalised the earlier steps. I also feel like the psychological safety part requires a foundation of trust (and honesty). If someone who's lied to me a bunch of times in the past is giving me feedback, regardless of how it's framed, I'm not going to trust that feedback. It's unlikely that I'll be receptive to it, even if it's totally valid

supernova87a 5y ago

I've found that one way to think about receiving difficult or challenging feedback is that people don't bother giving feedback to those they don't care about or don't have to work with again. It takes thought and emotional investment for someone to go to the trouble of giving such feedback. Of course, that only holds true in certain work environments where you have choices and consequences, and the person giving the feedback also has this mentality...

HKH2 5y ago

If you don't show you're capable of understanding what I do, by doing what I do, why should I trust you?

DayDollar 5y ago

I found that its often countries with a military draft and mission based command structure, were the best discussion cultures come from. Everyone can have a say, everyone can contribute, the power-hierarchy can ignored as long as that is helping to archieve the goal. This communication culture, leaches into the civilian live and then into company culture. It also can lead to furious conflict, as those in command feel "undermined", but its hard to argue with the results and outcome. And people will not easily back down because you are the top-dog, you will have to convince them with good arguments. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-h...

kodah 5y ago

No real skin in the game here, but watching Americans tell the world how rude it is, is fairly hilarious. Americans are not more rude on average in my experience, but they're usually more passive aggressive and use coded language. I'd prefer someone be rude to my face.