> We really need to get past this smug idea that tech work is uniquely difficult in a way that no one else can understand Is that the only possible reason they

> We really need to get past this smug idea that tech work is uniquely difficult in a way that no one else can understand Is that the only possible reason they wouldn't understand? The etiquette around interruption is different in different professions, and programming seems to be on an extreme edge of a spectrum. There are professions where people work together in offices and interrupt each other all the time, without restraint. I am not smarter than them. They are doing jobs I would not be good at. Something must be different. Maybe the work is different in some way than most other jobs, or maybe we're defective. Honestly, I think the people who are best at accommodating this difference are alpha management types who look down on programmers. They aren't surprised that we don't cope well with interruptions, just like they're not surprised that their dog is afraid of fireworks. "Stay away from my programmers. They work better when nobody talks to them." It's people who think we're really smart, or who rely on empathy to relate to us, who keep interrupting, because they can't wrap their heads around the idea that it's hard for us. Good communication is not a magic solution for this. Every time you try to explain, they'll translate it into something that feels reasonable and relatable to them. PragmaticPulp told me that interruptions are super bad for his productivity... so whenever I have questions I'll just pop in and out really quickly. PragmaticPulp told me that interruptions are super bad for his productivity... because I should have taken that question to John instead. PragmaticPulp told me that interruptions are super bad for his productivity... because he's been under a lot of stress this week. PragmaticPulp told me that interruptions are super bad for his productivity... because he doesn't like me and doesn't like talking to me. The idea that what we're saying is a straightforward expression of something we actually experience is way more bizarre and unlikely to them than the idea that we're trying to say something else and it's coming out in a garbled or passive-aggressive way. I think that's why, as misguided as the article's suggestion is, the idea of allowing people to experience what we experience is so appealing. If they could experience it firsthand, then when we talked to them about it, they could accept it at face value.