3 ms·

TLDR: don't be passive-agressive and don't pressure the respondent.

by sovok_x 5y ago

ComputerGuru 5y ago
That’s really not the conclusion of the article whatsoever.
- sovok_x 5y ago
  Given their examples of the bad things in emails I think it should be close enough.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    I don’t know, to me it seemed the in addition to common courtesy when composing emails it was more perhaps the more important part to also try to be charitable with your interpretation. That whole thing about offense being taken and given, that random strangers didn’t find these emails to be bad, etc.
    - sovok_x 5y ago
      I feel like I am downvoted for just engaging in an opinionated discussion, but whatever... The sender there have more power over the result of the exchange, and respondent have a kind of passive role of reacting to the initial stimulus. The common courtesy is one thing known to almost everyone who cares but the sender's passive-agressiveness is hidden from their sight, as is the desire to pressure respondent for some kind of results. The respondents in a calm and charitable state of mind wouldn't normally overreact as much so they are either overworked or anxious which increases the threshold of picking the bad in seemingly common stuff. It's impossible to change other random people nor alleviate their anxieties or tiredness. So it's on the sender to avoid that which I implied in the TS comment, which in itself is based on the article's examples.
      - ComputerGuru 5y ago
        (I’m not downvoting you.) If you read some of the emails that were offensive, it’s understandable why the sender thought they were ok. I think the problem is that formal is taken for intimidating, and that’s not OK for us to go down that road as a society. This email, for example: > We acknowledge that our request has a very short timeline and certainly appreciate that you are very busy. That seems like a very courteous and respectful way to open or close an email to someone when you actually are under pressure and need a response despite the circumstances. I can see why/how the recipient could have been rankled to receive this email, but it’s only passive aggressive if you are expecting it to be, are overly sensitive, or have self esteem issues. The thing is, sometimes people are in a crunch and do need something from you. That’s not ideal, but it shouldn’t be considered actually outright hostile. IMHO it’s important that it be OK to convey a sense of urgency if you couch your statements with respect and understanding.
        sovok_x 5y ago
        > The thing is, sometimes people are in a crunch and do need something from you. That’s not ideal, but it shouldn’t be considered actually outright hostile. This is true. But another thing is that it's normal for some rushed people to consider it to be an aggressive action. No amount of educational articles will change that, as it stems from a deeper psychological processes, and that makes this specific example almost unavoidable. It's both normal to politely convey urgency and overreact to it, at least internally. Preventing this internal reaction from spilling out is a part of personal emotional control/development which is out of scope of a pragmatic approach. But other similar things, like harder pressuring and subtle passive-aggression, that cause the same effects and seem innocent for the senders, can be avoided realistically. Otherwise it'd be disingenuous to blame overreaction on the respondent. The sub-tones do matter no matter how polite the message sounds, after all.

TLDR: don't be passive-agressive and don't pressure the respondent.

ComputerGuru 5y ago

That’s really not the conclusion of the article whatsoever.

sovok_x 5y ago
Given their examples of the bad things in emails I think it should be close enough.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  I don’t know, to me it seemed the in addition to common courtesy when composing emails it was more perhaps the more important part to also try to be charitable with your interpretation. That whole thing about offense being taken and given, that random strangers didn’t find these emails to be bad, etc.
  - sovok_x 5y ago
    I feel like I am downvoted for just engaging in an opinionated discussion, but whatever... The sender there have more power over the result of the exchange, and respondent have a kind of passive role of reacting to the initial stimulus. The common courtesy is one thing known to almost everyone who cares but the sender's passive-agressiveness is hidden from their sight, as is the desire to pressure respondent for some kind of results. The respondents in a calm and charitable state of mind wouldn't normally overreact as much so they are either overworked or anxious which increases the threshold of picking the bad in seemingly common stuff. It's impossible to change other random people nor alleviate their anxieties or tiredness. So it's on the sender to avoid that which I implied in the TS comment, which in itself is based on the article's examples.
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      (I’m not downvoting you.) If you read some of the emails that were offensive, it’s understandable why the sender thought they were ok. I think the problem is that formal is taken for intimidating, and that’s not OK for us to go down that road as a society. This email, for example: > We acknowledge that our request has a very short timeline and certainly appreciate that you are very busy. That seems like a very courteous and respectful way to open or close an email to someone when you actually are under pressure and need a response despite the circumstances. I can see why/how the recipient could have been rankled to receive this email, but it’s only passive aggressive if you are expecting it to be, are overly sensitive, or have self esteem issues. The thing is, sometimes people are in a crunch and do need something from you. That’s not ideal, but it shouldn’t be considered actually outright hostile. IMHO it’s important that it be OK to convey a sense of urgency if you couch your statements with respect and understanding.
      - sovok_x 5y ago
        > The thing is, sometimes people are in a crunch and do need something from you. That’s not ideal, but it shouldn’t be considered actually outright hostile. This is true. But another thing is that it's normal for some rushed people to consider it to be an aggressive action. No amount of educational articles will change that, as it stems from a deeper psychological processes, and that makes this specific example almost unavoidable. It's both normal to politely convey urgency and overreact to it, at least internally. Preventing this internal reaction from spilling out is a part of personal emotional control/development which is out of scope of a pragmatic approach. But other similar things, like harder pressuring and subtle passive-aggression, that cause the same effects and seem innocent for the senders, can be avoided realistically. Otherwise it'd be disingenuous to blame overreaction on the respondent. The sub-tones do matter no matter how polite the message sounds, after all.