5 ms·

The example given is a single negative interaction in a slack community, which does not seem to support a rule that 33% of people want to see your idea fail.

• ltbarcly3 5y ago
  Do you truly believe he was suggesting 33/33/33/1 as an accurate rule? I think he was just suggesting that X% of people like you, X% are ambivalent, and X% dislike you, so you have to know this to properly understand feedback. Some people will be like your grandmother and always have a kind, positive word, some will basically not care, and some will try to hurt you regardless of how good your idea actually is. For example, they might totally miss the point of a blog post you make, and nitpick you on the precision of the numbers you used despite that precision being irrelevant to the point you are making.
  • diordiderot 5y ago
    Yeah! you can't just expect people to mean what they say. For example, I truly believe that all statistical percentages are roughly plus or minus 20% in any direction.
    • ltbarcly3 5y ago
      I think it's accepting context and intent. I if I say 'Half the time when I get to work the door is ajar' I'm not claiming to be precise. To your point, since I didn't give the expected error for my claim I'm not attempting to be rigorous or precise by saying that fraction. If you jump on my back and say 'it's actually only 30% of the time that we leave the front door to our business open all night!!', then you are just failing to adapt to the way everyone communicates in a very bad faith way, and holding onto some false belief that you are 'technically correct'.