4 ms·

People can also be objectively wrong when it comes to social interactions as well though. To give an example, if someone who is less technical asks you a quest

People can also be objectively wrong when it comes to social interactions as well though. To give an example, if someone who is less technical asks you a question that does not give enough background information to give a precise technical answer on, the wrong thing to do is respond by first simply asking questions back at them. Particularly if the questions could be difficult for them to immediately see how it relates to answering their initial question. It doesn't matter that it's because you think holistically or they don't have as deep an understanding, or anything else. The right thing to do is try to stay with people in conversation. Explain your thinking, make sure they understand why you need to ask these questions before you can answer, or give them a range of possibilities that are dependent on these unknowns. And asking somebody to explain their reasoning and justification for their question before you begin to answer it is very rude, so that's wrong too. It's reasonable to expect more justification as requests become more time-intensive, but an initial response to a question should have some degree of good faith and politeness. Clearly they don't understand all the implications, which is why they asked for your opinion. So asking whether they understand all the implications of what they are asking is a rhetorical question and is basically calling them a moron. "Should we rewrite the checkout of our E-Commerce platform using React?" This question might sound like your manager is expecting a yes or no answer, but they aren't. They want some "conversation". They want your opinion, some explanation for it, an opening to continue the conversation. Even if you could answer with an unqualified "no" without further clarification and be correct on a technical basis, that response is wrong in this social interaction. "It's possible react could help with performance but it would be quite a lot of work. I don't think we should at this point unless we're seeing performance problems." Something like that would be a better answer.

Bedon292 4y ago
I don't know if I go so far as to say objectively wrong but definitely felt off. And other approaches would probably have been better. If it is a question: "Should we do X?" They are asking for an opinion about if it should be done or at least some sort of conversation. Not asking for you to make a decision. Just state an opinion based on what you know and follow up. "I doubt it, it would be a large investment of resources that may not lead to noticeable improvements. Why?" Is it rude to ask why someone is asking though? Understanding context can be good. It might be fine to ask something like "Why do you ask?" to get it started, before answering. Then, if relevant, follow up with those in depth questions. But just jumping into technical details feels like they are meant to shut the initiator down. If they come to you and say: "I think we should do X." Then those questions make more sense. "Why?" is still probably enough though. Let them elaborate on their thought process. And if it really is just they say something about it in a blog. You can explain the trade offs and guide them with your knowledge.
larve 4y ago
Asking clarifying questions is engaging with them as best as I know. To me, it's the gracious, honest, polite, and professional thing to do. I can't just make up an answer (say, that performance is what they are thinking about) and then riff on that. I know this sounds blind, but it literally goes against my values. To say something I just made up without clarifying is not honest: it is playing a game. Because if I decide to play a game, where do I stop? What are the rules? I can't rely on my intuition and gut feeling, as we already established. I thought writing things would be a better avenue, and in many ways, it is. But a document that shows "I engaged with your question for hours, for days, and these are my conclusions, along with backing-up research" is often perceived as even more dismissive or passive-aggressive, while it is literally the opposite.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > Asking clarifying questions is engaging with them as best as I know. To me, it's the gracious, honest, polite, and professional thing to do. You are wrong about that though. In the way you are asking, anyway. > I can't just make up an answer (say, that performance is what they are thinking about) and then riff on that. It wasn't making up an answer or presupposing his intention. He asked whether you should switch, giving an answer that's essentially "no" but colored with a possible reason for switching is not making anything up.
  - larve 4y ago
    How do I even know we should switch or not though? A good reason could be "we are moving the office to the UK, and we were only able to find react developers there". That's a pretty good reason to switch, if not an easy one. I do think this is a strategy to try, although I'm pretty sure it's really not about the words, but about body language, timing, whatever... But it is really puzzling to me that you shouldn't ask questions because people will think you are asserting something, while making random assertions in order to probe for answers is the accepted way. I know it's probably how it works, but it will never really make sense to me, and I wish these games were just a little bit easier to play if people did see things from the other side more often, instead of throwing words like "asshole" around (as you can see in comments around here).
SilasX 4y ago
If that's what the manager wanted, they could have clarified as much in response to the author's first answer, or at least recognized there was a disconnect, and worked backwards from that to the point that their expectations were aligned. If they can't do that, then it's not clear their goals are well-defined enough to have a productive conversation on the matter in the first place, or that they are capable of correcting a misconception in the first place. That's a pretty low level of communication skill. I can definitely imagine a manager who might (unhelpfully) say "Should we rewrite in React?" to mean "I want the team to move to React for reasons I can't [or don't feel I have to] rigorously justify, I expect you to defer to me here, and now is your chance to alert me of big gotchas that we'll have to handle in the process". Such a manager has failed to communicate what they actually want, and unless they can "correct" the listener to the desired interpretation, they're going to be frustrated when said listener takes their surface level meaning seriously. It sounds like that's what the OP was doing here (as the listener).
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Yeah they could have. I'm talking about responding to what they actually said though. If the manager was here I might also have some advice for them too, and it wouldn't involve telling them they're right and the other guy is wrong because he just doesn't understand you.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    He was responding to what the manager actually said; your advice was that he should have replied to one "correct" interpretation that was not explicit. But in any case, the author's response revealed what he understood the ask to be, allowing the manager to redirect. So if the interpretation is bad, the error is correctable. In contrast, the manager just seems to be flailing around, unable to clarify. That is not correctable. Only one of these people was ruining the interaction and thus needed advice.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      > He was responding to what the manager actually said; And that's what I was responding to. I'm not going to respond to the manager because he's not reading this. > your advice was that he should have replied to one "correct" interpretation that was not explicit. No that was not my advice. I gave an example of a response which acknowledges the question, provides an answer "no", and gives the opportunity for the manager to come back with something if they really did have some valid case it might help. All in fewer words flailing about with a bunch of questions that still didn't answer the original. My example remains valid even if the interpretation of the question and whether it matched the manager's intention was wrong, it still works. The correctness I'm talking about is not in the answer to the technical question, it is how to go about having a polite interaction with others, which is what the author's stated goal was and what they got wrong. > In contrast, the manager just seems to be flailing around, unable to clarify. That is not correctable. I don't know what you mean by "not correctable". Correcting the behavior corrects it. > Only one of these people was ruining the interaction and thus needed advice. No, both do, and the manager isn't here, hence my comment.

Bedon292 4y ago

I don't know if I go so far as to say objectively wrong but definitely felt off. And other approaches would probably have been better. If it is a question: "Should we do X?" They are asking for an opinion about if it should be done or at least some sort of conversation. Not asking for you to make a decision. Just state an opinion based on what you know and follow up. "I doubt it, it would be a large investment of resources that may not lead to noticeable improvements. Why?" Is it rude to ask why someone is asking though? Understanding context can be good. It might be fine to ask something like "Why do you ask?" to get it started, before answering. Then, if relevant, follow up with those in depth questions. But just jumping into technical details feels like they are meant to shut the initiator down. If they come to you and say: "I think we should do X." Then those questions make more sense. "Why?" is still probably enough though. Let them elaborate on their thought process. And if it really is just they say something about it in a blog. You can explain the trade offs and guide them with your knowledge.

larve 4y ago

Asking clarifying questions is engaging with them as best as I know. To me, it's the gracious, honest, polite, and professional thing to do. I can't just make up an answer (say, that performance is what they are thinking about) and then riff on that. I know this sounds blind, but it literally goes against my values. To say something I just made up without clarifying is not honest: it is playing a game. Because if I decide to play a game, where do I stop? What are the rules? I can't rely on my intuition and gut feeling, as we already established. I thought writing things would be a better avenue, and in many ways, it is. But a document that shows "I engaged with your question for hours, for days, and these are my conclusions, along with backing-up research" is often perceived as even more dismissive or passive-aggressive, while it is literally the opposite.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> Asking clarifying questions is engaging with them as best as I know. To me, it's the gracious, honest, polite, and professional thing to do. You are wrong about that though. In the way you are asking, anyway. > I can't just make up an answer (say, that performance is what they are thinking about) and then riff on that. It wasn't making up an answer or presupposing his intention. He asked whether you should switch, giving an answer that's essentially "no" but colored with a possible reason for switching is not making anything up.
- larve 4y ago
  How do I even know we should switch or not though? A good reason could be "we are moving the office to the UK, and we were only able to find react developers there". That's a pretty good reason to switch, if not an easy one. I do think this is a strategy to try, although I'm pretty sure it's really not about the words, but about body language, timing, whatever... But it is really puzzling to me that you shouldn't ask questions because people will think you are asserting something, while making random assertions in order to probe for answers is the accepted way. I know it's probably how it works, but it will never really make sense to me, and I wish these games were just a little bit easier to play if people did see things from the other side more often, instead of throwing words like "asshole" around (as you can see in comments around here).

SilasX 4y ago

If that's what the manager wanted, they could have clarified as much in response to the author's first answer, or at least recognized there was a disconnect, and worked backwards from that to the point that their expectations were aligned. If they can't do that, then it's not clear their goals are well-defined enough to have a productive conversation on the matter in the first place, or that they are capable of correcting a misconception in the first place. That's a pretty low level of communication skill. I can definitely imagine a manager who might (unhelpfully) say "Should we rewrite in React?" to mean "I want the team to move to React for reasons I can't [or don't feel I have to] rigorously justify, I expect you to defer to me here, and now is your chance to alert me of big gotchas that we'll have to handle in the process". Such a manager has failed to communicate what they actually want, and unless they can "correct" the listener to the desired interpretation, they're going to be frustrated when said listener takes their surface level meaning seriously. It sounds like that's what the OP was doing here (as the listener).

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Yeah they could have. I'm talking about responding to what they actually said though. If the manager was here I might also have some advice for them too, and it wouldn't involve telling them they're right and the other guy is wrong because he just doesn't understand you.
- SilasX 4y ago
  He was responding to what the manager actually said; your advice was that he should have replied to one "correct" interpretation that was not explicit. But in any case, the author's response revealed what he understood the ask to be, allowing the manager to redirect. So if the interpretation is bad, the error is correctable. In contrast, the manager just seems to be flailing around, unable to clarify. That is not correctable. Only one of these people was ruining the interaction and thus needed advice.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    > He was responding to what the manager actually said; And that's what I was responding to. I'm not going to respond to the manager because he's not reading this. > your advice was that he should have replied to one "correct" interpretation that was not explicit. No that was not my advice. I gave an example of a response which acknowledges the question, provides an answer "no", and gives the opportunity for the manager to come back with something if they really did have some valid case it might help. All in fewer words flailing about with a bunch of questions that still didn't answer the original. My example remains valid even if the interpretation of the question and whether it matched the manager's intention was wrong, it still works. The correctness I'm talking about is not in the answer to the technical question, it is how to go about having a polite interaction with others, which is what the author's stated goal was and what they got wrong. > In contrast, the manager just seems to be flailing around, unable to clarify. That is not correctable. I don't know what you mean by "not correctable". Correcting the behavior corrects it. > Only one of these people was ruining the interaction and thus needed advice. No, both do, and the manager isn't here, hence my comment.