4 ms·

This isn't all good. There are reasons that email tends to be popular. On the other hand, there's a reason email can go off into the weeds as well. The issue

by ezy 15y ago

This isn't all good. There are reasons that email tends to be popular. On the other hand, there's a reason email can go off into the weeds as well. The issue I have is that face-to-face meetings tend to lack depth. By necessity, you either have to take a lot of time explaining yourself over and over or you make decisions based on surface criteria. In fact, a lot of time, decisions are made based on how well a person has manipulated[1] the group -- not on the merit of the argument in question. Lawyers make their money this way every day. If you're not good at being put on the spot -- or you forget an important point you wanted to make at precisely that moment, you loose. Some people are good at holding court until their brain catches up, but some are not. :-) I think a culture of (respectful!) criticism is good, but that doesn't require face to face. [1] not necessarily with bad intent -- maybe they are just naturally more persuative, whatever the argument.

tobtoh 15y ago
> If you're not good at being put on the spot -- or you forget an important point you wanted to make at precisely that moment, you loose. I think the point you are trying to make actually reinforces the need for face to face meetings. Every interaction with another person is an investment - the 'lack of depth' that you mention is often what builds up mutual understanding of each other, how they think, their reasoning, their biases - and overall, it builds up trust. When you have this trust, then when you are put on the spot and you flub your discussion points, the listener gives you a lot more slack to clarify yourself, or they they may give you the benefit of the doubt because they trust you. It's this investment in people that pays off when you are under-performing for whatever reason - far from losing, you actually win because of the face-to-face meetings.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I think that works better with some people than others. If there's a big difference in how good two people are at on-the-spot negotiation, often the less-good person will end up just not saying much, or feel coerced into something, while over email they might've hashed out an agreement. On the other hand, some people good at face-to-face discussion are really incompetent emailers, so that can also have downsides. I'm very unconvinced there's a clear ordering of what you get from each; you get different things out of different people from different modes of communication (same with phone vs. IM, to take another huge-variance example). I actually find the people I know best are people I've IM'd with a lot, for whatever reason. Some I've also hung out in person with a lot, and that also adds a certain amount of depth. But people I only know in person---with little to no significant IM'ing---are in a lower-depth category.

by ezy 15y ago

tobtoh 15y ago

> If you're not good at being put on the spot -- or you forget an important point you wanted to make at precisely that moment, you loose. I think the point you are trying to make actually reinforces the need for face to face meetings. Every interaction with another person is an investment - the 'lack of depth' that you mention is often what builds up mutual understanding of each other, how they think, their reasoning, their biases - and overall, it builds up trust. When you have this trust, then when you are put on the spot and you flub your discussion points, the listener gives you a lot more slack to clarify yourself, or they they may give you the benefit of the doubt because they trust you. It's this investment in people that pays off when you are under-performing for whatever reason - far from losing, you actually win because of the face-to-face meetings.

_delirium 15y ago
I think that works better with some people than others. If there's a big difference in how good two people are at on-the-spot negotiation, often the less-good person will end up just not saying much, or feel coerced into something, while over email they might've hashed out an agreement. On the other hand, some people good at face-to-face discussion are really incompetent emailers, so that can also have downsides. I'm very unconvinced there's a clear ordering of what you get from each; you get different things out of different people from different modes of communication (same with phone vs. IM, to take another huge-variance example). I actually find the people I know best are people I've IM'd with a lot, for whatever reason. Some I've also hung out in person with a lot, and that also adds a certain amount of depth. But people I only know in person---with little to no significant IM'ing---are in a lower-depth category.