3 ms·
One of the things I've struggled with in my communications with nontechnicals is that they often want simple answers to complex questions, when that simple answ
by pdntspa 4y ago
One of the things I've struggled with in my communications with nontechnicals is that they often want simple answers to complex questions, when that simple answer often hides important details that might make it incorrect, dishonest, or disingenuous.
I think people should generally fight this need for simple answers... the world is a messy place, and if you're turning to a practitioner of said mess for advice then you should expect a suitable answer. (It also avoids the other person looking like a buffoon or pointy-haired boss to me, which is one of fastest ways to lose my respect)
- manmal 4y agoNo answer is ever fully comprehensive though. Even your complex answer is just a very shallow attempt at one, because there‘s always another layer or angle to consider. So, I don’t find it disingenuous to give a simple answer. It’s just a slightly less detailed one than the one I might have used with a technical person.
- pdntspa 4y agoBut it's the technical person's responsibility to figure out the appropriate level of abstraction, if one cares about an accurate and thorough answer, since they are the ones holding the expertise.... but I agree that it would be absurd to expect an speech on networking fundamentals if the question is "why is my website down?". But if they have to give a "yes*" or "yes, but..." answer, than some of those fundamentals might be relevant. But you wouldn't expect the discussion to get into signalling theory, again, unless it was relevant. Given that nontechnicals have such a hard time grasping something as basic as abstraction, I certainly would not trust them to make judgement calls on it effectively. Which again leads to the question of just how accurate an answer is the nontechnical person looking for?