4 ms·

No, you're wrong. I made the same suggestion. "Communication" starts with realizing that you have to meet people where they are, not expect them to adopt your

No, you're wrong. I made the same suggestion. "Communication" starts with realizing that you have to meet people where they are, not expect them to adopt your style. You have to have some respect for them. "Avoid unnecessary adverbs" would be another easy one ("unhelpfully signalling your disdain")

tqi 4y ago
> "Communication" starts with realizing that you have to meet people where they are, not expect them to adopt your style. You have to have some respect for them. Castigating people for word choices that you personally dislike while simultaneously advising them to "not expect them to adopt your style" is hilarious.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  What's hilarious is flame language like "castigating" and "personally dislike." Corporate is widely and justifiably condemned. It's not just a personal thing. Even on this thread.
  - tqi 4y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=castigating https://www.google.com/search?q=castigating since you seem confused by whether that word is "flame language" or merely descriptive. Calling it "hilarious" was definitely the work of a flamer though.
    - UIUC_06 4y ago
      "you seem confused" definitely is, though.
      - tqi 4y ago
        misinformed?
scubbo 4y ago
"unhelpfully" was deliberately chosen, to indicate that signalling disdain isn't helpful to the goal of teaching OP how to help their team. One could argue that it's redundant ("Focus on X, rather than Y" does imply that Y is unhelpful), but even so; reiteration for emphasis is a perfectly cromulent stylistic choice. Surely if the OP is trying to help their team to communicate in a corporate environment, then teaching them the shibboleths like "upskill" will be helpful to (as you rightly suggest) meet the readers where they are? The team will be free to use them or not, as they choose. Whereas "banning" those words can only handicap their ability to corporate-cosplay, if that's something they want to do.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  Nobody wants to use BS words like "upskill" and "learnings" except the corporate drones who are preaching them. If you have respect for your readers, then you use language they can relate to.
  - scubbo 4y ago
    What if your readers are those same corporate drones? Not everyone has the luxury of only ever interacting with Real Developers(tm).
    - UIUC_06 4y ago
      Ah. Then you have to use their language. It signals that you're one of them.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - scubbo 4y ago
        Unfortunately, that is sometimes optimal. Regardless: I suggest you check the sibling thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33805016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33805016), where we explore more relevant considerations - not just "what group are you masquerading as?", but also "does the use of this jargon result in fuzzy thinking or poor structure independent of the actual words used?" (/u/munificent suggests yes, I suggest that they're often correlated but there's not necessarily a causal link - cutting out those phrases will not _in itself_ result in better-considered, clearer, more-meaningful communication)

tqi 4y ago

> "Communication" starts with realizing that you have to meet people where they are, not expect them to adopt your style. You have to have some respect for them. Castigating people for word choices that you personally dislike while simultaneously advising them to "not expect them to adopt your style" is hilarious.

UIUC_06 4y ago
What's hilarious is flame language like "castigating" and "personally dislike." Corporate is widely and justifiably condemned. It's not just a personal thing. Even on this thread.
- tqi 4y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=castigating https://www.google.com/search?q=castigating since you seem confused by whether that word is "flame language" or merely descriptive. Calling it "hilarious" was definitely the work of a flamer though.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    "you seem confused" definitely is, though.
    - tqi 4y ago
      misinformed?

scubbo 4y ago

"unhelpfully" was deliberately chosen, to indicate that signalling disdain isn't helpful to the goal of teaching OP how to help their team. One could argue that it's redundant ("Focus on X, rather than Y" does imply that Y is unhelpful), but even so; reiteration for emphasis is a perfectly cromulent stylistic choice. Surely if the OP is trying to help their team to communicate in a corporate environment, then teaching them the shibboleths like "upskill" will be helpful to (as you rightly suggest) meet the readers where they are? The team will be free to use them or not, as they choose. Whereas "banning" those words can only handicap their ability to corporate-cosplay, if that's something they want to do.

UIUC_06 4y ago
Nobody wants to use BS words like "upskill" and "learnings" except the corporate drones who are preaching them. If you have respect for your readers, then you use language they can relate to.
- scubbo 4y ago
  What if your readers are those same corporate drones? Not everyone has the luxury of only ever interacting with Real Developers(tm).
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    Ah. Then you have to use their language. It signals that you're one of them.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - scubbo 4y ago
      Unfortunately, that is sometimes optimal. Regardless: I suggest you check the sibling thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33805016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33805016), where we explore more relevant considerations - not just "what group are you masquerading as?", but also "does the use of this jargon result in fuzzy thinking or poor structure independent of the actual words used?" (/u/munificent suggests yes, I suggest that they're often correlated but there's not necessarily a causal link - cutting out those phrases will not _in itself_ result in better-considered, clearer, more-meaningful communication)