4 ms·

I find this often meeting 'zoomers' in person. In contrast to the glued to the phone cliche, they're often enormously attentive, in an almost pained way. Incred

by dbspin 4y ago

I find this often meeting 'zoomers' in person. In contrast to the glued to the phone cliche, they're often enormously attentive, in an almost pained way. Incredibly careful in how they speak and - in accordance with the 'triggered' cliche - very easily upset or offended. Not only by transgression of their numerous linguistic prohibitions, but even misunderstandings about potential transgressions. The simplest way to explain it is they seem to assume bad faith, that things were ill intended, and that the worst interpretation something someone says is accurate. They seem to have grown up at a time of rapidly changing speech and behavioural codes, immersed in a culture that has harsh instantaneous judgement for their transgression. It seems like an extremely fraught and anxiety inducing way of being.

groestl 4y ago
> the worst interpretation something someone says is accurate Well, to give just a few examples: * The worst interpretation of a sentence said by politicians is usually accurate * In contractual law, the worst interpretation of a clause is the one you need to prepare for * In advertising, the absolute worst interpretation of a phrase is usually accurate * If you get a letter of recommendation, the worst interpretation is the intended one So you adapt to this world.
- dbspin 4y ago
  All of those things have been true at least since the dawn of mass media in the early 20th century. I'm speaking about intergenerational change, and interpersonal interactions. Perhaps the difference is that we all now exist as though on the public stage. Either way, perceiving everyday interactions in that way is dispiriting and closes you off from people with different experiences and perspectives. It can make your everyday life - rather than just your online existence - a rigid, carefully managed echo-chamber.
  - groestl 4y ago
    > Perhaps the difference is that we all now exist as though on the public stage Ah yeah, true! So basically now we're kind of forced into reading everything, even when it's private, as some kind of press release.
- TheCleric 4y ago
  Also code. The worst possible thing that can happen in code will be the thing that inevitably happens and with much more frequency than anticipated.
csydas 4y ago
I'd like to propose look at it an alternative way; language has changed to be much more focused on intent, interpretation, and cognizant of your conversational partners. I work with a fairly large and diverse IT team with age ranges from 22 to 60+; a lot of this involves disagreements as is natural with any conversations with a large group of people. Discussions with the younger demographic are far more productive and faster as they're quite specific in their statements and when there is a disagreement, they put it out there fairly openly, explaining intent and feelings, and when I reciprocate, we get to a faster understanding of one another and any potential misunderstandings we might have had, view points we hadn't considered, or parts that aren't clear for us. The initial conversations take a bit longer, but ultimately end up with all parties understanding the situation well. It's quite healthy I think. With the older age group, I definitely know _when_ they're angry or upset about something or when they disagree with me, but I rarely know _why_. Trying to slow down the conversation and have the same "help me understand what you're thinking/feeling so we can better communicate" often is not received well, and while the conversations are more direct initially, they last far longer and result in more tirades, walls of text, and dozens of arguments with loose or no connection to the topic at hand. I don't see the younger persons as being sensitive, I see them as being specific; I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state, and embracing this by participating in the same way is very freeing. I can have what might be considered difficult discussions (corrections, disciplinary actions, etc) and understand that while likely the conversation partner is not happy, they feel understood, I've presented my point of view, and when presented with new information, all sides have been very receptive. With my older colleagues, the same sensitivity and emotions are there, but I'm far less aware of it even if I specifically take actions to show I want to understand more. There is definitely a culture clash, and I think that the reactions of "snow flakes" and "triggered" are not accurate, and it's more about two persons separated by a common language failing to communicate. Given how well conversations with my younger colleagues go, I'm more inclined to prefer this model.
- dbspin 4y ago
  Interesting, this deeply conflicts with my own experience in work / voluntary organisations. I wonder if the frustrations you're experiencing with older colleagues could also be accounted for by their having to navigate an environment of high and expanding sensitivity? "I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state" My alternate construal is that they're convinced their interpretation is accurate / important. i.e.: That their feelings in any given situation have as much or more weight as what is objectively true.

by dbspin 4y ago

groestl 4y ago

> the worst interpretation something someone says is accurate Well, to give just a few examples: * The worst interpretation of a sentence said by politicians is usually accurate * In contractual law, the worst interpretation of a clause is the one you need to prepare for * In advertising, the absolute worst interpretation of a phrase is usually accurate * If you get a letter of recommendation, the worst interpretation is the intended one So you adapt to this world.

dbspin 4y ago
All of those things have been true at least since the dawn of mass media in the early 20th century. I'm speaking about intergenerational change, and interpersonal interactions. Perhaps the difference is that we all now exist as though on the public stage. Either way, perceiving everyday interactions in that way is dispiriting and closes you off from people with different experiences and perspectives. It can make your everyday life - rather than just your online existence - a rigid, carefully managed echo-chamber.
- groestl 4y ago
  > Perhaps the difference is that we all now exist as though on the public stage Ah yeah, true! So basically now we're kind of forced into reading everything, even when it's private, as some kind of press release.
TheCleric 4y ago
Also code. The worst possible thing that can happen in code will be the thing that inevitably happens and with much more frequency than anticipated.

csydas 4y ago

I'd like to propose look at it an alternative way; language has changed to be much more focused on intent, interpretation, and cognizant of your conversational partners. I work with a fairly large and diverse IT team with age ranges from 22 to 60+; a lot of this involves disagreements as is natural with any conversations with a large group of people. Discussions with the younger demographic are far more productive and faster as they're quite specific in their statements and when there is a disagreement, they put it out there fairly openly, explaining intent and feelings, and when I reciprocate, we get to a faster understanding of one another and any potential misunderstandings we might have had, view points we hadn't considered, or parts that aren't clear for us. The initial conversations take a bit longer, but ultimately end up with all parties understanding the situation well. It's quite healthy I think. With the older age group, I definitely know _when_ they're angry or upset about something or when they disagree with me, but I rarely know _why_. Trying to slow down the conversation and have the same "help me understand what you're thinking/feeling so we can better communicate" often is not received well, and while the conversations are more direct initially, they last far longer and result in more tirades, walls of text, and dozens of arguments with loose or no connection to the topic at hand. I don't see the younger persons as being sensitive, I see them as being specific; I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state, and embracing this by participating in the same way is very freeing. I can have what might be considered difficult discussions (corrections, disciplinary actions, etc) and understand that while likely the conversation partner is not happy, they feel understood, I've presented my point of view, and when presented with new information, all sides have been very receptive. With my older colleagues, the same sensitivity and emotions are there, but I'm far less aware of it even if I specifically take actions to show I want to understand more. There is definitely a culture clash, and I think that the reactions of "snow flakes" and "triggered" are not accurate, and it's more about two persons separated by a common language failing to communicate. Given how well conversations with my younger colleagues go, I'm more inclined to prefer this model.

dbspin 4y ago
Interesting, this deeply conflicts with my own experience in work / voluntary organisations. I wonder if the frustrations you're experiencing with older colleagues could also be accounted for by their having to navigate an environment of high and expanding sensitivity? "I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state" My alternate construal is that they're convinced their interpretation is accurate / important. i.e.: That their feelings in any given situation have as much or more weight as what is objectively true.