4 ms·

Again, that's a statement of fact. Why is it impolite? What's wrong with being directly told you've caused a problem? Especially if you in fact have.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> What's wrong with being directly told you've caused a problem? There's nothing "wrong" with being impolite, it's just impolite to be impolite. > Why is it impolite? It feels impolite to me therefore it is impolite. Trying to parse out my feelings the best I can come up with is that the phrasing highlights the subordinate nature of the person being directed relative to the person directing by focusing on the person and the mistake prior to the task. https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/politeness/impoliteness.html https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/politeness/impoliteness.html > Contextual and co-textual factors > • The extent to which the behavior is positively or negatively valued in the relevant culture; Making a mistake is negatively valued in most cultures, especially when it needs to be corrected. > • The extent to which face or sociality rights are exposed; Highlighting subordination and superordination exposes sociality rights. > • The degree of intentionality ascribed to the actor(s); The personal "you" can be, though may not be, seen to impute a degree of intentionality. Additionally: > (2) [rude behavior] does not utilise politeness strategies whetre they would be expected, in such a way that the utterance can only almost plausibly be interpreted as intentionally and negatively confrontational. (Lakoff, 1989: 103) > (5) Impoliteness comes about when: (1) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and/or constructs behavior as intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2). (Culpeper, 2005a: 38) > impoliteness <versus rudeness> occurs when the expression used is not conventionalised relative to the context of occurrence; it threatens the addressee’s face… but no face-threatening intention is attributed to the speaker by the hearer. (Terkourafi, 2008: 70)
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Wouldn't professionalism dictate that your management of your own feelings in the face of simple factual statements is your own responsibility? What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context. If the goal of an organization is to accomplish the objective in the most efficient way, doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Isn't it (much) more efficient to just communicate directly and clearly, an leave feelings-management to listeners? Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example?
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > Wouldn't professionalism dictate No, this is called being a grown up in all contexts, not just professional ones. > What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context. Professional contexts are subsets of social contexts. They aren't special. The only thing that can make any context special are the meanings of individual behaviors the actors within that context have mutually negotiated between them. > doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Of course not. A typical person can work more effectively when they personally don't have to actively manage their emotional responses to others. This is facilitated by non-superficial politeness all around. Because it is a natural response to ruminate, for periods of time that are disproportionate to the event, on how others have treated us (common in relatively social animals, and possibly non-animal organisms), it is far more efficient to manage politeness than to count on emotional self-management. > Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example? You can be rude, not just impolite, in particular instances in civilian life without getting most people het up about it. But these instances are few and far between. In militaries people are explicitly taught that their life absolutely depends on this rote learning and immediate response to shouted orders. Additionally, the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality, just basic functionality. Theoretically systems exist in the military to prevent cronyism and other forms of privilege; everyone is treated the same, or at least has the same opportunities. This itself minimizes the rudeness bias. More importantly, when off duty, or on duty but not actively engaged in an exercise, officers and senior non-coms are less direct and do a lot of feelings management. Military life is not boot camp. Even with all of that, in Vietnam at least, grunts did kill their officers at times. Active shooter situations are extraordinarily bad, and a lot of work goes into preventing and managing them. Being polite is one part of this management. And plenty of people don't have the mindset for the military, and know this, and purposefully avoid joining the military because of this. You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      > to ruminate .. on how others have treated us Right, but my initial point is that any reasonable rumination on a statement of fact followed by a directive concludes with the assessment that nothing inappropriate happened. If you are at fault, and are subordinate, then the communication was appropriate. If you're not, then a simple refutation of the factual claim is all that's needed. Shouldn't we expect people to be fundamentally reasonable in this way, even if some people have a hard time with it? I would say that is what striving for excellence looks like. > the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality The military certainly does care about optimal functionality, since the price of failure (losing battles/wars) is cataclysmic. I'd say that (winning) militaries are among the most efficient human organizations out there. Vietnam was staffed by conscripts who, importantly (and rightly), didn't believe in the objective they were forced to fight for. It's not a situation with any good outcomes, and is wildly different from a volunteer army (or corporation). > You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce. I'm not suggesting we do, only that we as an industry endeavour to elevate our standards of professionalism by emulating some of the most professional organizations out there (militaries, intelligence organizations, industry leaders, etc.). All of these organizations are characterized as "toxic" in wider circles specifically for the traits that allow them to succeed.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

> What's wrong with being directly told you've caused a problem? There's nothing "wrong" with being impolite, it's just impolite to be impolite. > Why is it impolite? It feels impolite to me therefore it is impolite. Trying to parse out my feelings the best I can come up with is that the phrasing highlights the subordinate nature of the person being directed relative to the person directing by focusing on the person and the mistake prior to the task. https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/politeness/impoliteness.html https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/politeness/impoliteness.html > Contextual and co-textual factors > • The extent to which the behavior is positively or negatively valued in the relevant culture; Making a mistake is negatively valued in most cultures, especially when it needs to be corrected. > • The extent to which face or sociality rights are exposed; Highlighting subordination and superordination exposes sociality rights. > • The degree of intentionality ascribed to the actor(s); The personal "you" can be, though may not be, seen to impute a degree of intentionality. Additionally: > (2) [rude behavior] does not utilise politeness strategies whetre they would be expected, in such a way that the utterance can only almost plausibly be interpreted as intentionally and negatively confrontational. (Lakoff, 1989: 103) > (5) Impoliteness comes about when: (1) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and/or constructs behavior as intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2). (Culpeper, 2005a: 38) > impoliteness <versus rudeness> occurs when the expression used is not conventionalised relative to the context of occurrence; it threatens the addressee’s face… but no face-threatening intention is attributed to the speaker by the hearer. (Terkourafi, 2008: 70)

thegrimmest 4y ago
Wouldn't professionalism dictate that your management of your own feelings in the face of simple factual statements is your own responsibility? What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context. If the goal of an organization is to accomplish the objective in the most efficient way, doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Isn't it (much) more efficient to just communicate directly and clearly, an leave feelings-management to listeners? Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example?
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > Wouldn't professionalism dictate No, this is called being a grown up in all contexts, not just professional ones. > What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context. Professional contexts are subsets of social contexts. They aren't special. The only thing that can make any context special are the meanings of individual behaviors the actors within that context have mutually negotiated between them. > doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Of course not. A typical person can work more effectively when they personally don't have to actively manage their emotional responses to others. This is facilitated by non-superficial politeness all around. Because it is a natural response to ruminate, for periods of time that are disproportionate to the event, on how others have treated us (common in relatively social animals, and possibly non-animal organisms), it is far more efficient to manage politeness than to count on emotional self-management. > Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example? You can be rude, not just impolite, in particular instances in civilian life without getting most people het up about it. But these instances are few and far between. In militaries people are explicitly taught that their life absolutely depends on this rote learning and immediate response to shouted orders. Additionally, the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality, just basic functionality. Theoretically systems exist in the military to prevent cronyism and other forms of privilege; everyone is treated the same, or at least has the same opportunities. This itself minimizes the rudeness bias. More importantly, when off duty, or on duty but not actively engaged in an exercise, officers and senior non-coms are less direct and do a lot of feelings management. Military life is not boot camp. Even with all of that, in Vietnam at least, grunts did kill their officers at times. Active shooter situations are extraordinarily bad, and a lot of work goes into preventing and managing them. Being polite is one part of this management. And plenty of people don't have the mindset for the military, and know this, and purposefully avoid joining the military because of this. You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    > to ruminate .. on how others have treated us Right, but my initial point is that any reasonable rumination on a statement of fact followed by a directive concludes with the assessment that nothing inappropriate happened. If you are at fault, and are subordinate, then the communication was appropriate. If you're not, then a simple refutation of the factual claim is all that's needed. Shouldn't we expect people to be fundamentally reasonable in this way, even if some people have a hard time with it? I would say that is what striving for excellence looks like. > the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality The military certainly does care about optimal functionality, since the price of failure (losing battles/wars) is cataclysmic. I'd say that (winning) militaries are among the most efficient human organizations out there. Vietnam was staffed by conscripts who, importantly (and rightly), didn't believe in the objective they were forced to fight for. It's not a situation with any good outcomes, and is wildly different from a volunteer army (or corporation). > You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce. I'm not suggesting we do, only that we as an industry endeavour to elevate our standards of professionalism by emulating some of the most professional organizations out there (militaries, intelligence organizations, industry leaders, etc.). All of these organizations are characterized as "toxic" in wider circles specifically for the traits that allow them to succeed.