6 ms·

I had a colleague who’s degree was in comparative literature - we’d walk out of meetings and the rest of us would be talking about the engineering side of what

I had a colleague who’s degree was in comparative literature - we’d walk out of meetings and the rest of us would be talking about the engineering side of what we’d just heard while he’d go through and enumerate the different things each person had been talking about while using the same words as everyone else. The amount of latent conflicts that dude caught before the rest of us got torched made me really appreciate the value of an art degree.

benterix 3y ago
That's very interesting! Would you be able to give an example without being too specific?
- detourdog 3y ago
  The former guy is pretty simple example. My partner refers to as being a squid, spraying ink and making a get away.
- roughly 3y ago
  It's been a long time and I don't remember specifics, but - we'd regularly be meeting with people from multiple different departments, and it'd be things like two people talking about testing, where it turns out one is talking about unit tests & CI and the other is talking about user testing, and you can go very far into that conversation using all the same words and meaning very different things.
- majormajor 3y ago
  A fairly simple one I've seen is "when will this be done?" - stakeholder means to ask when will it be in production; engineer hears "done" as in "my task is done" and answers about when the PR will land.
  - squirtlebonflow 3y ago
    Ideally, merging the PR and having it be in production is a 30-60 minute automated CI process.
ambicapter 3y ago
I don't have the degree but I often notice (or think I notice) people not answering the question that was asked, reframing questions to answer the pet peeve they love to bring up, and people agreeing with each other while sounding like they're arguing with each other such that the conversation never ends. It annoys the hell out of me and it feels quasi-impossible for me to relay to others what is going on.
- roughly 3y ago
  Yeah, the violent agreement is usually a big tell. I've gotten much better at throwing the flag in meetings to have that conversation - "Hey, when you say X, do you mean <what I'm hearing>? Can you expand on that?". I think people are hesitant to do it out of fear of sounding stupid; I think I'm lucky enough to be far enough into my career that I don't really worry about that anymore. The "reframe the conversation to the thing I want to talk about" - man, that one's frustrating. I don't have a polite way to stop that one yet. I think some of it is just that we all pick up traumas and trigger words, and you've gotta recognize when someone said "banana" that doesn't actually mean "the thing I slipped on five years ago."
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > I don't have a polite way to stop that one yet. Selective doses of being impolite can be extremely effective, especially when you're otherwise very polite.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      "A gentleman is one who is never unintentionally rude." (One of several variants: <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/21/offense/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/21/offense/>)
  - _jal 3y ago
    > The "reframe the conversation to the thing I want to talk about" - man, that one's frustrating. The most effective method I've found is making that person responsible for resolving whatever the issue is. Not always possible, but especially when it happens in group settings, some verbal judo can work even if you can't "officially" task them. (Make sure to memorialize that in an email afterwards, or it will probably retroactively never have happened.)
AceJohnny2 3y ago
I think it's really an indictment of (software?) engineer's communication skills. So much of us seem to come from a self-taught/introverted background and ignore the importance of clear communication required to work in a team. The "pet peeve" thing in particular I catch myself in regularly, where I realize I didn't actually answer someone's question, instead mapping their meaning to my preferred topic. It's interesting how just listening is a skill. The Communications class I attended early in my career has been incredibly useful.
- abathur 3y ago
  Spending time in meetings with someone who insists on near-complete terminological clarity from everyone involved ~illuminates just how hard it is to communicate precisely and consistently. (In my case, this person is a CEO who's had past lives in engineering and finance, IIRC.) Setting aside the communication skills of specific engineers, various stakeholders can still have both wildly and subtly different senses of what they mean by common terms. For example, I find there's a fair amount of chaos surrounding very common terms like "product" and "content" that tend to mean different things in different systems and to people in different roles/departments.
  - EvanAnderson 3y ago
    I've interacted with government and insurance attorneys for various work gigs and some of them have impressed me with their insistence on clarity, too. I find it challenging and fun to communicate that way, albeit I've only ever done it in small 'doses'. (I'd guess it follows a dose-response relationship that veers off toward madness pretty quickly.) I get a similiar kind of kick from observing people communicating technically and precisely to complete a task-- launching rockets, doing performing surgery, controlling air traffic, etc.
    - onlypositive 3y ago
      Being precise (not vague) with your language is a learned skill. I started practicing is after reading 12 rules for life (it's one of them). It really makes a difference in everyday life. It prevents so many arguments with my wife: we agree on most things, when we don't it's usually because we disagree on the meaning of the words we're using. At work I have far less misunderstandings with coworkers, I understand expectations better and I don't get caught out by people using vague language to hide or gloss over major problems. Last month I was evaluating a contract and it took me a week to get a clear answer about terms. I suspect the people involved subconsciously knew that if they gave a clear answer the contract would be deemed unecessary and cancelled. It was.
hyperthesis 3y ago
"Communicating" is often used to mean "sending" information, but for communication to occur that information must be received. Yet, sending is easier than receiving, just as generating is easier than parsing.
- engineer_22 3y ago
  +1. To riff in this, I play competitive paintball (long story happy to elaborate) The most key skill in this sport of paintball is communication. Among the highest circles of ability communication is understood to mean: "receiving information and repeating it until confirmed by first party" A lot of wasted effort, needless mistakes, can be eliminated by confirming your understanding. Communication is not speaking, it is not listening, it is both at once.
  - EsportToys 3y ago
    So what you’re saying is, TCP is better than UDP?
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > Yet, sending is easier than receiving, just as generating is easier than parsing. Generating data is easier than generating useful data or easily comprehensible data; time spent generating good data can reduce time spent parsing it. In a communication context, I don't think sending is necessarily easier than receiving, I think it's that we've ignored the sender's responsibilities and put the obligation on the receiver. (This should be expected when organizations reward the quantity of sent information over the quality of sent information.)
7thaccount 3y ago
Can you give an example? What you're saying sounds interesting, but I don't understand. What kind of conflicts did they catch?

benterix 3y ago

That's very interesting! Would you be able to give an example without being too specific?

detourdog 3y ago
The former guy is pretty simple example. My partner refers to as being a squid, spraying ink and making a get away.
roughly 3y ago
It's been a long time and I don't remember specifics, but - we'd regularly be meeting with people from multiple different departments, and it'd be things like two people talking about testing, where it turns out one is talking about unit tests & CI and the other is talking about user testing, and you can go very far into that conversation using all the same words and meaning very different things.
majormajor 3y ago
A fairly simple one I've seen is "when will this be done?" - stakeholder means to ask when will it be in production; engineer hears "done" as in "my task is done" and answers about when the PR will land.
- squirtlebonflow 3y ago
  Ideally, merging the PR and having it be in production is a 30-60 minute automated CI process.

ambicapter 3y ago

I don't have the degree but I often notice (or think I notice) people not answering the question that was asked, reframing questions to answer the pet peeve they love to bring up, and people agreeing with each other while sounding like they're arguing with each other such that the conversation never ends. It annoys the hell out of me and it feels quasi-impossible for me to relay to others what is going on.

roughly 3y ago
Yeah, the violent agreement is usually a big tell. I've gotten much better at throwing the flag in meetings to have that conversation - "Hey, when you say X, do you mean <what I'm hearing>? Can you expand on that?". I think people are hesitant to do it out of fear of sounding stupid; I think I'm lucky enough to be far enough into my career that I don't really worry about that anymore. The "reframe the conversation to the thing I want to talk about" - man, that one's frustrating. I don't have a polite way to stop that one yet. I think some of it is just that we all pick up traumas and trigger words, and you've gotta recognize when someone said "banana" that doesn't actually mean "the thing I slipped on five years ago."
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > I don't have a polite way to stop that one yet. Selective doses of being impolite can be extremely effective, especially when you're otherwise very polite.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    "A gentleman is one who is never unintentionally rude." (One of several variants: <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/21/offense/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/21/offense/>)
- _jal 3y ago
  > The "reframe the conversation to the thing I want to talk about" - man, that one's frustrating. The most effective method I've found is making that person responsible for resolving whatever the issue is. Not always possible, but especially when it happens in group settings, some verbal judo can work even if you can't "officially" task them. (Make sure to memorialize that in an email afterwards, or it will probably retroactively never have happened.)

AceJohnny2 3y ago

I think it's really an indictment of (software?) engineer's communication skills. So much of us seem to come from a self-taught/introverted background and ignore the importance of clear communication required to work in a team. The "pet peeve" thing in particular I catch myself in regularly, where I realize I didn't actually answer someone's question, instead mapping their meaning to my preferred topic. It's interesting how just listening is a skill. The Communications class I attended early in my career has been incredibly useful.

abathur 3y ago
Spending time in meetings with someone who insists on near-complete terminological clarity from everyone involved ~illuminates just how hard it is to communicate precisely and consistently. (In my case, this person is a CEO who's had past lives in engineering and finance, IIRC.) Setting aside the communication skills of specific engineers, various stakeholders can still have both wildly and subtly different senses of what they mean by common terms. For example, I find there's a fair amount of chaos surrounding very common terms like "product" and "content" that tend to mean different things in different systems and to people in different roles/departments.
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  I've interacted with government and insurance attorneys for various work gigs and some of them have impressed me with their insistence on clarity, too. I find it challenging and fun to communicate that way, albeit I've only ever done it in small 'doses'. (I'd guess it follows a dose-response relationship that veers off toward madness pretty quickly.) I get a similiar kind of kick from observing people communicating technically and precisely to complete a task-- launching rockets, doing performing surgery, controlling air traffic, etc.
  - onlypositive 3y ago
    Being precise (not vague) with your language is a learned skill. I started practicing is after reading 12 rules for life (it's one of them). It really makes a difference in everyday life. It prevents so many arguments with my wife: we agree on most things, when we don't it's usually because we disagree on the meaning of the words we're using. At work I have far less misunderstandings with coworkers, I understand expectations better and I don't get caught out by people using vague language to hide or gloss over major problems. Last month I was evaluating a contract and it took me a week to get a clear answer about terms. I suspect the people involved subconsciously knew that if they gave a clear answer the contract would be deemed unecessary and cancelled. It was.

hyperthesis 3y ago

"Communicating" is often used to mean "sending" information, but for communication to occur that information must be received. Yet, sending is easier than receiving, just as generating is easier than parsing.

engineer_22 3y ago
+1. To riff in this, I play competitive paintball (long story happy to elaborate) The most key skill in this sport of paintball is communication. Among the highest circles of ability communication is understood to mean: "receiving information and repeating it until confirmed by first party" A lot of wasted effort, needless mistakes, can be eliminated by confirming your understanding. Communication is not speaking, it is not listening, it is both at once.
- EsportToys 3y ago
  So what you’re saying is, TCP is better than UDP?
brightlancer 3y ago
> Yet, sending is easier than receiving, just as generating is easier than parsing. Generating data is easier than generating useful data or easily comprehensible data; time spent generating good data can reduce time spent parsing it. In a communication context, I don't think sending is necessarily easier than receiving, I think it's that we've ignored the sender's responsibilities and put the obligation on the receiver. (This should be expected when organizations reward the quantity of sent information over the quality of sent information.)

7thaccount 3y ago

Can you give an example? What you're saying sounds interesting, but I don't understand. What kind of conflicts did they catch?