5 ms·

What happened with the bull?! The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience hanging. The interesting bits have all been omitted. "James bond surviv

What happened with the bull?! The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience hanging. The interesting bits have all been omitted. "James bond survived, foiled the villain's plot, and got the girl" is not a movie. I would hate to have to work or associate with someone who communicated like this.

throwaway201606 3y ago
Jumping in here since this has floated to to the top and I responded to a similar comment below. Felt strongly enough about this that I actually took the time up write an actual literal paper letter (or maybe an email, don't remember... but paper letter , stamp, walk 20 miles uphill to post office works better for dramatic effect ) back in 2004 to ask the question. The question was asked in the magazine and the answer by Mr. Kapur was published in the magazine.... but my google-fu cannot find the answer he had posted back then... Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer so the cliffhanger continues. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa...
- throwaway201606 3y ago
  OK, finally found the key words that let Google point me to the comment with Mr. Kapur's response giving a fuller explanation of what happened. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.amp.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.a...
  - faitswulff 3y ago
    It seems the author’s entire philosophy of communication is at odds with mine. Would it hurt to communicate what happened? No, it adds important detail. Especially on a phone call, there’s much more bandwidth for explaining “I’m ok” without explicitly saying it through tone of voice. As a parent, the bull being dead is entirely irrelevant. So, “I hit a bull on the way home but I’m fine” would have done the trick without any annoying cliffhangers. Similarly for the author’s lack of explanation of what happened.
    - Cort3z 3y ago
      I disagree. “I’m fine, but I hit a bull on my way back home” is infinitely better because at no point is there any uncertainty about the condition of the person.
      - faitswulff 3y ago
        I don't think you're disagreeing to the extent that you think you are because the original post says "I'm ok, the bull is dead" like some sort of riddle. Either way, the delivery on the phone is not limited to the order of the clauses, it's also in the tone of voice. Saying "I hit a bull" while sobbing conveys something entirely different than calmly stating "I hit a bull." Over the phone the entirety of the message can be heard and the order matters less.
      - gardenhedge 3y ago
        If you improve your listening skills, it's the same
maweaver 3y ago
I think it's pretty clear from context what happened... his son was in a car accident where he hit a bull with the car, the bull died, the car was damaged, and the son is fine. Yeah it's not a James Bond movie plot but I think that's kind of his point. Not every event needs to have an action-packed narrative. Sometimes things happen and we need to convey the state of things in a way that avoids causing a strong emotional action, because that would distract from dealing with the situation. It's pretty much the opposite of a movie, where the the goal (generally) is to provoke an emotional reaction, rather than convey information.
ncallaway 3y ago
Isn’t the exact point that some things are… not a movie. I don’t think the author is proposing all communication should be in this style. When you’re telling a story, sure, it’s fine to keep people in suspense. But is suspense a tool you should use to communicate to a loved one when you’ve been in an accident? Some work communications are more like the former and some are more like the latter. But most of us default to the narrative/suspenseful style 95% of the time. But we should be more deliberate, and in some settings use the inverted pyramid structure to eliminate suspense from our communication.
- hinkley 3y ago
  How many romcoms take 90 minutes to say “boys are dumb”?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience hanging. Kind of. I thought the original advice from the author's boss at the top of the article (order of "punchline" with no adjectives, then current status, then next steps, then explanation) is great advice. The problem with the author's telling of his son's story is he basically completely left out step 4, the explanation. I think the value in the original advice is not that any of the steps is more important than the other, but doing them in that order ensures you don't try to sugarcoat or obfuscate the actual thing that happened: it forces the team to clearly acknowledge the facts without bias. But yeah, just telling the story without explanation is missing a big part of the detail to actually understand what happened.

throwaway201606 3y ago

Jumping in here since this has floated to to the top and I responded to a similar comment below. Felt strongly enough about this that I actually took the time up write an actual literal paper letter (or maybe an email, don't remember... but paper letter , stamp, walk 20 miles uphill to post office works better for dramatic effect ) back in 2004 to ask the question. The question was asked in the magazine and the answer by Mr. Kapur was published in the magazine.... but my google-fu cannot find the answer he had posted back then... Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer so the cliffhanger continues. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa...

throwaway201606 3y ago
OK, finally found the key words that let Google point me to the comment with Mr. Kapur's response giving a fuller explanation of what happened. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.amp.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.a...
- faitswulff 3y ago
  It seems the author’s entire philosophy of communication is at odds with mine. Would it hurt to communicate what happened? No, it adds important detail. Especially on a phone call, there’s much more bandwidth for explaining “I’m ok” without explicitly saying it through tone of voice. As a parent, the bull being dead is entirely irrelevant. So, “I hit a bull on the way home but I’m fine” would have done the trick without any annoying cliffhangers. Similarly for the author’s lack of explanation of what happened.
  - Cort3z 3y ago
    I disagree. “I’m fine, but I hit a bull on my way back home” is infinitely better because at no point is there any uncertainty about the condition of the person.
    - faitswulff 3y ago
      I don't think you're disagreeing to the extent that you think you are because the original post says "I'm ok, the bull is dead" like some sort of riddle. Either way, the delivery on the phone is not limited to the order of the clauses, it's also in the tone of voice. Saying "I hit a bull" while sobbing conveys something entirely different than calmly stating "I hit a bull." Over the phone the entirety of the message can be heard and the order matters less.
    - gardenhedge 3y ago
      If you improve your listening skills, it's the same

maweaver 3y ago

I think it's pretty clear from context what happened... his son was in a car accident where he hit a bull with the car, the bull died, the car was damaged, and the son is fine. Yeah it's not a James Bond movie plot but I think that's kind of his point. Not every event needs to have an action-packed narrative. Sometimes things happen and we need to convey the state of things in a way that avoids causing a strong emotional action, because that would distract from dealing with the situation. It's pretty much the opposite of a movie, where the the goal (generally) is to provoke an emotional reaction, rather than convey information.

ncallaway 3y ago

Isn’t the exact point that some things are… not a movie. I don’t think the author is proposing all communication should be in this style. When you’re telling a story, sure, it’s fine to keep people in suspense. But is suspense a tool you should use to communicate to a loved one when you’ve been in an accident? Some work communications are more like the former and some are more like the latter. But most of us default to the narrative/suspenseful style 95% of the time. But we should be more deliberate, and in some settings use the inverted pyramid structure to eliminate suspense from our communication.

hinkley 3y ago
How many romcoms take 90 minutes to say “boys are dumb”?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience hanging. Kind of. I thought the original advice from the author's boss at the top of the article (order of "punchline" with no adjectives, then current status, then next steps, then explanation) is great advice. The problem with the author's telling of his son's story is he basically completely left out step 4, the explanation. I think the value in the original advice is not that any of the steps is more important than the other, but doing them in that order ensures you don't try to sugarcoat or obfuscate the actual thing that happened: it forces the team to clearly acknowledge the facts without bias. But yeah, just telling the story without explanation is missing a big part of the detail to actually understand what happened.