3 ms·

> In my experience, men, engineers, and especially engineers who are men tend to think of this as unnecessary fluff. They often decline to add these little soci

by OJFord 3y ago

> In my experience, men, engineers, and especially engineers who are men tend to think of this as unnecessary fluff. They often decline to add these little social niceties because to them, they sound inauthentic. I really hate to make such a clichéd and usually flawed argument, but can you imagine the reverse going down well? And if the male cohort (to continue this stereotype/generalisation/simplification) don't like it, it's only a 'social nicety' for the rest right? It's not at all obvious to me that that should be a goal. It's a lot easier to have your diverse group 'transmit' in the way they each prefer than it is to invert and have them use the others' preference - and it's not clear that that's better anyway? Especially if you're aiming for equity on the team, in which event it would be arbitrary, so why not go for easy. But really I think people are so diverse in personality and communication style that, especially on a people-you-actually-work-with sized team, gender is irrelevant even if you're correct about its link to exclamation marks, not least because there'll be so much else besides them. Something I have been doing semi-consciously is using question marks more, even though it was grammatically a statement. Sort of: I'm not ordering you to do this thing (I'm not in a position to anyway but maybe that's not clear) I'm just pretty confident in this, but you should feel able to correct or 'challenge' me. E.g. (code review context) I don't think we should wazzle the foobar here, because the splines aren't reticulated until L94. Vs. I don't think we should wazzle the foobar here, the splines aren't reticulated until L94?

Cushman 3y ago
That’s a good perspective to bring! One question, though: do you think it would make the rest of your comment materially worse communication if you added just one excessively positive but non-load-bearing sentence at the beginning? Maybe something like “That’s a good perspective to bring!” Maybe that’s not the way you communicate most sincerely, the way it is for me and others. Maybe I sound insincere to you right now, in which case, please do say so! But all else being equal, if you knew that that single change would make me and others materially more receptive to the rest of your comment, would you consider just… doing it anyways, out of pure self-interest? Just food for thought :)
- OJFord 3y ago
  Interesting! If we can be honest with one another though, your comment reads to me as not just insincere, but condescending. This might be cultural more than ..'genderal' - I was hearing echoes of 'thank you so much! You're so welcome!' familiar from even the most mundane interactions in the US. (It's quite jarring when you say 'thanks', for having been sold something in a shop say, expecting to leave it at that, to be told you're so welcome.) What I was intending to get at above was that if I have a duty to communicate with you as you'd like to be communicated with(!), then surely you would also want to reciprocate? If there are just these two 'communication personas' on the team, and they're evenly split, isn't it a lot of effort for nothing, aren't we better off using what makes most sense to us personally, since just as many others agree as disagree anyway?
  - ketzo 3y ago
    In principle, I agree -- no one is entitled to one communication style or another, and we should all respect each others' preferences. But the problem is that the flow between those personas is not bidirectional. Again, generalizing a lot here, but let's call them Cold and Warm personas. If a Cold receives a Warm message, generally speaking the worst they might feel is that the other person is being inauthentic. In my experience, what usually happens is that they just filter out all the niceties as extraneous and get on with their day. As time goes on, they won't necessarily change their communications or relationship with that person -- after all, they're still getting what they need from them. On the other hand, if a Warm receives a Cold message -- if they notice a pattern of receiving Cold messages -- they might take that as standoffishness or outright hostility. Even if it's not that negative, the Warm simply won't build as much trust as they otherwise might. They aren't getting what they need. So in this scenario, if everyone communicates as they naturally would, Colds don't notice anything wrong, while Warms feel like they're actively missing out on something important to them. I would also note that, again in my experience, most people who describe themselves as Cold communicators ("I don't want fluff, just communicate directly with me") actually really appreciate people who communicate with lots of social niceties. They respond to them more quickly, they're willing to explain misconceptions, and so on. They just don't think it's because of communication style.
fendy3002 3y ago
Emoticons are useful on more friendly settings, this is useful on both friendly and professional settings. Using both are good. If you want to make discussion feels like a friendly situation, using emoticon can emphasis the emotion.
- OJFord 3y ago
  It was the reasoning I objected to rather than the specific advice, and I may have misread/misunderstood but I thought it was tied just to exclamation marks anyway, not emoticons.
mikem170 3y ago
> It's a lot easier to have your diverse group 'transmit' in the way they each prefer Your post was thought provoking, something I appreciate. I wondered about the above statement. Are you saying that "receivers" should be expected to expend more effort than "transmitters"? Wouldn't it be optimal to try to meet in the middle, the sweet spot of easy-as-possible transmission and best-as-possible reception, both sides putting in some effort? My thinking is that communication is about a meeting of the minds, and anything either side can do to make that better helps.
sethammons 3y ago
Is that why some people overuse question marks? I really, really don't like it as it muddles the sentence. I mentally hear the inflection and it makes the person sound like a valley girl in my head.

by OJFord 3y ago

Cushman 3y ago

That’s a good perspective to bring! One question, though: do you think it would make the rest of your comment materially worse communication if you added just one excessively positive but non-load-bearing sentence at the beginning? Maybe something like “That’s a good perspective to bring!” Maybe that’s not the way you communicate most sincerely, the way it is for me and others. Maybe I sound insincere to you right now, in which case, please do say so! But all else being equal, if you knew that that single change would make me and others materially more receptive to the rest of your comment, would you consider just… doing it anyways, out of pure self-interest? Just food for thought :)

OJFord 3y ago
Interesting! If we can be honest with one another though, your comment reads to me as not just insincere, but condescending. This might be cultural more than ..'genderal' - I was hearing echoes of 'thank you so much! You're so welcome!' familiar from even the most mundane interactions in the US. (It's quite jarring when you say 'thanks', for having been sold something in a shop say, expecting to leave it at that, to be told you're so welcome.) What I was intending to get at above was that if I have a duty to communicate with you as you'd like to be communicated with(!), then surely you would also want to reciprocate? If there are just these two 'communication personas' on the team, and they're evenly split, isn't it a lot of effort for nothing, aren't we better off using what makes most sense to us personally, since just as many others agree as disagree anyway?
- ketzo 3y ago
  In principle, I agree -- no one is entitled to one communication style or another, and we should all respect each others' preferences. But the problem is that the flow between those personas is not bidirectional. Again, generalizing a lot here, but let's call them Cold and Warm personas. If a Cold receives a Warm message, generally speaking the worst they might feel is that the other person is being inauthentic. In my experience, what usually happens is that they just filter out all the niceties as extraneous and get on with their day. As time goes on, they won't necessarily change their communications or relationship with that person -- after all, they're still getting what they need from them. On the other hand, if a Warm receives a Cold message -- if they notice a pattern of receiving Cold messages -- they might take that as standoffishness or outright hostility. Even if it's not that negative, the Warm simply won't build as much trust as they otherwise might. They aren't getting what they need. So in this scenario, if everyone communicates as they naturally would, Colds don't notice anything wrong, while Warms feel like they're actively missing out on something important to them. I would also note that, again in my experience, most people who describe themselves as Cold communicators ("I don't want fluff, just communicate directly with me") actually really appreciate people who communicate with lots of social niceties. They respond to them more quickly, they're willing to explain misconceptions, and so on. They just don't think it's because of communication style.

fendy3002 3y ago

Emoticons are useful on more friendly settings, this is useful on both friendly and professional settings. Using both are good. If you want to make discussion feels like a friendly situation, using emoticon can emphasis the emotion.

OJFord 3y ago
It was the reasoning I objected to rather than the specific advice, and I may have misread/misunderstood but I thought it was tied just to exclamation marks anyway, not emoticons.

mikem170 3y ago

> It's a lot easier to have your diverse group 'transmit' in the way they each prefer Your post was thought provoking, something I appreciate. I wondered about the above statement. Are you saying that "receivers" should be expected to expend more effort than "transmitters"? Wouldn't it be optimal to try to meet in the middle, the sweet spot of easy-as-possible transmission and best-as-possible reception, both sides putting in some effort? My thinking is that communication is about a meeting of the minds, and anything either side can do to make that better helps.

sethammons 3y ago

Is that why some people overuse question marks? I really, really don't like it as it muddles the sentence. I mentally hear the inflection and it makes the person sound like a valley girl in my head.