3 ms·

I think this approach is mainly for more complex ideas. To expand on your example, it might be something more like "our 99th percentile page loads are slow due

I think this approach is mainly for more complex ideas. To expand on your example, it might be something more like "our 99th percentile page loads are slow due to high widget view hydration latency. We can reduce the cost of hydration by caching greeble status in the the widget table. We should add a nullable field and then create a migration." To which, the reply might be roughly the same but ending with "We should add a nullable field to the greeble table and then create a migration." If the proposer is paying attention, they might say "no no, the new field has to go in the widget table." The goal isn't to catch someone out, but to make doubly sure you've reached a shared understanding.

stavros 3y ago
Hmm, that makes more sense, but I still don't see how these factual errors could go uncorrected. I can see how this might be a measure of attention, but I don't understand the "disprove my assumptions" aspect of it.
- Retr0id 3y ago
  If you repeat what you think is a 100% correct version of the information, and the other person nods along, you can't be very sure whether they're just passively agreeing because they zoned out or if you were actually correct. It's a bit like writing unit tests that fail, before you implement the change that'll make them pass.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    It seems you also agree with stavros that this strategy seems more like a test of attention, then?
    - Kinrany 3y ago
      It does test attention, but that is not its purpose.
      - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        My comment was about Retr0id's, for which I cannot find any interpretation that isn't describing the purpose as being a test of attention. If you have a different view, can you elaborate?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- catapart 3y ago
  "okay, so you mean that the profile data is being sent, but something is messing up in our endpoint handle, right?" "No, it looks more like it's a routing issue. The endpoint never gets hit when the client sends data, so we're trying to troubleshoot where the disconnect happens" Not trying to be snarky; just had a real world example handy because my entire team uses this type of messaging. Usually starts with a "okay, just trying to level set...", or "just so I know I'm on the same page". In our experience, this type of communication has helped minimize instances of completely mismatching on task expectations
  - stavros 3y ago
    Hmm, I see, thanks. This sounds pretty everyday to me, but I guess that's probably just because we already do this. Things like "you're saying <x>" and "OK, summarize my points back to me so I know we're aligned".
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    Whenever I'm saying "just so I know I'm on the same page", I communicate my best understanding of the correct interpretation of my colleague's message. I would never deliberately introduce a misinterpretation to see if it gets corrected. Misinterpretations happen often enough naturally already, in both directions, and my goal is generally to minimize them.
    - catapart 3y ago
      Right on. It's a fine strategy. An alternative one is to pick your second best guess (usually in an upward inflecting question-voice; semi incredulously), to see if this thing you think isn't the right idea gets approval. Then, you can ask your first best guess because now just asking will highlight the distinction, which may make the missing piece more apparent to both parties. Really no wrong answer, so long as all parties are earnestly working towards the solution. The nice part about this strategy is it lets your 'most correct' answer actually be multiple answers that you whittle down, rather than making the judgement calls, yourself, on what the other person most probably means to what they least probably mean. You remove an assumption and lead with your biggest concern, even if that seems like a crazy suggestion. Once you confirm that it is crazy, you're closer to the target. And if the 'crazy' thing was right, then you get to skip a lot of the steps between your initial best understanding and the correct understanding.

stavros 3y ago

Hmm, that makes more sense, but I still don't see how these factual errors could go uncorrected. I can see how this might be a measure of attention, but I don't understand the "disprove my assumptions" aspect of it.

Retr0id 3y ago
If you repeat what you think is a 100% correct version of the information, and the other person nods along, you can't be very sure whether they're just passively agreeing because they zoned out or if you were actually correct. It's a bit like writing unit tests that fail, before you implement the change that'll make them pass.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  It seems you also agree with stavros that this strategy seems more like a test of attention, then?
  - Kinrany 3y ago
    It does test attention, but that is not its purpose.
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      My comment was about Retr0id's, for which I cannot find any interpretation that isn't describing the purpose as being a test of attention. If you have a different view, can you elaborate?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
catapart 3y ago
"okay, so you mean that the profile data is being sent, but something is messing up in our endpoint handle, right?" "No, it looks more like it's a routing issue. The endpoint never gets hit when the client sends data, so we're trying to troubleshoot where the disconnect happens" Not trying to be snarky; just had a real world example handy because my entire team uses this type of messaging. Usually starts with a "okay, just trying to level set...", or "just so I know I'm on the same page". In our experience, this type of communication has helped minimize instances of completely mismatching on task expectations
- stavros 3y ago
  Hmm, I see, thanks. This sounds pretty everyday to me, but I guess that's probably just because we already do this. Things like "you're saying <x>" and "OK, summarize my points back to me so I know we're aligned".
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Whenever I'm saying "just so I know I'm on the same page", I communicate my best understanding of the correct interpretation of my colleague's message. I would never deliberately introduce a misinterpretation to see if it gets corrected. Misinterpretations happen often enough naturally already, in both directions, and my goal is generally to minimize them.
  - catapart 3y ago
    Right on. It's a fine strategy. An alternative one is to pick your second best guess (usually in an upward inflecting question-voice; semi incredulously), to see if this thing you think isn't the right idea gets approval. Then, you can ask your first best guess because now just asking will highlight the distinction, which may make the missing piece more apparent to both parties. Really no wrong answer, so long as all parties are earnestly working towards the solution. The nice part about this strategy is it lets your 'most correct' answer actually be multiple answers that you whittle down, rather than making the judgement calls, yourself, on what the other person most probably means to what they least probably mean. You remove an assumption and lead with your biggest concern, even if that seems like a crazy suggestion. Once you confirm that it is crazy, you're closer to the target. And if the 'crazy' thing was right, then you get to skip a lot of the steps between your initial best understanding and the correct understanding.