4 ms·

A New Oral Culture

26 points by zdw 2y ago

ggm 2y ago
I am very fond of Oblomov. Always considered him a role model, in hypothesis. I'll get around to emulating him one day. I suspect Günter Grass was a fan too. Meyn the trumpeter in "the tin drum" and his lifestyle.
- aa-jv 2y ago
  As a fan of Oblomov, have you tuned into Spike Milligan? His life work has a lot of relevance to the notion of oral culture inasmuch as Spike was a superlative orator and racounteur, and I think - if you don't know of Spikes' relationship with Oblomov - you're in for a treat ... ;) There are different ends of the 'reproducibility spectrum' that Spike will take you to, though ..
  - ggm 2y ago
    Part of my childhood. The war biography has it's moments. The battle to stay in bed the longest indeed.
wiseowise 2y ago
This deeply resonates with me. You can help fight it back. Next time someone sends you a message with a vague request - ask for a ticket with proper description. Next time someone suggests groundbreaking idea - ask for RFC with details. Next alignment meeting with 10 people where only one or two are talking - ask whether email will suffice.
keiferski 2y ago
One reason for this shift to oral communication, I think, is that people are less intrinsically willing to do "little things" in writing that make communication easier and less opaque (or more legible, in the post's terminology.) The example I'm thinking of from my own experience is the "roger" or "message received" confirmation, or lack thereof. In email, Slack, and other writing-first communication channels, the default behavior is not to confirm that you've received a message. In emails, because it's unclear if replying "got it/okay/received" is socially acceptable – or if it isn't, and just adding an unnecessary message to their busy inbox. Slack sort of solves this with the reactions, but even then, enforcing this across all company communication channels feels heavy handed. Compare this to a quick Zoom call / Slack hangout, where I can tell you something and immediately know that you've heard me. I still might need to remind you later, but that's a reminder, not a check to see if you got the message in the first place.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  I'm curious about how the actual discussions go. I'm with you in that people default to no reaction (in writing or oral), except when there is an explicit request. In practice there's a ton of Slack messages I write that have no reaction whatsoever, but if they're in a thread with new messages coming after, we can all assume people commenting have read what was said before. That's the basic structure of a conversation. Announcements kind of messages, sent in isolation, are more tricky. But then, if it matters to have a reaction, we get used to explicitely ask for it IMHO (e.g. some event needs to be acknowledged), and it's kinda the same in a real time meeting: you'll also make sure people are listening and understood your announcement, and not doing something else on the side.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    ...if they're in a thread with new messages coming after, we can all assume people commenting have read what was said before... IME this actually isn't always the case, especially if it's a busy channel. And so it ends up being more effective to just book a 15 minute Zoom call with someone if you need to actually get their attention, rather than put a message in a channel and/or privately.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      That sounds like the kind of reminder we'd do in a weekly team meeting or project review, but you might have different use cases in your mind. In general the cost of having a separate meeting is kinda high (apart from booking the spot, it generally also means an agenda and a transcript)
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  That's why I love emoji reactions so much. You can send acknowledgment without spamming the thread with acknowledgment messages.
- joseda-hg 2y ago
  Emails in particular are annoying for read receipts, at least on outlook, read confirmations are their own mail, and don't pool so anytime you have to send something with more than a few recipients you're setting yourself to get spammed randomly whenever they feel like it and since it's opt in per mail, you can't actually trust it
yapyap 2y ago
It got hugged to death
- kelseydh 2y ago
  https://archive.md/PvQRi https://archive.md/PvQRi
makeitdouble 2y ago
Working in a almost full-remote org, I resonate with the foggy aspect. On transcripts and record keeping, I feel most remote orgs keep pretty good transcripts of their meetings and people understand why it matters and play by the rules. Then, requests to have oral conversations outside of scheduled meetings usually means something derailed. Either they're about to say something that can't be left in writing, or they intend to have a discussion that they shouldn't be having in the first place (they'll ask for something I'll probably have to refuse). Or things got awry enough that speed matters over tracability and transparency, and we're basically in red alert. Right now I think "can we have a quick call" in a single message without any other context is probably the most dreadful thing to say to someone at work.
- dartos 2y ago
  That’s what my VP messaged me with right before laying me off with 0 notice.
Apreche 2y ago
I’ve been wondering for awhile, how much does lack of typing proficiency contribute to this problem? There is one co-worker who always wants to huddle if any Slack thread gets busy. In a complete separate conversation they told me that they are a hunt and peck typist. This person is an incredible engineer. I put 2 and 2 together. In Slack conversations I am absolutely burying them in paragraphs of text because I can type quite fast. They can’t keep up. I’m sure there are also other factors like language proficiency, written communications skills, etc. But I think the lack of typing proficiency may pushing people away from written communication. Outside of the workplace, people who do not even have keyboards (phone/tablet only) may be contributing less to text chat conversations than others. They are also the people who only use voice messages.
- orev 2y ago
  I’m not sure that you’re putting the correct 2 and 2 together. To be frank, if you’re “absolutely burying them in paragraphs of text”, it seems like you’re the problem in that situation. Doing that is the equivalent of going into a meeting and using your loudest voice to monologue everything you have to say without giving anyone else a chance to speak. It’s a filibuster tactic that results in forcing everyone else to shut up. Communication is not a competition to see who can win by speaking the fastest and loudest. I get your point that lack of typing ability probably makes some people avoid text chat, but in your example, switching to a voice chat is definitely the right approach to cut off that behavior.
- arp242 2y ago
  How can you work with computers all day and be a hunt and peck typist? I'm not judging, I just don't understand. Is this some sort of medical condition?
  - hoseja 2y ago
    Not quite to the level of hunt-and-pecking but unless you are typing up reams of boilerplate, typing speed really isn't a bottleneck to intelectual work with a computer.
hoseja 2y ago
It would be great to have a machine of loving grace summarizing and organizing all the hitherto ephemeral information, at least within an organization.
squigz 2y ago
> This chit-chat async glimmer of multiple conversations, hemming and hahing and trying so hard to implement ephemerality. > It’s so flammable, right now, too. We talk and then suddenly misunderstand, and the misunderstandings jump from conversation to conversation faster than we can track. No-one is on the same page, because there are no pages — just scrolling and backscrolls. Is the author's final point that we might use LLMs to help deal with these issues? Perhaps so, but I think instead of asking how to simply cope with it, we might ask ourselves what the underlying reasons are and how to deal with them. I do agree with them though, in that we often subject ourselves to too much noise, and not enough signal (meaningful, productive conversations and relationships) but what would introducing LLMs really do here? Allow us to more efficiently consume noise, and maybe respond more verbosely to the signal, just resulting in more noise? On the other hand, trying to, for example, build communities where people can develop meaningful connections with people, have substantive conversations, and grow with each other, might produce better results.
fabiofzero 2y ago
The website isn't loading for me, so I guess I'll have to ask someone to read it orally and tell me what it's about.

26 points by zdw 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

I am very fond of Oblomov. Always considered him a role model, in hypothesis. I'll get around to emulating him one day. I suspect Günter Grass was a fan too. Meyn the trumpeter in "the tin drum" and his lifestyle.

aa-jv 2y ago
As a fan of Oblomov, have you tuned into Spike Milligan? His life work has a lot of relevance to the notion of oral culture inasmuch as Spike was a superlative orator and racounteur, and I think - if you don't know of Spikes' relationship with Oblomov - you're in for a treat ... ;) There are different ends of the 'reproducibility spectrum' that Spike will take you to, though ..
- ggm 2y ago
  Part of my childhood. The war biography has it's moments. The battle to stay in bed the longest indeed.

wiseowise 2y ago

This deeply resonates with me. You can help fight it back. Next time someone sends you a message with a vague request - ask for a ticket with proper description. Next time someone suggests groundbreaking idea - ask for RFC with details. Next alignment meeting with 10 people where only one or two are talking - ask whether email will suffice.

keiferski 2y ago

One reason for this shift to oral communication, I think, is that people are less intrinsically willing to do "little things" in writing that make communication easier and less opaque (or more legible, in the post's terminology.) The example I'm thinking of from my own experience is the "roger" or "message received" confirmation, or lack thereof. In email, Slack, and other writing-first communication channels, the default behavior is not to confirm that you've received a message. In emails, because it's unclear if replying "got it/okay/received" is socially acceptable – or if it isn't, and just adding an unnecessary message to their busy inbox. Slack sort of solves this with the reactions, but even then, enforcing this across all company communication channels feels heavy handed. Compare this to a quick Zoom call / Slack hangout, where I can tell you something and immediately know that you've heard me. I still might need to remind you later, but that's a reminder, not a check to see if you got the message in the first place.

makeitdouble 2y ago
I'm curious about how the actual discussions go. I'm with you in that people default to no reaction (in writing or oral), except when there is an explicit request. In practice there's a ton of Slack messages I write that have no reaction whatsoever, but if they're in a thread with new messages coming after, we can all assume people commenting have read what was said before. That's the basic structure of a conversation. Announcements kind of messages, sent in isolation, are more tricky. But then, if it matters to have a reaction, we get used to explicitely ask for it IMHO (e.g. some event needs to be acknowledged), and it's kinda the same in a real time meeting: you'll also make sure people are listening and understood your announcement, and not doing something else on the side.
- keiferski 2y ago
  ...if they're in a thread with new messages coming after, we can all assume people commenting have read what was said before... IME this actually isn't always the case, especially if it's a busy channel. And so it ends up being more effective to just book a 15 minute Zoom call with someone if you need to actually get their attention, rather than put a message in a channel and/or privately.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    That sounds like the kind of reminder we'd do in a weekly team meeting or project review, but you might have different use cases in your mind. In general the cost of having a separate meeting is kinda high (apart from booking the spot, it generally also means an agenda and a transcript)
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
That's why I love emoji reactions so much. You can send acknowledgment without spamming the thread with acknowledgment messages.
joseda-hg 2y ago
Emails in particular are annoying for read receipts, at least on outlook, read confirmations are their own mail, and don't pool so anytime you have to send something with more than a few recipients you're setting yourself to get spammed randomly whenever they feel like it and since it's opt in per mail, you can't actually trust it

yapyap 2y ago

It got hugged to death

kelseydh 2y ago
https://archive.md/PvQRi https://archive.md/PvQRi

makeitdouble 2y ago

Working in a almost full-remote org, I resonate with the foggy aspect. On transcripts and record keeping, I feel most remote orgs keep pretty good transcripts of their meetings and people understand why it matters and play by the rules. Then, requests to have oral conversations outside of scheduled meetings usually means something derailed. Either they're about to say something that can't be left in writing, or they intend to have a discussion that they shouldn't be having in the first place (they'll ask for something I'll probably have to refuse). Or things got awry enough that speed matters over tracability and transparency, and we're basically in red alert. Right now I think "can we have a quick call" in a single message without any other context is probably the most dreadful thing to say to someone at work.

dartos 2y ago
That’s what my VP messaged me with right before laying me off with 0 notice.

Apreche 2y ago

I’ve been wondering for awhile, how much does lack of typing proficiency contribute to this problem? There is one co-worker who always wants to huddle if any Slack thread gets busy. In a complete separate conversation they told me that they are a hunt and peck typist. This person is an incredible engineer. I put 2 and 2 together. In Slack conversations I am absolutely burying them in paragraphs of text because I can type quite fast. They can’t keep up. I’m sure there are also other factors like language proficiency, written communications skills, etc. But I think the lack of typing proficiency may pushing people away from written communication. Outside of the workplace, people who do not even have keyboards (phone/tablet only) may be contributing less to text chat conversations than others. They are also the people who only use voice messages.

orev 2y ago
I’m not sure that you’re putting the correct 2 and 2 together. To be frank, if you’re “absolutely burying them in paragraphs of text”, it seems like you’re the problem in that situation. Doing that is the equivalent of going into a meeting and using your loudest voice to monologue everything you have to say without giving anyone else a chance to speak. It’s a filibuster tactic that results in forcing everyone else to shut up. Communication is not a competition to see who can win by speaking the fastest and loudest. I get your point that lack of typing ability probably makes some people avoid text chat, but in your example, switching to a voice chat is definitely the right approach to cut off that behavior.
arp242 2y ago
How can you work with computers all day and be a hunt and peck typist? I'm not judging, I just don't understand. Is this some sort of medical condition?
- hoseja 2y ago
  Not quite to the level of hunt-and-pecking but unless you are typing up reams of boilerplate, typing speed really isn't a bottleneck to intelectual work with a computer.

hoseja 2y ago

It would be great to have a machine of loving grace summarizing and organizing all the hitherto ephemeral information, at least within an organization.

squigz 2y ago

> This chit-chat async glimmer of multiple conversations, hemming and hahing and trying so hard to implement ephemerality. > It’s so flammable, right now, too. We talk and then suddenly misunderstand, and the misunderstandings jump from conversation to conversation faster than we can track. No-one is on the same page, because there are no pages — just scrolling and backscrolls. Is the author's final point that we might use LLMs to help deal with these issues? Perhaps so, but I think instead of asking how to simply cope with it, we might ask ourselves what the underlying reasons are and how to deal with them. I do agree with them though, in that we often subject ourselves to too much noise, and not enough signal (meaningful, productive conversations and relationships) but what would introducing LLMs really do here? Allow us to more efficiently consume noise, and maybe respond more verbosely to the signal, just resulting in more noise? On the other hand, trying to, for example, build communities where people can develop meaningful connections with people, have substantive conversations, and grow with each other, might produce better results.

fabiofzero 2y ago

The website isn't loading for me, so I guess I'll have to ask someone to read it orally and tell me what it's about.