3 ms·

This is pretty autistic. I kind of agree, being somewhat on the spectrum myself. But I think the world would be a considerably worse place if everyone abided by

This is pretty autistic. I kind of agree, being somewhat on the spectrum myself. But I think the world would be a considerably worse place if everyone abided by such rules.

dennis_jeeves2 7mo ago
>considerably worse place if everyone abided by such rules Those rules are not meant for everyone.
- d-us-vb 7mo ago
  The blog post is an open letter: the author wants everyone reading to follow the those rules.
  - Smaug123 7mo ago
    No. Crocker's rules are a request for people to act a certain way with respect to you, not wrt anyone else.
    - wk_end 7mo ago
      Crocker's rules themselves might be, but the essay is plainly contemptuous of people who aren't naturally disposed to follow them.
    - pibaker 7mo ago
      Should every incident report be written twice, once for normal people and once for the developmentally challenged then?
      - devmor 7mo ago
        How do you figure that the author is “developmentally challenged”? It sounds to me like they are able to handle their insecurities in a more mature and emotionally balanced way than most others.
        slopinthebag 7mo ago
        They wrote an entire article about how they hate when someone says they hope they had a nice weekend...
        devmor 7mo ago
        If that is what you took from the article I think you might have some language development issues yourself, friend.
        slopinthebag 7mo ago
        Be more direct with me. Don't say things like "If that is what you took" or "I think", you're just wasting my time.
      - Smaug123 7mo ago
        … I don't know what your incident reports look like, but if there's anywhere it's normal to optimise for communicative clarity rather than social wheel-greasing, it's an incident report!
- wk_end 7mo ago
  That's the theory, but there's absolutely normative statements in this piece. For example: > When you spend the first third of your message establishing that you are a nice person who means well, you are not being considerate but you are making the recipient wade through noise to get to signal. You are training them to skim your messages, which means that when you actually need them to read carefully, they might not. You are demonstrating that you do not trust the relationship enough to just say the thing and you are signaling a level of insecurity that undermines the technical credibility you are trying to establish. Nobody reads "hope you had a great weekend" and thinks better of the person who wrote it, they probably just being trained to take you less seriously in the future, or at worse, if they're evil loving of Crocker's [sic?] like myself, they just think about the couple of seconds of their life they will never get back. This very much sounds like the author believes that everyone who doesn't abide by these rules - not just him, not just people who've agreed to them, everyone - is deficient in some way. And it's not just a slip - this attitude is pervasive throughout the post.
  - kuboble 7mo ago
    Yes, exactly. I strongly prefer directness in technical communication at work. But the way the article author phrases his preferences as absolute truth rubs me the wrong way. Also if I worked with that person then after reading the article I would have perhaps the opposite reaction to the author's intentions. You still have to walk on eggshells to not offend him by including any bit of information that he might consider not relevant enough.
    - erikerikson 7mo ago
      I love this point as much as I hate it in practice. We all have different preferences and it is more helpful to be clear about ours rather than declare them "correct". The way we expect these differences to be navigated can become oppressive.
titanomachy 7mo ago
Some people have an attitude to work resembling “I spend most of my day here, so having enjoyable professional relationships with my coworkers is a major determinant of my quality of life.” And there are other people who have an attitude closer to “it’s my goal to deliver value efficiently and get paid. I’m not here to make friends. Any meaningful human interactions happen outside of work.” I don’t know enough about autism to know if that’s the right label for the second category. (I’ve had coworkers who identified as autistic who seemed to deeply care about whether I enjoyed working with them.) I think these two types of people can work together productively, but I don’t think they’ll ever totally understand each other.
alexjplant 7mo ago
The problem is that too many people couch pettiness and personal attacks in the philosophy of "being direct" or "telling it like it is". OP specifically mentions that criticism must be made on technical merits. The people that hand-wave this distinction away are absolutely insufferable.
junon 7mo ago
That's the point; you're supposed to agree on this level of directness beforehand, expressly and explicitly.
InsideOutSanta 7mo ago
Reading the article, I also feel that all of his examples are poor communication, both the "courteous" and the "direct" ones. You can communicate clearly and succinctly and also be considerate of the person you're talking to.

This is pretty autistic. I kind of agree, being somewhat on the spectrum myself. But I think the world would be a considerably worse place if everyone abided by such rules.

dennis_jeeves2 7mo ago

>considerably worse place if everyone abided by such rules Those rules are not meant for everyone.

d-us-vb 7mo ago
The blog post is an open letter: the author wants everyone reading to follow the those rules.
- Smaug123 7mo ago
  No. Crocker's rules are a request for people to act a certain way with respect to you, not wrt anyone else.
  - wk_end 7mo ago
    Crocker's rules themselves might be, but the essay is plainly contemptuous of people who aren't naturally disposed to follow them.
  - pibaker 7mo ago
    Should every incident report be written twice, once for normal people and once for the developmentally challenged then?
    - devmor 7mo ago
      How do you figure that the author is “developmentally challenged”? It sounds to me like they are able to handle their insecurities in a more mature and emotionally balanced way than most others.
      - slopinthebag 7mo ago
        They wrote an entire article about how they hate when someone says they hope they had a nice weekend...
        devmor 7mo ago
        If that is what you took from the article I think you might have some language development issues yourself, friend.
        slopinthebag 7mo ago
        Be more direct with me. Don't say things like "If that is what you took" or "I think", you're just wasting my time.
    - Smaug123 7mo ago
      … I don't know what your incident reports look like, but if there's anywhere it's normal to optimise for communicative clarity rather than social wheel-greasing, it's an incident report!
wk_end 7mo ago
That's the theory, but there's absolutely normative statements in this piece. For example: > When you spend the first third of your message establishing that you are a nice person who means well, you are not being considerate but you are making the recipient wade through noise to get to signal. You are training them to skim your messages, which means that when you actually need them to read carefully, they might not. You are demonstrating that you do not trust the relationship enough to just say the thing and you are signaling a level of insecurity that undermines the technical credibility you are trying to establish. Nobody reads "hope you had a great weekend" and thinks better of the person who wrote it, they probably just being trained to take you less seriously in the future, or at worse, if they're evil loving of Crocker's [sic?] like myself, they just think about the couple of seconds of their life they will never get back. This very much sounds like the author believes that everyone who doesn't abide by these rules - not just him, not just people who've agreed to them, everyone - is deficient in some way. And it's not just a slip - this attitude is pervasive throughout the post.
- kuboble 7mo ago
  Yes, exactly. I strongly prefer directness in technical communication at work. But the way the article author phrases his preferences as absolute truth rubs me the wrong way. Also if I worked with that person then after reading the article I would have perhaps the opposite reaction to the author's intentions. You still have to walk on eggshells to not offend him by including any bit of information that he might consider not relevant enough.
  - erikerikson 7mo ago
    I love this point as much as I hate it in practice. We all have different preferences and it is more helpful to be clear about ours rather than declare them "correct". The way we expect these differences to be navigated can become oppressive.

titanomachy 7mo ago

Some people have an attitude to work resembling “I spend most of my day here, so having enjoyable professional relationships with my coworkers is a major determinant of my quality of life.” And there are other people who have an attitude closer to “it’s my goal to deliver value efficiently and get paid. I’m not here to make friends. Any meaningful human interactions happen outside of work.” I don’t know enough about autism to know if that’s the right label for the second category. (I’ve had coworkers who identified as autistic who seemed to deeply care about whether I enjoyed working with them.) I think these two types of people can work together productively, but I don’t think they’ll ever totally understand each other.

alexjplant 7mo ago

The problem is that too many people couch pettiness and personal attacks in the philosophy of "being direct" or "telling it like it is". OP specifically mentions that criticism must be made on technical merits. The people that hand-wave this distinction away are absolutely insufferable.

junon 7mo ago

That's the point; you're supposed to agree on this level of directness beforehand, expressly and explicitly.

InsideOutSanta 7mo ago

Reading the article, I also feel that all of his examples are poor communication, both the "courteous" and the "direct" ones. You can communicate clearly and succinctly and also be considerate of the person you're talking to.