14 ms·

You're assuming sarcasm rather than a "whoa, seriously?" response, which given your social circle is I think fairly unusual isn't accusing you of lying so much

• btilly 14y ago
  You're assuming sarcasm rather than a "whoa, seriously?" response, which given your social circle is I think fairly unusual isn't accusing you of lying so much as asking if he read it correctly. I certainly did that. Of course, assuming bad faith and then using his age as an argument as to why your knee jerk reaction was ok apparently is also an option - but not up to your usual standard. I think perhaps the 'emotional minefield' part is crucial here, and next time you should step away for that hour before replying at all. In this case stepping away for an hour would not have helped. Because with a strong emotional frame in my head, I had no path from there to seeing any other reaction. It was going to take someone else, in this case you, to show me another possible way to frame it. I'll need to take time to digest that fact before I try to figure out how to avoid responding that way in the future. Thank you for your helpful response. I'm sorry that I had the reaction that I did. These things happen with humans. Some days more easily than others. Some humans more easily than others. PS: Ironically, knowing a few successful startup founders is one of the most normal things about my social circle.
  • tptacek 14y ago
    Chalk it up to message boards and at least be happy he didn't suggest you sell your kids to fund the company. :) LATE EDIT WAIT WAIT I CALL THAT BUSINESS MODEL FOR YC'S13
    • codewright 14y ago
      I'm making baby back ribs on the BBQ next weekend, so I think I'd be a customer of this company. I look forward to your application to YC regarding this modest proposal with great interest.
  • mst 14y ago
    > Thank you for your helpful response. You're welcome, that was what I was hoping for. > I'm sorry that I had the reaction that I did. Reacted emotionally because of care for your family and then did your best to be more logical about it when given a chance to do so? I'm not sorry, and I'd anticipate their not being sorry either. (a slightly gratuitous additional reframing perhaps, but one I think deserves to be given voice)
• klibertp 14y ago
  > You're assuming sarcasm rather than a "whoa, seriously?" response There is a difference between "whoa, seriously?" and "whoa, seriously? if that's so, then why aren't you swimming in money?". The former is ok, the latter is generally given to people who tell you that they speak with Elvis or they can travel freely to the future and back.
  • btilly 14y ago
    You are correct, and this is one reason why it was difficult for me to see a better frame. Of course once I am aware that a better frame exists, I should give the benefit of the doubt by assuming that one until proven otherwise. (Even if I suspect it is not what was truly going on.)
    • mst 14y ago
      Given the answer to "whoa, seriously?" is "yes" in your case, a good faith answer to a bad faith question is also the most effective smackdown; I find arranging things such to be useful where I have such suspicions :)
    • klibertp 14y ago
      I can only say I admire your determination here. In this specific case I have no or very little doubt that your suspicion is correct, especially in the light of later edits above. I think that I personally wouldn't be able to reframe the situation and change my way of thinking just because I was shown that it is possible. I suspect I wouldn't even want to, and it's not a noble thing to do, and I know this, but I think I still wouldn't be able to stop. I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed that you were able to overcome these emotions, really, honestly impressed.