7 ms·
Annnnnnd this is why geeks have a reputation for social awkwardness.
by andrewvc 14y ago
Annnnnnd this is why geeks have a reputation for social awkwardness.
- TeMPOraL 14y agoThis is not social awkwardness. This is social efficiency.
- lwat 14y agoYou say efficient, we say awkward.
- reinhardt 14y agoAwkward would be to just go ahead and start replying in one word without trying to establish a netiquette protocol.
- andrewvc 14y agoCommunication is about consensus. You can contend that you're right all day long, but so long as you put others off you'll be wrong.
- lowboy 14y agoHow is communication about consensus? You can put others off and still communicate "correctly".
- andrewflnr 14y agoProtocols are about consensus, almost by definition. In computer protocols, we get the consensus before we start using the protocol. In social interactions, we're molding the protocol as we use it. As for communicating "correctly", it's a matter of (mostly) definitions and circumstances whether putting people off and "correct" communication are consistent. You may have transmitted the correct information to someone's brain, but not annoying people is usually an important goal, sometimes even more important than that of transmitting the information. Maintaining someone's good opinion of you might outweigh the importance of whatever info you want to tell them.
- lowboy 14y agoYou can't communicate effectively without a protocol/language/etc, but communicating is not about consensus; it's about communicating ideas/thoughts/etc. Consensus is a part of communication, not its aim. I agree that not offending/annoying someone is beneficial and might outweigh the message you have to communicate, but that isn't relevant to discussion about the efficiency of the protocol. If in spite of brusqueness, your point comes across, then it's effective communication.
- mpyne 14y agoThink of the "consensus" as the embedded state within a communication. In a feudal society a lord might send a written missive to the King or Queen, and if they did it would contain a ton of horribly polite boilerplate, because the consensus of the time on both sides was that anything less was disrespectful. It is very possible that your lack of words in a given communication sends a point across that you never intended, even if the point you had in mind also made it across.
- lowboy 14y agoSure, but that doesn't speak to my point that consensus is a component of communication, not its primary aim.
- sliverstorm 14y agoIn computer protocols, we get the consensus before we start using the protocol. VSRP analogue in computing: Unannounced, start omitting headers in response to HTTP requests. They are unnecessary baggage that gets in the way of the actual content of the message.
- andrewflnr 14y agoNot quite. If you're using VSRE, the information contained in those headers is already implicit. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are protocols where you don't need to send loquacious headers or equivalent with every response. "VSRE" says, "go ahead and assume I know what the headers would be and skip them". If you're not expecting headers, it's not a problem if they're missing.
- waterlesscloud 14y agoIndeed. Think about that carefully.
- TeMPOraL 14y agoYou say awkward, I say me and my efficient friends will have faster communication, tighter feedback loop and outcompete you in everything. :p.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- capnfabs 14y agoAt least the proposed solution is better than simply replying "ACK" or "NAK"
- gizzlon 14y agoYour reply is way to short to not be awkward. It should be expanded to at least two paragraphs.
- andrewvc 14y agoNo, you've got it all wrong! Geeks aren't socially awkward, they're socially "efficient" Social conventions aren't established by protocol drafts, they're organic. Also, people write long replies for a reason. Wording indicates emotional state. If you have trouble reading emotional state, you don't care. If, like most people, you do care, then this proposal is ridiculous. An example: "How about we schedule lunch next week? VSRP" VSRP: "Can't make it, extremely busy. Maybe next month?" FULL: "Sorry to say, I can't make it. I'd really like to but we're in a crunch right now, and I've got a booked calendar. Perhaps next month when things have died down? I'd really like to catch up but this month is already overwhelming" I might take the VSRP as a bit of an affront. The full explanation however is quite understandable.
- lowboy 14y agoAnd organic things can be inefficient.
- sliverstorm 14y agoAs we are not organic beings, clearly it would be foolish of us to accept such unnecessary inefficiencies.
- lowboy 14y agoI agree with the second part of your statement. Why not make things more efficient where we can?
- sliverstorm 14y agoThe main reasons are: 1) Because it isn't always worth the cost 2) Because we don't always fully understand the systems we are modifying Which hearkens back to, "Don't fix it if it ain't broke". Inefficient is not automatically broke.
- lowboy 14y ago
- TeMPOraL 14y agoBTW. Since we're talking about efficiency down this thread, here's a very nice example of optimizing communication: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker%27s_rules http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker%27s_rules I wish this concept was more widely known though. EDIT: original description (http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html) is dead but I found it's contents in cache, so I'm quoting it below: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://... Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline. Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor. "Crocker's Rules" are named after Lee Daniel Crocker.
- mkopinsky 14y agoLink should be: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker%27s_rules http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker%27s_rules
- TeMPOraL 14y agoEdited, thanks!
- opminion 14y agoIt is quite confusing that the "rules" do not seem to be set out explicitly as a list of rules, but that as those two paragraphs which seems to be written about rules (in plural) written elsewhere. Would a better name be "Crocker's approach" or "Crocker's style"?
- alcuadrado 14y agoCompletely agree!
- ebbv 14y agoI'm glad I'm not the only person who had this reaction. Sheesh, how hard is it to type out "A one word response would be fine." It takes me less than 10 seconds to type that. C'mon.
- andrewflnr 14y agoBecause if you take the trouble to write that out, there will still be slightly more pressure on the receiver to reciprocate by giving a more formal reply, despite the surface content. I think "how hard is it?" is the wrong question. We should be asking "how can this be better?". It doesn't take very long to type something like "as far as I know", but we still routinely use acronyms like AFAIK, because as long as everyone knows what it means, it's often a waste of time to type the full thing out. The only difference here is that VSRE is not already a custom.
- ebbv 14y agoAFAIK, IMHO, INAL, etc. work because they are acronyms for very common phrases. Intelligent people can reason out their meaning based on context without you having to spell them out. That's why they are popular and why they work. There was never a global memo "Hey everybody we're going to start using AFAIK now." VSRE doesn't work. It's better to just type out what you want to say in this case.
- andrewflnr 14y agoYou just say "VSRE doesn't work" without mentioning that the only reason is that people don't already say it. That's my point. Maybe we can agree that we shouldn't jump straight to the acronym. But if we want this kind of custom, and I do, it has to start somewhere, not with a global memo but with people just doing it. I'm just going to start saying "short reply ok". With any luck that will catch on, and then we can abbreviate to "SRO" or whatever people wind up using, and the world will be an ever so slightly more efficient place.
- rattray 14y agoMany of my most truncated email responses have come from executives and other businesspeople. VSRE sounds great for anyone with limited time, and sufficient trust. I'd feel good using something like this with another person who I know well, or know to be businesslike. I wouldn't use this with someone I don't know well in a social context.
- ap3rson 14y agoI think that for a lot of the execs truncation is a well established way to communicate self-importance.
- soup10 14y agoIt's more about effective communication than power games. Brevity is natural when you have to communicate with lots of people via email and your main priority is getting shit done. What's funny is that for random/cold emails, i'm far more likely to reply if I can respond in a line or two without being rude.
- tempestn 14y agoThat's a great point. While I can't see this catching on in the wider world, it could certainly be used in a small team, say at a startup. In fact, I think I'm going to pass it on to the other two devs on my team right now!