4 ms·

The more conclusive your tone, the less valuable is your argument. Many great programmers are excellent communicators.

by nir 17y ago

rmaccloy 17y ago
I disagree with the article too (and don't think it's well-argued), but... Stating your position in firm (i.e. "conclusive") terms is generally an advisable practice. The reader can judge the merits of a position for themselves, and counter it if necessary; using wishy-washy language or the passive voice doesn't help anything.
- michaelkeenan 17y ago
  I think you can go too far in either direction. I am a fan of Ben Franklin's advice against the obnoxiousness of appearing too certain. He wrote: "I wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat everyone of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure. For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention." He describes how he cultivated "the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence; never using, when I advanced any thing that may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or I should think it so or so, for such and such reasons; or I imagine it to be so; or it is so, if I am not mistaken. ... When another asserted something that I thought an error, I deny'd myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appear'd or seem'd to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engag'd in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos'd my opinions procur'd them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevail'd with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right."
neilc 17y ago
Many great programmers are excellent communicators. In fact, in my experience there is a positive correlation between being a great programmer and being a great communicator (especially in writing). Being able to clearly understand a concept, break it down into its component ideas and their interrelationships, and then explain that structure to someone else is very similar to being able to program well.
- yason 17y ago
  I've seen this, too. However, it mostly seems to work well when they're writing to other programmers or similar people on subjects where it works to break down and restructure. When there's a fluffy amorphic subject that needs to be pounded from various different angles in order to gain a vague idea of what it is, this approach is not so good. Either you simplify it and miss the point or construct a hugely detailed model and they miss the point. Also, most non-technical decisions (and many technical ones too, in the end...) aren't dictated solely by the razor-sharp rational intellect but a fuzzy mixture of feelings, reasons, and seemingly unrelated interrelations between people and people and other things. On the other hand, most of what makes communication work is listening, not talking or writing.

The more conclusive your tone, the less valuable is your argument. Many great programmers are excellent communicators.

by nir 17y ago

The more conclusive your tone, the less valuable is your argument. Many great programmers are excellent communicators.

I disagree with the article too (and don't think it's well-argued), but... Stating your position in firm (i.e. "conclusive") terms is generally an advisable practice. The reader can judge the merits of a position for themselves, and counter it if necessary; using wishy-washy language or the passive voice doesn't help anything.

michaelkeenan 17y ago
I think you can go too far in either direction. I am a fan of Ben Franklin's advice against the obnoxiousness of appearing too certain. He wrote: "I wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat everyone of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure. For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention." He describes how he cultivated "the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence; never using, when I advanced any thing that may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or I should think it so or so, for such and such reasons; or I imagine it to be so; or it is so, if I am not mistaken. ... When another asserted something that I thought an error, I deny'd myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appear'd or seem'd to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engag'd in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos'd my opinions procur'd them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevail'd with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right."

neilc 17y ago

Many great programmers are excellent communicators. In fact, in my experience there is a positive correlation between being a great programmer and being a great communicator (especially in writing). Being able to clearly understand a concept, break it down into its component ideas and their interrelationships, and then explain that structure to someone else is very similar to being able to program well.

yason 17y ago
I've seen this, too. However, it mostly seems to work well when they're writing to other programmers or similar people on subjects where it works to break down and restructure. When there's a fluffy amorphic subject that needs to be pounded from various different angles in order to gain a vague idea of what it is, this approach is not so good. Either you simplify it and miss the point or construct a hugely detailed model and they miss the point. Also, most non-technical decisions (and many technical ones too, in the end...) aren't dictated solely by the razor-sharp rational intellect but a fuzzy mixture of feelings, reasons, and seemingly unrelated interrelations between people and people and other things. On the other hand, most of what makes communication work is listening, not talking or writing.