5 ms·

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation." I certainly don't say things on HN that I wouldn't say in a face to face conversa

by araneae 17y ago

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation." I certainly don't say things on HN that I wouldn't say in a face to face conversation, but that's because I'm honest offline as well as on (read: not civil). It can get me into trouble, but I sure as hell am not going to stop saying what I think because of downvotes (on HN) or in the name of good manners (IRL).

techiferous 17y ago
Honesty and politeness are generally orthogonal.
- dagw 17y ago
  Popular belief among those lacking social grace. It is quite easy to disagree with people without being impolite about it. All it requires is a bit social intelligence and basic good manners. Being an asshole and trying to excuse it with "I'm just being honest" just makes you a far bigger asshole.
  - araneae 17y ago
    When I mean honest, I mean honest both literally and emotionally. If I see bullshit, then I actually call it bullshit, instead of calling it "innaccurate." While the two terms may be similar in meaning, they are not equivalent.
    - dagw 17y ago
      At the end of the day it is about what you want to get out of the situation. Do you simply want to vent your frustrations and make yourself feel better, or do you actually want to try to do something constructive to improve the situation? While the former may be more satisfying in short run, working with people and being constructive is often better for everyone in the long run. I'm not saying you should never simply call bullshit, but before you do you should analyse the situation and the people involved and try to work out what your best course of action is given the result you want to achieve. Going with your first instinct is often satisfying, but rarely optimal.
    - billswift 17y ago
      "A skunk is better company than a person who prides himself on being "frank"." -- Lazarus Long
  - llimllib 17y ago
    > It is quite easy to disagree with people without being impolite about it. Maybe for you; I don't doubt its possibility, I just want to say that I find it extremely difficult to do myself.
    - techiferous 17y ago
      And it doesn't always come naturally to me, either. I had to learn. I would suggest this book; it's the best communication book I've ever read: http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Harmonious-Relationships-Practical-Empathy/dp/0967274168/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260048588&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Harmonious-Relationships-Prac... This book is also a good read: http://www.amazon.com/Games-People-Play-Transactional-Analysis/dp/0345410033/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260048697&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Games-People-Play-Transactional-Analys...
      - araneae 17y ago
        The mind knows how, but the soul is unwilling. I know how to tiptoe around people, but I greatly prefer being combative. Which explains why my adviser is currently holding the contents of my bookshelf locked in her office until I comply with her demands. Score by her, but I tend to win these battles by not giving a shit. ...and now you all know how immature I am :D.
      - llimllib 17y ago
        I appreciate the links; I had to learn too, and I largely have done so. Just wanted to say that it is, in fact, difficult.
    - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
      Good graces will take you far in life. from the utilitarian perspective, the emotional valence of the message ("sugar coating") does not impact the veracity of the semantic content. While this is true, humans are not rational fact-processing machines. We are primarily emotional and irrational creatures with a fleeting capacity for logic and reason. For many technologists, this is something we lament. However, our emotions are not that complicated... they are just governed more by expectations than by facts. If you learn to guide someone gently from one expectation to another, then you will learn to avoid triggering their defense mechanisms and have a much easier time being effective at communication and achieving your goals. Especially if this is difficult for you, I suggest that you take some time to study meat computers.
  - techiferous 17y ago
    Orthogonal means that the two vary independently, which means I agree with what you just said. :)
    - dagw 17y ago
      Indeed. That's what I get for trying to combine wine and hacker news.
  - andrewcooke 17y ago
    do you really think taking a shot at someone with "lacking social grace" is being polite? it seems to me that you're name calling.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    Hmm, good example I saw today - this was at Pike's Place Market in Seattle if anyone's interested. Very narrow street with slanted parking spaces. Guy was stopped waiting for someone to back out of a space (presumably so he can take the space). Guy behind completely oblivious, thinks guy ahead is just stopped, and starts honking like a madman. Passerby goes up, bangs violently on the window, and proceeds the tell the guy to STFU, and generally being angry at the (admittedly clueless) driver. Shouting match ensues and almost gets physical. One has to wonder why the passerby couldn't have knocked on the window and just calmly informed the driver that there was an obstruction ahead - this seems like it would've solved everyone's problems without any trouble. Sure, the passerby was correct in that the driver was clueless, inconsiderate, and lacking in manners himself, but his approach was lacking in tact, and created more problems than it solved.
tokenadult 17y ago
I sure as hell am not going to stop saying what I think because of downvotes (on HN) or in the name of good manners (IRL) Are you or are you not agreeable to following the HN guideline "Be civil"? Could you clear that up, please?
- araneae 17y ago
  I am not agreeable to following the "be civil" guideline. The times when I have been uncivil, I've generally been downvoted, which I think is perfectly fair. However, there are some times when I've been rather rude, and the comments ended up positive; but they were negative initially by quite a few points. I really do think that "being civil" has its place, but to be civil all the time requires a certain dishonesty; perhaps not in literal meaning, but certainly in emotional meaning.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    Well, then I'll politely express my disagreement (as others have in other replies) to say that I think civility is ALWAYS a good idea in online discussion, and there can never be too much of it. I think it is possible, as I hope is happening here, to be civil while being very firm in one's factual position.
  - sofal 17y ago
    Civility does not require dishonesty. You can make firm, bold, blunt, and even emotionally powerful statements while remaining perfectly civil. Civility is not a weakness. It is a strength. Being civil is always more effective for persuading people to your side. The only thing you can accomplish by being uncivil is rallying people who already agree with you (free upvotes), widening the divide between us and them.
    - araneae 17y ago
      Sometimes you want to widen the divide.

by araneae 17y ago

techiferous 17y ago

Honesty and politeness are generally orthogonal.

dagw 17y ago
Popular belief among those lacking social grace. It is quite easy to disagree with people without being impolite about it. All it requires is a bit social intelligence and basic good manners. Being an asshole and trying to excuse it with "I'm just being honest" just makes you a far bigger asshole.
- araneae 17y ago
  When I mean honest, I mean honest both literally and emotionally. If I see bullshit, then I actually call it bullshit, instead of calling it "innaccurate." While the two terms may be similar in meaning, they are not equivalent.
  - dagw 17y ago
    At the end of the day it is about what you want to get out of the situation. Do you simply want to vent your frustrations and make yourself feel better, or do you actually want to try to do something constructive to improve the situation? While the former may be more satisfying in short run, working with people and being constructive is often better for everyone in the long run. I'm not saying you should never simply call bullshit, but before you do you should analyse the situation and the people involved and try to work out what your best course of action is given the result you want to achieve. Going with your first instinct is often satisfying, but rarely optimal.
  - billswift 17y ago
    "A skunk is better company than a person who prides himself on being "frank"." -- Lazarus Long
- llimllib 17y ago
  > It is quite easy to disagree with people without being impolite about it. Maybe for you; I don't doubt its possibility, I just want to say that I find it extremely difficult to do myself.
  - techiferous 17y ago
    And it doesn't always come naturally to me, either. I had to learn. I would suggest this book; it's the best communication book I've ever read: http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Harmonious-Relationships-Practical-Empathy/dp/0967274168/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260048588&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Harmonious-Relationships-Prac... This book is also a good read: http://www.amazon.com/Games-People-Play-Transactional-Analysis/dp/0345410033/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260048697&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Games-People-Play-Transactional-Analys...
    - araneae 17y ago
      The mind knows how, but the soul is unwilling. I know how to tiptoe around people, but I greatly prefer being combative. Which explains why my adviser is currently holding the contents of my bookshelf locked in her office until I comply with her demands. Score by her, but I tend to win these battles by not giving a shit. ...and now you all know how immature I am :D.
    - llimllib 17y ago
      I appreciate the links; I had to learn too, and I largely have done so. Just wanted to say that it is, in fact, difficult.
  - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
    Good graces will take you far in life. from the utilitarian perspective, the emotional valence of the message ("sugar coating") does not impact the veracity of the semantic content. While this is true, humans are not rational fact-processing machines. We are primarily emotional and irrational creatures with a fleeting capacity for logic and reason. For many technologists, this is something we lament. However, our emotions are not that complicated... they are just governed more by expectations than by facts. If you learn to guide someone gently from one expectation to another, then you will learn to avoid triggering their defense mechanisms and have a much easier time being effective at communication and achieving your goals. Especially if this is difficult for you, I suggest that you take some time to study meat computers.
- techiferous 17y ago
  Orthogonal means that the two vary independently, which means I agree with what you just said. :)
  - dagw 17y ago
    Indeed. That's what I get for trying to combine wine and hacker news.
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  do you really think taking a shot at someone with "lacking social grace" is being polite? it seems to me that you're name calling.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Hmm, good example I saw today - this was at Pike's Place Market in Seattle if anyone's interested. Very narrow street with slanted parking spaces. Guy was stopped waiting for someone to back out of a space (presumably so he can take the space). Guy behind completely oblivious, thinks guy ahead is just stopped, and starts honking like a madman. Passerby goes up, bangs violently on the window, and proceeds the tell the guy to STFU, and generally being angry at the (admittedly clueless) driver. Shouting match ensues and almost gets physical. One has to wonder why the passerby couldn't have knocked on the window and just calmly informed the driver that there was an obstruction ahead - this seems like it would've solved everyone's problems without any trouble. Sure, the passerby was correct in that the driver was clueless, inconsiderate, and lacking in manners himself, but his approach was lacking in tact, and created more problems than it solved.

tokenadult 17y ago

I sure as hell am not going to stop saying what I think because of downvotes (on HN) or in the name of good manners (IRL) Are you or are you not agreeable to following the HN guideline "Be civil"? Could you clear that up, please?

araneae 17y ago
I am not agreeable to following the "be civil" guideline. The times when I have been uncivil, I've generally been downvoted, which I think is perfectly fair. However, there are some times when I've been rather rude, and the comments ended up positive; but they were negative initially by quite a few points. I really do think that "being civil" has its place, but to be civil all the time requires a certain dishonesty; perhaps not in literal meaning, but certainly in emotional meaning.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  Well, then I'll politely express my disagreement (as others have in other replies) to say that I think civility is ALWAYS a good idea in online discussion, and there can never be too much of it. I think it is possible, as I hope is happening here, to be civil while being very firm in one's factual position.
- sofal 17y ago
  Civility does not require dishonesty. You can make firm, bold, blunt, and even emotionally powerful statements while remaining perfectly civil. Civility is not a weakness. It is a strength. Being civil is always more effective for persuading people to your side. The only thing you can accomplish by being uncivil is rallying people who already agree with you (free upvotes), widening the divide between us and them.
  - araneae 17y ago
    Sometimes you want to widen the divide.