Hacker News Reader

Comment by karmasimida | Hacker News Reader

What evidence do you seek?

It is obvious to me that the way you interact with people face-to-face is different from the way you would do with online chat.

View on HN

That can be a good thing for non-charismatic types. I know that I've hurt my career at times in past due to in-person failures like being visibly angry or raising voice over dumb statements/power-positioning by leader-types. Being remote has helped me throttle those reactions and not be so public about my feelings.

Well if you've hurt your career with in-person failures, wait until you experience the context-free over-reaction that come from a faux pas made in a faceless medium that keeps record of your transgression forever. Getting mad at someone in-person also provides an opportunity to build a relationship that allows for a more intimate sharing of emotions; try getting that with email and slack.

If you're used to communicating online, this is no issue. As an anti-social type myself, I'm more comfortable with communicating online and I'm confident in my ability to not commit a faux-pas that easily compared to in-person.

I think you underestimate how much WFH helps people with social issues.

While I agree with this, I also think this is to a large extent because videoconferencing is currently pretty bad. It used not to be a critical necessity, so companies treated it as such. There's a lot of improvement that could be made to alleviate the disconnect somewhat, but of course not eliminate it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com