Hacker News Reader

Comment by deltarholamda | Hacker News Reader

It's an old saw, but we teach children the "sticks and stones" bromide because it's true. Having to bracket everything you say in qualifiers and conditions is why press releases are completely unreadable dreck.

If you're in a field where Things Have To Get Done, stopping every few words to make sure nobody's getting their feelings hurt is a cost with very little benefit, other than airy and nebulous principles like "inclusivity." Not to mention you will never--and I mean never--get people of a certain temperament to go along with an ever-changing set of rules designed to inflict zero emotional distress. And the people of that temperament are very likely to be in technical roles.

I mean, you can want it to be different, but you might as well want the sky to rain cheese.

View on HN

Well firstly it's not actually true, what we teach children, in that words absolutely can hurt.

And it's not really hard to be respectful:

>"That's a stupid idea"

versus

>"That idea simply will never work"

identical information transfer, same amount of time taken, simply subtracting the implicit disrespect.

As someone who works in academia (physics no less), IMO the problem is that some people are complete fucking arseholes because for some reason being a complete fucking arsehole in academia is accepted, and the problem is not that some people are sensitive. It's actually not hard to be nice. It's mostly just stuff you learned as a child. I don't accept that being a bit of a cunt makes you a better physicist or makes a team more productive. Having said that working in academia has certainly thickened my skin. I've worked with some legendarily awful wankers in my short time. I don't get phased any more, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

I don't know. "That idea simply will never work." will hurt the fragole person just as efficiently as "This idea is stupid".

I think better communication us skip your general assesment of validity and form the objections you have to the idea as your questions about the idea.

Or just say "it's stupid" if you are in a hurry and don't care about offending the person but don't expect great interactions in the future.

It hurt the fragile person, yes, but let's think of the average person. Calling someone's idea stupid will reasonably insult the average person and make them think you're a cock, unless you know them well enough (in which case all bets are off). I am by no means advocating catering to the lowest common denominator, I'm simply opposed to throwing out all social conventions that have basically been with us for as long as verbal communication has existed because it's "efficient" (no proof either that it's actually efficient). At that rate the OP is simply asking us to stop being humans. It's just nonsense.

> It's just nonsense.

Ah, I see what you did there.

How different is this from “it’s stupid”? Or is there an approved list of ideas one may call nonsense, stupid, or braindead?

Well, if I were to come across someone IRL who argued that we didn't need to be nice to people and observe basic mores that have most likely existed for at least as long as humans have existed, I'd call it nonsense there too, but that's never happened. There's something about the internet that brings out the ridiculously hot takes. It's orders of magnitude more nonsensical (and harmful) than any single bad idea I've ever come across in my time in academia.

> >"That's a stupid idea"

> versus

> >"That idea simply will never work"

The second seems much much worse than the first to me. Why would you say that an idea will simply never work? Maybe it will and you made a mistake? Makes you sound like an ass. With the first you make it clear that the idea is dumb, but you aren't saying that the idea will never work, so maybe it still will work? It gives the signal that maybe you should think it through again, but doesn't completely dismiss the value of your work like the second.

Well if the idea is genuinely stupid then it will never work? I am operating on the assumption that someone has actually said something stupid. That's the given. If they've said something clever then obviously all bets are off and this is just a pointless discussion. And if you're not sure if it's stupid or will work, why would you say either of those things? You're arguing for an edge case based on a condition that should never even arise in the first place. Also, we're not talking about work, we're talking about ideas.

> Well if the idea is genuinely stupid then it will never work? I am operating on the assumption that someone has actually said something stupid.

Stupid things still works from time to time. Why are you so dismissive here? Can't you try to be a bit more understanding of people and ideas and your own ability to sometimes fail to recognize potential things? Sometimes you are stupid in the moment like that. Sometimes the whole world is stupid and failed to recognize a great idea.

Well in fairness if there was any slight hint of ambiguity as you suggest then I simply wouldn't call their idea stupid or suggest it could never work. I would just ask them more questions. I think that's a good way to operate. It's worked well for me. I just think it's disrespectful and rude to call someone or their idea stupid. Most would agree. Operate outside of basic social mores at your own risk I suppose. As I say, people in physics disproportionately have terrible social skills so you can just really learn into your job title, if that's what you're into. The rest of us in the field who prefer to observe the sort of very very basic things our parents taught us when we were children will just roll our eyes.

We call that "subtext". As a learned professional and recognized expert in your field, saying "simply" and "never" to a student has a chance of being misunderstood as fact instead of a turn of phrase.

Being aware of that and saying it anyway, I would personally use it as a teaching moment. If they seemed to quietly accept my words as a truth handed down from an authority instead of as a challenge to a (potential) peer, I'd point out that as a scientist they should have asked me "why".

It mainly and generally comes down to relationships and communication. Anyone who doesn't understand what I mean when I say a thing, anything, can't be relied on to be my pupil. However, they can usually be taught. That doesn't excuse me from not ensuring I've been understood in the first place, but it's far less taxing to expect others to attempt to become accustomed to your meanings when your brain is needed for other things than it is to twist your view of reality so that RightSpeak is the only acceptable method of communication.

I've never understood why some people seem to hate it when I say this, there's an idiom where I'm from that "some people would rather coat the world in leather than wear moccasins". Communication veganism is such a destructive idea if you've ever actually taken the time to consider it, but it doesn't seem to stop people from trying.

It's not communication veganism to simply not insult people. It's a feature of our societies that has existed since before societies existed. I struggle to think of a single situation where insulting someone is pleasant for the receiver, by definition. That you force or expect people to work around your quirky (at best) communication habits is neither here or there.

> but it's far less taxing to expect others to attempt to become accustomed to your meanings when your brain is needed for other things than it is to twist your view of reality so that RightSpeak is the only acceptable method of communication

What you mean like the stuff your mum and dad taught you when you were 4 years old and requires zero conscious effort because you should be polite to people by default anyway? Good heavens... what a terrible burden! The cross you those RightSpeakers make you bare! Tyranny! Is shitting in a toilet and not in your pants also a great burden for you?

In the example being discussed, it's faster to simply change "That's a stupid idea, it won't work because X" to "That won't work because X".

If Things Have To Get Done, why waste time making an insulting judgement instead of simply getting to the point?

"Not to mention you will never--and I mean never--get people of a certain temperament to go along with an ever-changing set of rules designed to inflict zero emotional distress."

Why not? Because they'll throw tantrums, whining about how it's just so unfair that they can't call people stupid? Too bad. They can suck it up and do their jobs- a part of which is effective communication- or they can leave.

>or they can leave

That being the key thing here. They won't throw tantrums--that's pretty much the exclusive domain of the sorts of people who want to control how people speak--but they will just go elsewhere. Or stop mentoring people, because it's more trouble than dealing with thin-skinned people.

Interestingly, I'm not suggesting that people have to be brusque or short. The sort of person who demands speech codes is the sort who will brook no personal interactions other than the perfectly harmless and anodyne, which seems pretty authoritarian to me. Quite a few of the technically minded do not care for authoritarianism, and they tend to be way out on the right tail of the Bell curve. You lose those at your risk.

The strong phrasing you use in your comments betray that you are the one showing emotions here. I totally get where those are coming from, and certainty share some of your exasperation, yet I believe this world view of thin-skinned versus thick-skinned is a fantasy.

Nothing wrong with showing emotions. Irritation is an emotion. There is a difference between showing emotion and throwing a tantrum. E.g., you might notice at no point have I demanded anybody's resignation or their groveling public apology.

The whole point of the article was a man's journey to understand Feynman's personal definitions of words, which were based on how he thought and understood problems. Knocking all the sharp corners from interpersonal communications means you value conformity over diversity of thought. That seems a poor tradeoff to me.

Your whole post is stupid.

See what I mean?

> Not to mention you will never--and I mean never--get people of a certain temperament to go along with an ever-changing set of rules

In a community that embraced NPM, Gulp, Grunt, Webpack, and god knows what else in a span of 10 years?

> we teach children the "sticks and stones" bromide because it's true.

We tell them that because tackling bullying is too hard. And it makes us feel better when we verbally lash out at our children ("It's not like I'm really hurting them!").

If you're in a field where "Things Have To Get Done", why add superfluous words like "That is stupid, it won't work because X", when "it won't work because X" is sufficient and is easier on the ears to the listener?

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?

It's not the word count, it's the density of meaning.

> stopping every few words to make sure nobody's getting their feelings hurt is a cost with very little benefit

Fortunately, nobody is saying to stop every few words to confirm the consent of your interlocutor, so that's just a stupid fucking straw man, isn't it?

> other than airy and nebulous principles like "inclusivity."

Ah, I see. You're one of those people on a perpetual crusade against "political correctness" (funnily enough, an airy and nebulous principle!)

> If you're in a field where Things Have To Get Done

Man I work in academia, so I assure you I've met a million guys of your type. Guys who are oh-so smart and oh-so intelligent (as per their own assessment of course) and have a planet-sized ego, who think they are so above the riffraff and their attention is oh-so important that they don't even owe their colleagues the courtesy of basic manners.

Nope, sorry, you're not so special that you can't say "I think that's a bad idea [because X]" instead of "That's stupid [because of X]".

Excuse me the brashness of my post, but hey, I'm trying to correspond to your desired level of discussion :)

We teach them this concept because the world is full of a-holes who won't take the bare minimum step of being a decent person to others and consider their feelings or how their words may have someone feel.

I work in a field where Things Have TO Get Done. We pride ourselves on directness, honesty, and precision. NONE OF THOSE THINGS REQUIRE YOU TO BE A DICK. You don't use words like "stupid". You phrase your criticism surgically to be specific about the idea and not the person.

Too many people don't want to learn social graces and use the excuse that they are just efficient direct and honest to justify being a dick.

Eh, I think a big part of getting things done is to creating an environment where people feel comfortable getting things done.

I think that is largely a difficult and expensive task, since there is no universally accepted definition of "feeling comfortable", and it is impossible to comfort a snowflake.

I'd rather be happy letting people go than chasing some elusive target in the name of political correctness. Sooner or later, I will either end up being miserably alone or with enough smart people who just get things done. I think this risk is worth taking.

I don't know - not calling other people's ideas at work "stupid" seems pretty obvious to me, it doesn't take some great amount of mental effort to just call things "bad" or even "not a good idea."

Also, it's possible to have smart people and a failure culture and fail. If people are afraid of posing their ideas because they think they will be shot down as "stupid", that damages your culture.

Calling “bad braindead pile of stupid shit” “not so good” devalues “good”.

Well I'm glad I don't work with you :)

A part and parcel of being a professional is being able to successfully work with people you may not personally like, as long as their and your work outputs are not being actively and measurably harmed by said personal traits.

I could probably work with you and not mind you calling my work stupid if you could also back it up. Learn something every day, you know.

There is also no universally accepted definition of "being an asshole", but nevertheless you know it when you see it, right?

Maybe some fragile snowflakes should just get over their hysterical emotional need to feel comfortable, and focus on doing real work and getting stuff done. But by the same token, maybe some assholes should get over their pathetic emotional need to belittle others, and stick to what contributes to the work.

There is a principle for robustly implementing computer communication protocols called Postel's law: be conservative in what you output, be liberal in what you accept. I think the principle applies equally well to human communication protocols.

> It's an old saw, but we teach children the "sticks and stones" bromide because it's true. Having to bracket everything you say in qualifiers and conditions is why press releases are completely unreadable dreck.

How very 1940's of you, is it really that inconvenient for you to be considerate?

Real respect is different from avoiding the magic-words.

But if you want to communicate that you respect someone you will avoid the magic words because it's impossible for them to read your mind and understand your true intentions. Just empathy isn't it? If someone calls you a cunt but in their heart of hearts deeply respects you, that's pretty useless isn't it? Because it's impossible to know what is truly in their heart, and you can only judge them by what they say and what they do. If you respect someone why would you communicate in such a way that they could reasonably come to the conclusion that you in fact don't respect them at all?

I don't think that a professional environment setting expectations for how to communicate criticism is as difficult or unrealistic as the sky raining cheese.

Reminds of this exchange from the movie Whiplash:

Andrew Neyman: But is there a line? You know, maybe you go too far and discourage the next Charlie Parker from ever becoming Charlie Parker?

Terence Fletcher: No, man, no. Because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged.

I am convinced Fletcher's attitude is not only morally right, but factually correct. The strongest steel is forged in the hottest fire.

There’s a bit of difference. Terrence Fletcher probably wouldn’t accept a comeback containing language just as harsh. And this is the important bit.

I’m all for throwing many kinds of words around when working with peers. Once there’s a significant power difference, ouch. Unless you know each other so well you can safely assume you’re both above it.

Would it be a crazy idea to consider that deploying emotional intelligence has less obvious, higher order effects, that make up for the initial investment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com