Hacker News Reader

Comment by frenchman99 | Hacker News Reader

I agree with you. And at the same time, I often feel like it is more difficult being heard when being nuanced. It seems like what gets discussed most are strong opinions.

View on HN

Yep. It’s easier for a simple message to be carried by the wind.

But the process of growing up is one of increasing capacity for discernment. Ie, you learn more subtlety discerning when thing A or B is a better idea in any given moment. Will a hard or soft approach work better? Use my old tools or learn this new framework? Make a long term or short term decision here?

It’s hard to communicate because this kind of learning takes a lifetime to accumulate.

The hardest part is when you're being nuanced and people misconstrue it as you being indecisive xD

could you give an example? my approach is usually something like "I've come up with three options here, I think the first two are equally good, I'm mentioning the third for completeness, but I don't think we should do it because...."

Time is limited, why waste time talking about a third when you've already decided against it?

Who’s to say he’s necessarily right? The third approach (or pieces from it) could actually be the right one, even if he doesn’t know it.

You have a point, but that's also where you come off as indecisive. Since the question was explicitly about that that, presenting 3 options, one of which you have reasons against, when we're all busy and meeting time is constrained, is, in the abstract, a waste of everybody's time. If later on, someone comes up with objections; options A won't work because problem X, option B has issues Y and Z, then sure, bring up option C, which addresses X and Y but has other issues, for further debate, but unless that happens, that's time wasted. imo.

This does hinge on you knowing what you're talking about, and rejecting option C for unbiased reasonable logical reasons you're sure about.

Maybe we need to work on Sound bites

- The only thing every project has in common is that they are all different projects.

- Success in one project doesn't guarantee success in another.

My approach is to have strong opinions (weakly held), and ask if people have objections to the tradeoffs. That tends to keep the focus on specific reasons to choose a given path rather than you and someone else just having different preferences. Doesn't always work, but it's a lot easier than fighting over whether option A or option B is just universally better.

I've definitely seen that happen, and in my opinion its just a sign of bad culture or bad leadership. That's not to say its toxic or widespread, maybe its just a poorly run meeting, but nuance should be a focus of any important discussion rather than the voice that goes ignored.

Depends on your audience. Maybe you need to dumb it down for some people sometimes. That's life. I just try to stay in situations where the audience appreciates nuance if I can

Yeah, so it presents a real conundrum. If you read the article, then he still presents arguments in favor of microservices.

> I often feel like it is more difficult being heard when being nuanced. It seems like what gets discussed most are strong opinions.

I really resent this phenomenon. It traps us in poor local maxima because our systems optimize for engagement over actual development of complex, nuanced opinions. It feels like the dopamine-addled end up indirectly pulling the levers on how we talk even if they're less interested in the actual craft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com