[HN Gopher] How much should you criticize other people?
___________________________________________________________________
How much should you criticize other people?
Author : mhb
Score : 40 points
Date : 2022-05-15 12:07 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (marginalrevolution.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (marginalrevolution.com)
| bayareabadboy wrote:
| This is overly simplistic. I think there is value in authenticity
| as well. That's not an excuse to be an ass, but its very
| demotivating when obvious unacceptable behavior isn't called out
| as such and criticized.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| It depends... professional MLB players, "heel" wrestlers and the
| like are paid good money to be publicly criticized.
|
| Then there's people like my aunt, who just has no filter.
| Examples there are her talking to my sister "your children are
| just too fat". That went down well but was just having no filter
| or foresight and not overt malice.
|
| But for regular people, you should never criticize unless it's
| something particularly selfish or thoughtless.
| cable2600 wrote:
| Offer positive feedback instead of criticism. Give examples of
| how they could be or do better.
| atoav wrote:
| Positive feedback can be perceived as criticism.
|
| Constructive criticism is the word. You tell em what you liked
| and at which point they lost you and why. If they respond to
| that you talk about what could be done better.
| randcraw wrote:
| Agreed. Criticism intended to effect positive change is akin
| to uninvited coaching or teaching. If no change is intended,
| or the recipient is unreceptive, then criticism is pointless
| and destructive.
|
| Probably the way to ensure positive change is possible
| _before_ you criticize is to feel out the recipient first.
| Are they genuinely interested in improving? If they show
| reluctance or opposition, speak no further. If they truly
| want to improve and they respect your opinion, they 'll
| persist by asking your advice.
|
| Another circumstance where criticism may have merit is where
| powerless subordinates discuss the demerits of a case. If
| they later agree that the case could benefit from improved
| tactics or by correcting errors, then the means to that end
| may be worth refining and then sharing with a super-ordinate
| who has the power to act on it. But if that prospect does not
| exist, then again, there's no point in being critical.
| mjbeswick wrote:
| Don't criticise people in front of others, as it's not
| constructive. Conversely, make sure to praise other where credit
| is due.
|
| It's fine to question peoples decisions although it is better to
| do it privately, so people can be more open without worrying
| about looking bad.
|
| When pointing out problems it's better to take ownership than
| point fingers. It's better to say something like "we have some
| refactoring to do" etc.
| tabtab wrote:
| There is an art to delivering bad news without coming across as a
| jerk. I don't do it well despite many attempts. I've seen others
| do it well and I have to admire such a skill.
| h2odragon wrote:
| There's a distinction between criticizing people and criticizing
| their _actions_ not made here.
| _gabe_ wrote:
| > and this is not to their faces but rather behind their back.
|
| If it's not to their faces, don't do it. It's just gossip at that
| point. Realistically who is this benefitting? There's no way for
| the person you're criticizing to act on that feedback if you
| explicitly _never tell them to their face_.
|
| There's a time and place to criticize people to their face in a
| positive and encouraging manner. But gossip has never helped
| anyone.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Never.
|
| Or, as a realistic ideal, as little as you possibly can.
|
| On the other other hand I ferociously criticise _bad ideas_.
|
| People are not their ideas. Bad ideas are like mimetic parasites,
| replicating through and infecting a host.
|
| Some bad ideas are harmless opinions. Other bad ideas are a grave
| harm to their host, and society around them.
|
| While people jave every "right" to hold them, sometimes attacking
| bad ideas seems like an attack on a person (ad hominem), which
| should be consciously avoided. A person, qua _soul_ , is seldom
| even responsible for what they host and parrot [1]. But they are
| responsible for spreading those ideas, which is why teachers,
| parents and trash social media have much to answer for. And, I
| believe, it is a duty and responsibility to help people be free
| of bad ideas, or if possible to steer them away from them. By the
| same token I believe people who spread bad ideas for profit and
| personal gain are the most damaged, and damaging of all.
|
| It is a shame in our presently over-defensive culture where
| people _identify_ with their ideas that the reaction of some
| people is to perceive an attack on them-self, as a person. Good
| criticusm of bad ideas should always be welcome.
|
| [1] https://genius.com/Smog-vessel-in-vain-lyrics
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoiNXDpDkok
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That works for friends and collegial scenarios.
|
| Sometimes you find yourself in adversarial scenarios where no
| nuance can exist, and the counterparty is disinterested in
| coming to consensus. You're in a time box that doesn't allow
| for philosophical discussion.
|
| In short, sometimes you deal with assholes, and sometimes it's
| productive to just call them assholes.
| helmholtz wrote:
| I'm wondering what's your success rate at _not_ having your
| criticism of bad ideas be taken anyway as a criticism of the
| person. In my experience, people are fragile, and have a tough
| time separating the rational from the emotional (if such a
| separation is even possible).
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| This is a learned skill, and it's on the listener to not take
| the criticism personally if it's not directed personally.
|
| I had to do this at my last job, and let me tell you, once
| you get over the hump of criticizing ideas instead of the
| person, things get a _lot_ more efficient.
|
| It's great.
| rayiner wrote:
| What about when people have bad judgment or bad execution or
| bad habits? (Maybe the answer is still none because you can't
| fix those things...)
| jollybean wrote:
| Yes, don't criticize individuals, but I'm not sure if
| criticizing 'bad ideas' is a good idea.
|
| YCombinator literally don't get into providing a lot of advice
| on markets because it's just too difficult predict at the
| nascent stage.
|
| Bad policy, bad operations, bad code, yes.
|
| With ideas, there's so much that may need to be fleshed out,
| left uncommunicated. An idea is more of an 'inspiration' for
| something, not the thing itself.
|
| The older I get the less critical I am in that area, and I
| often try to be my own devil's advocate i.e. 'how could I make
| that work'?
|
| But I think I know what you mean.
|
| And yes, some ideas are just really bad.
| nradov wrote:
| Should we criticize bad _content_? Lots of content isn 't
| necessarily based on particular ideas. But it's low effort or
| offensive.
| WhyOhWhyQ wrote:
| "People are not their ideas."
|
| I disagree with this. If people are not their ideas, then why
| arrest people who join terrorist groups or write manifestos
| saying they want to harm people? If people are not their ideas,
| then why give people prizes for good ideas?
|
| "Never." Will you criticize a mass shooter? Or a person who
| wants to see animals harmed for their entertainment? Certain
| ideas are so dangerous and terrible that simply reasoning with
| the people holding them is not protection enough.
| Clubber wrote:
| >write manifestos saying they want to harm people?
|
| Hopefully we don't arrest people for writing things. We
| should arrest people for actions, not thoughts. Arresting
| people for thoughts is .. thoughtcrime.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
| BeetleB wrote:
| I've known people arrested for writing content for Al-
| Qaeda.
|
| (They didn't write content for Al-Qaeda, but they were
| accused and arrested for it).
| guerrilla wrote:
| I disagree with it too but I don't think your argument is
| good enough. They're arrested for _joining_ the terrorist
| group which not only signals intention but means and possibly
| opportunity to carry out actions.
|
| Your questions are about an action and a desire (or
| intention), not about ideas. Your last sentence was
| acknowledged and addressed by their post I think...
| BeetleB wrote:
| When an employee consistently targets a teammate and continues
| to criticize his, but not criticize other teammate's shoddy
| work, what idea of his should I be criticizing?
|
| When an employee consistently commits to doing work and then
| fails to later on, justifying it (post-hoc, after the deadline)
| with "I think we shouldn't go in that direction", what idea of
| his should I criticize?
|
| I could say that I can criticize his failure to meet his
| commitments, but we're just mincing words. In common parlance,
| that's equivalent to criticizing him.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Um, people have bad intentions and actions too, not just ideas.
| You can criticize them for that.
|
| > It is a shame in our presently over-defensive culture
|
| Over-defensive, or over-hostile... I mean i think the
| defensiveness has a cause in other people's behavior.
| gernb wrote:
| I'm sure there are plenty of people who have bad intentions
| but these days I seems more common to assume they do when
| they don't. Usually this is an indirect conclusion. "You're
| pro local business? You clearly hate others you racist". The
| 2nd does not follow from the first but the person judgin has
| assumed bad intentions
| guerrilla wrote:
| It really depends on what one considers bad and good.
| People against immigration and helping the poor or workers
| in general are going to be seen as having bad intentions by
| many, people for bodily autonomy are going to be seen as
| having bad intentions by American Christians, Catholics and
| others, then we have a growing population who just support
| outright wars of invasion, genocide and ethnic cleansing,
| so...
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| it's more that the intention does not matter compared with
| its effects. good intention is a defense used to deflect
| attention from systemic effect
| guerrilla wrote:
| No, analysis of intentions are used to _prevent_ effects.
| If someone says they want to kill al Jews, then we can
| actually stop them before they have any power to do such
| a thing.
| vsareto wrote:
| If someone has consistently bad ideas, you're not going to have
| a high opinion of their future ideas. If these are work ideas,
| they may also not be able to keep their job, which affects
| their livelihood. I don't know if we can get away with saying
| that taking away someone's job is not some kind of attack on
| their livelihood/self. So if you, the worker, are worried about
| having bad ideas that can affect your job, it isn't a stretch
| that the reaction to criticism can look like a reaction to a
| threat.
|
| Now, criticizing hot takes and bad opinions on Twitter? Go for
| it, although that too can result in real consequences.
|
| Part of who we are definitely involves the connections we make,
| and you can lose more shallow connections with bad ideas - good
| friends/deep connections tend to love you regardless. If you
| are trying to take your work seriously, but everyone ends up
| criticizing your ideas, it will also affect you.
| ttymck wrote:
| I really enjoyed your comment. Nevertheless, I have to ask:
| what is a person if not their ideas? Their actions?
| state_less wrote:
| People change over time. Just as a sick person can recover
| from illness, a person can shake off bad ideas. Similarly, a
| person may right their wrong actions. That's why I think we
| should be careful not to forsake them.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| I'd argue that a person is their decisions. That encompasses
| actions - we generally decide whether and how to act.
|
| This also rings true when you add "bad thoughts" alongside
| "bad ideas". Everyone has bad thoughts in addition to bad
| ideas. Part of what makes a good person is their ability to
| discard (or at least decide to not act on) bad thoughts. Part
| of what makes someone seem wise is their ability to discard
| (or decide to not act on) bad ideas.
| [deleted]
| jollybean wrote:
| Ideas are different than actions.
|
| The most competent and predictably conscientious people often
| don't have very good ideas at all.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I'd really question the idea that a person even "has" ideas
| rather than responds to the world ("internal" and "external")
| in specific patterns after specific experiences. But if you
| must, a person is a body, so it's the body that has the ideas
| and as far as anyone else cares, a body's appearance, actions
| and intentions are the only thing they could really care
| about.
| randcraw wrote:
| I think every person entertains many ideas. Being receptive
| to possibilities does not define you, but it may incline you.
| 'Criticism' can play a valuable role in helping you see
| demerits in your inclinations before you misbehave.
| andsoitis wrote:
| That is a very deep question.
|
| Here is an example of a range of ways to think about that
| question:
| https://philosophynow.org/issues/149/What_is_a_Person
|
| If one thinks that agency (and actions) is what defined
| personhood, it is worth having a framework for thinking about
| free will, such as https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-think-
| about-free-will-in-a-w...
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| As others have answered in this very thoughtful thread, it's
| a most deep and puzzling question. As is the distinctions
| between ideas, intentions, and actions - the basis of much
| jurisprudence - which is examined here too.
|
| However there is the truly horrifying idea in Henrik Ibsen's
| Peer Gynt, which once you comprehend it is so dark that even
| those who call themselves 'nihilists' recoil from it. And yet
| maybe we should celebrate it because it's Kierkegaard through
| and through - that we have 'no essential self'. If we are
| possessed by a soul it is as an observer, a witness to a
| perfect drama involving other mind-bodies, each equally
| devoid of a central "self". That can be a relief. But as was
| discussed here recently with regard to mindfulness and
| Buddhism, that "idea" can itself be dangerous, for some it's
| a license to be a dick. Perhaps nature/evolution is clever in
| giving us all a little anxious piece, a "self" that can be
| hurt, since that allows social structures.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >I mean in private conversation, not in public discourse, and
| this is not to their faces but rather behind their back.
|
| 0 or never. Even if it were to their face.
|
| You will never achieve your goal using criticism of individuals.
|
| This is even true of celebrities or public discourse. You have to
| hit an exceptional threshold before you can even criticize
| celebrities.
|
| Take Jordan Peterson's recent rule breaking. He needlessly
| criticized:
| https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/15262791815453900...
|
| He was even punching down here. In fact the only legitimate
| criticism here is against JP. He certainly meets the threshold
| where he has gone too far and should be apologizing. If he
| doesn't we should be criticizing.
|
| 6. "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the
| world."
|
| That's his own damned rule and he's clearly violating it. His
| sorry not sorry is that he blamed the toxicity of twitter. He's
| still in the wrong and we should criticize him.
| benoketamad wrote:
| As much as you want.
| brudgers wrote:
| Here are some reasons to criticize others: 4. Others
| may deserve the criticism
|
| "They deserve it," is the rationale of bullying.
|
| Because "and I can get away with it" is a premise.
| silverpepsi wrote:
| It's bulling if you are a bully. But what if you are not and
| the rationale is justice? I feel blessed that all the people I
| work with are like this. There have been a few times it was
| necessary to be extremely clear pointing out my shortcomings
| with something. It was also clear as day they weren't getting
| any enjoyment out of being responsible for delivering the
| criticism as there was no emotional satisfaction in their voice
| and they didn't say a single word above and beyond what was
| necessary. (You can tell there are emotions thrown in when
| unnecessary threats or implied threats are added. Or, when they
| add language which belabors the point of how your actions
| negatively impacted or inconvenienced them - now enacting their
| 'emotional revenge' of sorts.)
| brudgers wrote:
| You agreed to performance feedback by working for the company
| you were working for.
|
| The feedback was given in order to maintain or improve
| company operations.
|
| Deserving had no more to do with it than deserving has to do
| with airing up the tires of a company truck to proper
| inflation.
|
| The rational for the critical feedback was your work.
|
| You got to decide that you deserved it.
| silverpepsi wrote:
| Not entirely sure where you're going with this.
|
| Deserved means "rightfully earned because of something done
| or qualities shown; merited." And that's a perfect
| description of the faults I demonstrated. It might happen
| out of laziness for another worker, but in my case it was
| mixed fear/social anxiety that kept me from pushing the
| customer harder, as needed, to enable me to finish required
| work. Just an example.
| youeseh wrote:
| People who criticize do it for their own satisfaction, rather
| than to actually help. Ignore it, unless you're looking for
| feedback.
| [deleted]
| dp-hackernews wrote:
| Questions of curiosity to the person directly would be a useful
| way of drawing attention to the action/behavior in question.
|
| The problem comes when the person is unaware that they do or
| behave in any particular way, which is entirely subjective and
| open to interpretation anyway, or they are unwilling to
| acknowledge the presence of a blind-spot. Which may or may not be
| considered by them as perfectly normal/okay - that's why it's
| subjective.
|
| The real problem is when they see that action or behavior
| normal/okay for them to do/be towards others, but not when it
| happens the other way around.
|
| A simple ideal that may be useful for each party to adopt could
| be - "do unto others as you would like done unto you".
|
| Although, this is still flawed as it is still open to
| interpretation, as again "do unto" is completely subjective from
| both parties.
|
| What be the solution? Attemping to understand, and apply some
| form of reasoning to establish what middle ground may exist?
| 4oo4 wrote:
| This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're
| saying, versus creating an accusation that they feel they have
| to defend against. Ideally, it'll open up the person you're
| talking to, so they can join in your curiosity and better see
| in themselves what you are seeing, or at least create more
| mutual understanding.
|
| Unfortunately, people that are immature and deal with their
| insecurities poorly this doesn't tend to work on.
|
| At a certain point, people have to want to work on themselves
| and you have to not concern yourself too much with how they
| react to information that triggers their cognitive dissonance
| defenses as long as you are approaching them from a position of
| empathy and curiosity. It's easy to want to keep helping people
| no matter what but at this point they will just drag you down
| to their level as a form of self-protection.
|
| So I think the "solution" (or maybe it's a cop-out?) is that
| you can nudge people certain ways and expose them to new
| information, but what they do with it is entirely their
| responsibility and you have to let go if you make a good effort
| to communicate and they just aren't receptive. We only have so
| much emotional energy and should use it wisely.
| roenxi wrote:
| > This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're
| saying, versus creating an accusation that they feel they
| have to defend against.
|
| Spelling it out for the empathetically challenges ... it is
| possible to go one step further and recast your entire mind
| in a curious frame for better results. The reason a curious
| tone gets good results is because a curious mind gets
| productive results and tone is a hint at mental state. There
| is a conversational technique here, but being genuine in
| curiosity is more powerful.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're
| saying,
|
| The way you phrased it: Yes, many will _rightfully_ respond
| poorly to it.
|
| _Difficult Conversations_ is the first book I read on
| communications, and it has advice most such books have:
|
| 1. Don't _act_ curious. _Be_ curious. You have to set the
| tone, but it isn 't sufficient.
|
| 2. Don't deliver messages. Be curious. If a tone of curiosity
| is just an avenue to delivering a message, then this will
| annoy people. People don't like leading questions
| masquerading as curiosity.
|
| Likely this is not what you meant to say - I'm merely
| criticizing your phrasing of it.
| technothrasher wrote:
| > A simple ideal that may be useful for each party to adopt
| could be - "do unto others as you would like done unto you".
|
| The problem with the golden rule is that it is still self-
| centered. What I may like is not the same as what others may
| like. "Do unto others as they would have done unto them" is
| better. It makes one have to understand and anticipate others'
| desires, and update your understanding of others constantly.
| "As you would like done unto you" is only useful as a first
| approximation when you have exactly zero idea of what the other
| may desire.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| That's easy enough to solve; simply conclude that the way you
| like to be treated is for other people to try and understand
| what you want and to take that into account. (Granted, yes,
| lacking direct information it makes sense to try and fill in
| with projection.)
| throw7 wrote:
| That was introduced to me as the "platinum rule" and in such
| a way that stated that the "golden rule" was wrong. I'd say
| neither is wrong, and one is not better than the other. In
| fact, both are trying to help understand and communicate with
| each other effectively.
| Cd00d wrote:
| I'm a little confused - why does the existence of platinum
| cast gold as negative? Both are "positive" elements, but
| one may have greater value than the other.
|
| Maybe that's not what you meant though.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > That was introduced to me as the "platinum rule" and in
| such a way that stated that the "golden rule" was wrong.
|
| Heh. I often refer to it as "the bronze rule" for similar
| reasons (as in gold, silver, bronze medals). It's a useful
| rule, but not the best rule.
|
| The Golden Rule has gotten me into trouble way too often.
| At some point you realize that how you want to be treated
| is _not_ how a significant portion of the population
| (perhaps the majority) want to be treated.
| hammock wrote:
| >Is there anything useful written on this topic?
|
| Seriously? "Don't gossip" is taught to every child from the first
| moment they are able to string a sentence together.
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| Critisizing is the task of semantic sculpting, by doing so,
| people ideas and actions can be continuously refined towards
| optimality.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| A couple of things I've learned:
|
| 1) Model the correct behavior when possible.
|
| 2) If they do thing x correctly some of the time (the positive
| opposite of the criticism), catch them at it. _Describe_ , in a
| matter of fact but appreciative way. Avoid evaluative language.
| Avoid the word "you." "I got that paper work well in advance
| today. Thanks."
|
| 3) When you need to give negative feedback, again use descriptive
| language instead of evaluative, give information (only what they
| reasonably may not know), avoid the word "you," and keep it short
| and private. "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it
| means that the other team can't process it until the next day."
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| This is dehumanizing, not polite. Standard example of corporate
| lingo - pretending not to be accusatory when you clearly are.
| Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to
| just happen, the way you dictate them.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > This is dehumanizing, not polite.
|
| Arguing about what's polite will never cease, and is not
| useful. What is polite varies significantly from person to
| person and culture to culture.
|
| In my experience and observation of those who handle these
| problems well, the _majority_ of them follow OP 's advice.
| They do it very smoothly that I never noticed it until I was
| taught the pattern and started seeing it everywhere.
|
| What OP is saying is basically:
|
| 1. Focus on the action/problem and not the person. If there's
| a pattern, focus on the pattern, but have _concrete_ examples
| ( "You're frequently late" is not a concrete example). Using
| "You" here is fine.
|
| 2. Don't just focus on the action, but on the impact. Why was
| his behavior a problem? So what if he didn't complete the
| work by 10am? It is this that is phrased without "you",
| because you're trying to explain how it impacts you, not him.
|
| Very consistently I've found people who really dislike this
| advice are also very poor at articulating the impact. They'll
| refuse to speak of the impact it has on them, and will often
| make their case based on principles ("One should...", "It is
| expected...", "It is a societal norm...", "A good
| employee/professional should know...", "It should be obvious
| why submitting the work after the deadline is a problem, I
| shouldn't have to speak to it ..."). Sorry to trigger anyone,
| but such people are poor communicators.
|
| I should know - I was one of them. Changing my mindset from
| arguing on principles to arguing about impact was quite
| significant.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| This is just what I've personally found helps make criticism
| easier to hear and less likely to put the other person on the
| defensive. What are you saying? Directly accuse them of
| things?
|
| > Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to
| just happen, the way you dictate them
|
| Is this referring to how I presented the information?
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Depends on the culture. Some countries have a much less
| overtly polite culture than the US or UK, and direct
| criticism is expected and welcomed.
|
| The UK is particularly bad for this. Depending on tone and
| context "I'll consider this and get back to you" can mean
| "I think you're an irredeemable idiot and this is the
| stupidest thing I've ever heard." Or it can mean
| "Interesting, let's think about it."
|
| This drives some Europeans working in the UK insane because
| it's so hard to tell what people really mean.
|
| It's a two axis problem. Bluntness is on one axis, and
| good/bad faith are on the other. Blunt good faith criticism
| can be fine if it's culturally appropriate. Bad faith
| criticism is never appropriate, even when it's wrapped up
| in politeness.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| Another edit at 4:10pm EST*
|
| I am suggesting that your phrasing: "When I don't receive
| the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't
| process it until the next day." is indirect and worded so
| as to appear nicer than someone delivering a message, which
| is "you messed up". It's obvious to everyone involved that
| someone specific didn't deliver the paperwork. There is no
| need to obfuscate that fact by some vague abstraction. To
| me, that obfuscation is:
|
| 1). Implying that the guilty party is an idiot to make the
| speaker seem nicer. It's well known in marketing that when
| weak-minded people are given a reason (any reason) before a
| request, they are more likely to comply with a request*.
| However, "it means that the other team can't process it
| until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time
| employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You are
| asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't need
| to rationalize.
|
| 2a). Indirect, potentially manipulative - e.g. accusing
| while ostensibly appearing not to be; an attempt to be nice
| while calling someone out.
|
| 2c). I will go even further on point 2a - when you ACCUSE
| clearly, you become responsible for your words. When I say
| "Hey Ben, your code is garbage, can you try to make it less
| garbage" I out myself as someone who is being critical. I
| out that I expect better. I take on the burden of
| criticizing as defined by Korolev, specifically: "If you do
| not agree -- criticize; if you criticize -- offer a
| solution/alternative; if you offer a solution -- work on
| implementing it; if you implement it -- bear the
| responsibility for your actions". When you take a weak,
| passive, indirect voice, you accuse while trying to protect
| yourself from any consequences, since you can always say
| "woah, woah, I wasn't _accusing_ you, I just didn 't get my
| paperwork".
|
| To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline,
| your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why
| add all this other garbage?
|
| Since I realize that I am not making a strong enough point,
| I will include a quote that partially guides me here:
|
| "3. Active Voice: Use the active voice.
|
| The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than
| the passive: 'I shall always remember my first visit to
| Harvard.' This is much better than: 'My first visit to
| Harvard will always be remembered by me.' The latter
| sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. This
| rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should
| entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently
| convenient and sometimes necessary."
|
| https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/files/ablconnect/files/howel
| l...
|
| The ABC/military writing guides phrase it even better, but
| I am too lazy to look for the source PDFs.
|
| * There is solid research showing that "Hey, I am going to
| cut in line because I am late" is far more effective than
| "Hey, I am going to cut in line."
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| > and worded so as to appear nicer than someone
| delivering a message, which is "you messed up"
|
| You can debate whether "you messed up." When I speak
| about what I know I experienced by describing things that
| happened from my own point of view, I'm giving a far less
| controversial and debatable account of events. Perhaps
| both parties are comfortable with conflict, in which case
| there's no issue. But in my experience, I've found that
| most people feel extremely uncomfortable with something
| like "you messed up."
|
| > However, "it means that the other team can't process it
| until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time
| employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You
| are asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't
| need to rationalize.
|
| I had mentioned how when giving information, you give
| "only what they reasonably may not know." In my example,
| I was thinking maybe they didn't know that 10am was the
| cutoff before there's a cost. If you know they already
| know, then yes I agree with you here.
|
| > an attempt to be nice while calling someone out.
|
| For many of us, our jobs require us to regularly coach
| others. I don't consider it as "calling someone out," and
| I see no reason to automatically consider it not "nice."
| It's a potentially uncomfortable interaction that we must
| do, so why not try to do it in an agreeable and effective
| way?
|
| > When you take a weak, passive, indirect voice, you
| accuse while trying to protect yourself from any
| consequences, since you can always say "woah, woah, I
| wasn't accusing you, I just didn't get my paperwork". >
| To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline,
| your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why
| add all this other garbage?
|
| I did in fact use the active voice in my example.
| Although, I would consider that avoiding the word "you"
| is a good reason to use the passive voice. That said,
| using the first person as suggested makes using the
| active voice much easier. People may use it only to
| protect themselves from consequences, and if so I'd agree
| when you describe this framing as "weak." We ought to
| have a good enough reason to give feedback to stand by
| it, and if not, then we need to be able to admit that.
| That isn't why I suggest it, though. The reason I use
| this kind of language is to make the criticism easier to
| hear and to avoid unnecessary defensiveness.
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is often taught as "nonviolent communication".
| BeetleB wrote:
| Be careful: That's a trigger phrase in HN.
|
| (Although having read multiple books, they're all teaching
| NVC independently).
| johnwheeler wrote:
| In over twenty years as a programmer, I don't think I've
| witnessed a single rational decision being made based on the
| merits of an idea alone.
| tabtab wrote:
| That's why it takes about 3x the effort and money to make a
| smallish CRUD app than it did 25 years ago. Too many eToys to
| distract decision-making. Warren Buffett said one of his top
| "skills" is not being afraid to say "no" to dubious investments
| and ideas. Nobody is saying "no" to our bloated web stacks.
| When I complain about bloat, I'm often given the reply, "but
| look at all the wonderful things you can potentially do in the
| future!" YAGNI, KISS, and DRY have been shot bloody dead.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-18 23:02 UTC)