[HN Gopher] I'm OK, the bull is dead (2004)
___________________________________________________________________
I'm OK, the bull is dead (2004)
Author : g4zj
Score : 278 points
Date : 2023-08-11 11:29 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.computerworld.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.computerworld.com)
| mhb wrote:
| If only our current new crop of journalists could relearn this.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I'm not sure of this specific example but it's a good policy when
| you are about to mention an accident/illness/school shooting or
| other situation where a loved one of theirs may have been badly
| injured or killed to preface that with "everyone (optional: that
| you know) is fine but..." to save them imaging the worst until
| you get to the details.
|
| I think of it as the opposite of those clickbait headlines where
| they try to trick you into believing it applies to you or your
| family by leaving out details.
|
| "Local school explodes" will get more clicks than clarifying it
| was empty at the time and/or giving the specific name.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| This is why I always start with a tl;dr for all articles on
| https://bitecode.dev.
|
| There is too much BS out there. Let's save everybody's time.
| praptak wrote:
| It's also called BLUF (Bottom line up front).
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| But the example isn't.
|
| The bottom line is that something happened at all.
|
| You at least have to say that much along with I'm OK.
|
| The example is actually anti-communication.
|
| It proves this itself by being the title, a curiosity-
| triggering title. That is the result of too much withheld
| context, and it's a thing that joke writers and newspaper
| editors do consciously for exactly that effect.
|
| If it were actually the best way to communicate this message,
| it would be a less clickbaity title. You wouldn't feel as much
| need for more info. "What the hell? Since when and why was your
| OKness even in question? BULL???"
|
| Article isn't as bad as the title claims it will be.
| nmeofthestate wrote:
| What I take away from this anecdote is that great, succinct
| communication should leave you thinking "uh, wait, so WTF
| happened??".
| wesleyd wrote:
| Dad, good news! The airbags work!
| mhb wrote:
| John was asked to watch Bob's family home while the family was on
| vacation, included was the dog, the cat and Bob's Grandma.
|
| After the first week, Bob called home and asked how things were
| going. John replied "Everything is okay, except the cat died."
| Bob says "Couldn't you be more diplomatic?" John asks "What do
| you mean?" Bob replies "Well, if I ask how the cat is, say the
| cat's on the roof" then the next time, you could tell me it died"
|
| The next week, Bob calls, John answers and after a short
| discussion, Bob asks how his Grandma is doing.
|
| John replies "She's on the roof"
| kvmet wrote:
| I have a different but related rule for emails: Only one
| important thing per email and it has to be as close to the top as
| possible. If you're sending a list of questions, put them in
| priority order and don't be surprised if only the first one gets
| answered.
|
| Also avoid making statements on anything debatable if focusing on
| that will give them an excuse to ignore the rest. For example I
| was talking to my doctor's office asking if they could move my
| appointment to some time in the next two weeks rather than the
| 15th (8 weeks away at the time). The response I got was, "Your
| appointment is on the 12th." And then they stopped responding.
| croes wrote:
| Sound like the cow Elsa is dead.
|
| https://youtu.be/TRZefNEfMgI
| dkersten wrote:
| In the four parts, surely "current status" is more important than
| "punch line" and should come first?
|
| As for the bull being dead, that seems like the least important
| piece of information from that situation.
| kimburgess wrote:
| This form should be the default for any async comms.
|
| Expressing the core statement up front allows proceeding content
| to serve as an optional framing, if required. If the recipient
| already has context they can skip the cruft.
|
| This structure is mirrored in larger org settings that use
| memo's. It's not a new idea, but definitely a well proven and
| effective one.
| [deleted]
| iandanforth wrote:
| What happened with the bull?! The author undermines their thesis
| by leaving the audience hanging. The interesting bits have all
| been omitted. "James bond survived, foiled the villain's plot,
| and got the girl" is not a movie. I would hate to have to work or
| associate with someone who communicated like this.
| ncallaway wrote:
| Isn't the exact point that some things are... not a movie.
|
| I don't think the author is proposing all communication should
| be in this style. When you're telling a story, sure, it's fine
| to keep people in suspense. But is suspense a tool you should
| use to communicate to a loved one when you've been in an
| accident?
|
| Some work communications are more like the former and some are
| more like the latter. But most of us default to the
| narrative/suspenseful style 95% of the time.
|
| But we should be more deliberate, and in some settings use the
| inverted pyramid structure to eliminate suspense from our
| communication.
| [deleted]
| hinkley wrote:
| How many romcoms take 90 minutes to say "boys are dumb"?
| throwaway201606 wrote:
| Jumping in here since this has floated to to the top and I
| responded to a similar comment below.
|
| Felt strongly enough about this that I actually took the time
| up write an actual literal paper letter (or maybe an email,
| don't remember... but paper letter , stamp, walk 20 miles
| uphill to post office works better for dramatic effect ) back
| in 2004 to ask the question.
|
| The question was asked in the magazine and the answer by Mr.
| Kapur was published in the magazine.... but my google-fu cannot
| find the answer he had posted back then...
|
| Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer so the cliffhanger
| continues.
|
| https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa...
| throwaway201606 wrote:
| OK, finally found the key words that let Google point me to
| the comment with Mr. Kapur's response giving a fuller
| explanation of what happened.
|
| https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-
| bull.a...
| faitswulff wrote:
| It seems the author's entire philosophy of communication is
| at odds with mine.
|
| Would it hurt to communicate what happened? No, it adds
| important detail. Especially on a phone call, there's much
| more bandwidth for explaining "I'm ok" without explicitly
| saying it through tone of voice. As a parent, the bull
| being dead is entirely irrelevant. So, "I hit a bull on the
| way home but I'm fine" would have done the trick without
| any annoying cliffhangers. Similarly for the author's lack
| of explanation of what happened.
| Cort3z wrote:
| I disagree. "I'm fine, but I hit a bull on my way back
| home" is infinitely better because at no point is there
| any uncertainty about the condition of the person.
| faitswulff wrote:
| I don't think you're disagreeing to the extent that you
| think you are because the original post says "I'm ok, the
| bull is dead" like some sort of riddle.
|
| Either way, the delivery on the phone is _not_ limited to
| the order of the clauses, it 's also in the tone of
| voice. Saying "I hit a bull" while sobbing conveys
| something entirely different than calmly stating "I hit a
| bull." Over the phone the entirety of the message can be
| heard and the order matters less.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| If you improve your listening skills, it's the same
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience
| hanging.
|
| Kind of. I thought the original advice from the author's boss
| at the top of the article (order of "punchline" with no
| adjectives, then current status, then next steps, then
| explanation) is great advice. The problem with the author's
| telling of his son's story is he basically completely left out
| step 4, the explanation.
|
| I think the value in the original advice is not that any of the
| steps is more important than the other, but doing them in that
| order ensures you don't try to sugarcoat or obfuscate the
| actual thing that happened: it forces the team to clearly
| acknowledge the facts without bias.
|
| But yeah, just telling the story without explanation is missing
| a big part of the detail to actually understand what happened.
| maweaver wrote:
| I think it's pretty clear from context what happened... his son
| was in a car accident where he hit a bull with the car, the
| bull died, the car was damaged, and the son is fine. Yeah it's
| not a James Bond movie plot but I think that's kind of his
| point. Not every event needs to have an action-packed
| narrative. Sometimes things happen and we need to convey the
| state of things in a way that avoids causing a strong emotional
| action, because that would distract from dealing with the
| situation. It's pretty much the opposite of a movie, where the
| the goal (generally) is to provoke an emotional reaction,
| rather than convey information.
| lwhi wrote:
| This is all very well, but not providing us with the details of
| why the bull was dead is just plain mean.
| Scubabear68 wrote:
| I have seen this style work really well when it is practiced in a
| safe environment. By "safe", I mean everyone is striving for
| transparency, you don't shoot the messenger, and you support each
| other (not back stab).
|
| This can go off the rails quickly if it collides with other
| groups that are not as safe and have serious issues. In these
| more common environments, successful people learn the delicate
| balance of what to say, what not to say, and what order to say it
| in.
| [deleted]
| caeruleus wrote:
| This succinct style of reporting reminds me of how surgeons are
| taught to report on a patient (to colleagues): 1.
| name/age/gender 2. current problem (+ potentially relevant
| preexisting condition) 3. relevant clinical/laboratory
| findings 4. suspected cause 5. recommended actions
| 6. If an operation is planned: general health assessment
| (ASA)/allergies 7. prognosis/miscellaneous notes
|
| As a rule of thumb, non-surgical medical professionals have a
| similar framework, but will report more in-depth and less focused
| on a singular logical path.
| bryancoxwell wrote:
| This is an incredibly weird way to interact with people outside
| of work.
| kylezgq wrote:
| I'm curious about why an article from 2004, is being discussed by
| so many people at this current point in time?
| firefoxd wrote:
| That's the beauty of writing a timeless article.
| sailfast wrote:
| Don't waste your time. Title is clickbait. Find the norms that
| work for you and your team.
| vander_elst wrote:
| This might be also a cultural difference and might cause some
| friction in the communication. If I remember correctly in general
| in the US it is preferred the style "what; why" while in Europe
| generally it is more "why; what". If the appropriate style works
| it's not used you might be perceived arrogant or condescending.
| Very high level generalization here but I think you get the
| point.
| 317070 wrote:
| Yes, there is more on this in "The Culture Map" by Erin Meyer.
| If I recall, it is not all of Europe that does that, but mainly
| Latin Europe.
|
| This is one of the things I learned moving to the UK working at
| an American company. Lead with the conclusion, not the problem
| statement.
|
| The style I was more used to would say: "I am late because the
| car got hit by a bull. I stepped out, took pictures, noticed
| the bull was dead and someone local came to help out. The
| police is underway. I am fine but will be a little later. No
| need to worry."
| Aeolun wrote:
| Am I the only one that feels like this article misses the final
| part? I need an explanation of how that bull died.
| throwaway201606 wrote:
| felt strongly enough about this that I sent them an actual
| literal paper letter (or maybe an email, don't remember....)
| back in 2004 to ask the question.
|
| The question was asked in the magazine and the answer by Mr.
| Kapur was published in the magazine.... but my google-fu cannot
| find the answer he had posted back then...
|
| Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer so the cliffhanger
| continues.
|
| https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa...
| Sprocklem wrote:
| For completeness sake, throwaway201606 linked to the resonse
| upthread: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-
| more-bull.a...
| zidad wrote:
| Definitely not the only one. What a cliffhanger. A punchline
| without the actual joke.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It seems fine for, like, project status reports (right to the
| point, very nice).
|
| In life, I'm less sure. People tend to underplay their injuries
| when talking to others, right? So in the case of "I'm OK, I got
| in a car accident" "OK" could mean anything from "I'm totally
| fine" to "I'm going to have lifelong back problems and legal
| problems but I'm alive." Meanwhile "I'm OK, my girlfriend has
| dumped me, want to go get a beer," the range of possibilities is
| much lower.
|
| And, if a person has decided to tell me that they are OK as the
| first thing, then clearly something pretty bad has happened.
|
| So, I think I'd prefer "I got in a little fender bender, but
| nobody got hurt, I'm just going to be a little late."
| throwaway_ab wrote:
| I'm ok, no one else is hurt.
|
| I hit a bull, the car is drivable but sustained damage.
|
| The bull is dead.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| Yeah, no. "I'm okay, the bull is dead", followed by "the car is
| damaged but operable" is not an effective way to communicate what
| happened. The goal of communication is not to force the other
| party to fill in a bunch of blanks and solve a puzzle to
| understand what you are talking about.
| wittenbunk wrote:
| But it is the quickest way to communicate the current state.
| Talanes wrote:
| "Car accident, I'm okay" is shorter and less vague.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| There was no rush though
| scrollaway wrote:
| It is, as a blog post, an effective way of communicating the
| idea though (because it's very emotionally charged).
|
| I read this earlier today, liked it, and had a bit of fridge
| logic since. Obviously it's dumb to communicate a datapoint
| upfront when you don't bring it up again at all and follow up
| with "details later". But it's still very present in my mind
| because "the bull is dead" is so catchy.
|
| I'm a big fan of BLUF (bottom line upfront) when writing emails
| and this is an extension of that.
| [deleted]
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I really like that!
|
| When I worked for a Japanese company, we submitted weekly reports
| in "QCD" form (Quality, Cost, Deliverable).
|
| I like this format better.
| pflenker wrote:
| This reminds me of the following: Of fictional crime
| investigators, mrs Marple collects all the clues and then invites
| everyone to the Great Summation at the end to reveal the
| murderer. Episodes of Inspector Columbo start with the very act
| of murder, and the perpetrator is clearly visible. We then follow
| Columbo collecting clues and discovering the motive.
|
| We tend to be like Mrs Marple when we should be more like
| Columbo.
| steve_g wrote:
| "We should be more like Columbo" is a great general rule for
| life.
| maxboone wrote:
| The Pyramid Principle is one of the (few) things emerged from
| McKinsey that I believe in.
| [deleted]
| firefoxd wrote:
| A lot of people ask about the bull. But if you take it as a
| metaphor for status update, it does translate well.
|
| Whether he explains the situation about the bull or not, does not
| matter, the next action is to have someone pick him up. That's
| the only thing they can do. The bull story is just extra
| information.
|
| In the status update, when my devs tell me the new api failed, my
| role is to check the results and figure out if we need an
| alternative. The product owner and scrum master do not need to
| know those results, in fact they can move on to the next status
| update. The person who can help is informed.
|
| The challenges I face in a daily stand up are:
|
| 1. The developer trying to over explain their current situation.
|
| 2. The non devs asking questions trying to fully understand a
| situation that is irrelevant to them. i.e. why is the bull dead.
|
| 3. The dev keeping their mouth shut for fear of being
| interrogated.
| another-dave wrote:
| > The non devs asking questions trying to fully understand a
| situation that is irrelevant to them. i.e. why is the bull
| dead.
|
| That kinda shows that it isn't a good metaphor, because if the
| bull is irrelevant & dragging people off on a tangent it
| shouldn't be mentioned at all
| kouru225 wrote:
| Ngl sounds like it's really boring to work there. No one ever
| learns from other sections? That's boring.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I think in a wider sense this is good for writing as well. A lot
| of texts (including the linked one) start with some elaborate yet
| tangential anecdote and then takes a meandering path toward some
| conclusion.
|
| I prefer to open with a single sentence that captures what I want
| to say, longer than the title but very much self-contained, and
| then to elaborate on why that is. It both serves to capture the
| reader and to turn away readers that weren't interested anyway.
| photonerd wrote:
| The irony here is that the authors example doesn't fit his
| system.
|
| The bull is completely irrelevant. It's a root cause of _the car
| damage_.
|
| Should have been: "I am OK. The car is not." and continued from
| there.
| mattkrause wrote:
| Or even "I am OK, but I need a ride home."
| unosama wrote:
| "The bull is dead" is completely useless information. This story
| seems to be an example of poor parenting to me...
|
| There is a time and place for conveying information quickly and
| concisely, and there is a time and a place for storytelling and
| human connection. Seems the latter has been lost on this child's
| upbringing.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I mean, is it useless? You crash your car into a bull in the
| road. Your okay. The car is damaged. The bull is dead.
|
| The receiver of the information in this case already knew
| something was wrong. The most important detail came first: I'm
| okay. Nothing wrong with this.
|
| Some folks might say the second most important piece of
| information is "the car is damaged" but really it doesn't
| matter. One might wonder how damaged. This detail doesn't
| reinforce the first piece of information. And the extent of the
| damage is important at that moment.
|
| "The bull is dead" might seem unimportant, but it gets across
| the worst outcome from what's transpired. And in fact, it
| implies that the car is damaged. Maybe more relatable if you're
| in North America: if your child called you and says "I'm okay,
| but the deer is dead" that actually does a perfect job of
| summarizing exactly what happened. It's an unusual situation
| that a bull got hit by a car, but it's plausible.
|
| When you've been in an accident, trying to explain everything
| over the phone often isn't the best thing to do, especially if
| the authorities are trying to take a statement or you're
| getting your vehicle towed. Arguably, it's bad parenting to
| dwell on really any other details besides "where are you?" or
| "do you need anything?"
|
| Like I'm really struggling to think of another thing the kid
| could have said that would have been more efficient or would
| have made the outcome better. "The bull is dead" leaves you
| with questions but frankly none of the questions really matter,
| and the information that it conveys is exactly what I'd want to
| get across.
| pluijzer wrote:
| I learned to communicate like this from an early age. My
| otherwise lovely father could get angry quickly when he made a
| premature conclusion from what I was telling. I would for example
| say, 'I went to my friends and they were all smoking'. He would
| get angry because he concluded I also smoked and I wouldn't be
| able to convince him of the opposite until he calmed down. So I
| got into the habits of telling stories like; 'I didn't smoke,
| when I say my friends they did though.' and all would be well.
|
| Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same way.
| Though I am not really convinced it is some positive character
| trait. It seems more like a anxiety problem. With the example of
| the article I would find it much more normal, and useful, to say.
| 'I hit a bull, I am okay, the bull is not'.
| smeej wrote:
| I do this with my mom because of how much she worries.
|
| A couple years ago, I sent her a message, "I'm OK, but I think
| I just totaled my car. Would you please come to [location of
| accident]? I'm going to need a ride home."
|
| She still freaked out, because she does, but I really did only
| have some bruising, and I did, in fact, total the car.
| ilyt wrote:
| Except this example is a terrible way to implement it unless
| you want to play it for a joke.
|
| "I'm ok, the car is not" would've communicated relevant
| information without followup. The bull is less important part.
|
| > Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same
| way. Though I am not really convinced it is some positive
| character trait. It seems more like a anxiety problem.
|
| I like that type of communication because it is very useful in
| emergency (whether actual one, or just some app at work not
| working).
|
| I think it also generally produces less of an anxiety because
| starting with the bad can immediately make the other site start
| to speculate the worst
|
| > With the example of the article I would find it much more
| normal, and useful, to say. 'I hit a bull, I am okay, the bull
| is not'.
|
| Exactly. Much better way to say that.
|
| "Data is safe, it's not a breach, we're being DDoSed", instead
| of "we're having a massive DDoS on our services affecting X y
| and Z, but we don't suspect any data breach or data loss".
| DanHulton wrote:
| The bull is, from the viewpoint of the kid in the accident, I
| think the most ingenious part.
|
| "I'm okay, the car is not" communicates the most-relevant
| information, sure but at that point, Dad can start
| immediately getting upset about the car.
|
| "I'm okay, the bull is not" presents Dad with a mystery,
| delays the onset of anger, and likely lowers the peak of
| anger, as the fun of unravelling an interesting and unique
| mystery probably takes up some of that mental energy.
|
| In an office setting, yeah, you ideally have enough trust and
| safety to be able to disclose bad news without needing to
| worry about upsetting people (though frequently not,
| honestly). Families are... different. Even in "perfect"
| families, and especially for a situation like this, there's
| no "blameless postmortems", no "five whys", etc. Kid crashed
| the car. Kid should not have crashed the car. There's a
| direct line of responsibility. So being able to deflect a bit
| of that anger and upset is, frankly, ingenious.
| ilyt wrote:
| > "I'm okay, the bull is not" presents Dad with a mystery,
| delays the onset of anger, and likely lowers the peak of
| anger, as the fun of unravelling an interesting and unique
| mystery probably takes up some of that mental energy.
|
| No, it sounds annoying and tiring to deal with that kind of
| riddle-speech.
|
| If your parent has anger issues it would just result in
| something like "what fucking bull, what the fuck did you
| do?", not some riddle mystery game you think...
| vGPU wrote:
| Indeed. Presenting the bull immediately creates a visual
| mythos w/ assumptions of some Herculean efforts.
|
| "Dad, I wrecked the car" is much more likely to be answered
| [non-verbally] with regrets about not paying for
| contraception.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Confusing two people in the middle of the night with a
| short sentence is considered genius?
|
| From what I can see, the situation was communicated very
| poorly.
| brazzy wrote:
| The specific example is indeed not that great in terms of
| communicating clearly, given how it begs an obvious, if
| nonessential question. Works well as click bait, of course.
|
| But the basic idea is sound and useful.
|
| Putting the most important fact first makes it much easier for
| the audience to understand the context and explanations that
| follow, and stop you when you're going on a tangent.
|
| A problem that I see very often in communication is that people
| start out by giving long-winded context, and I'm left thinking
| "what is the point of telling me this?", unable to judge which
| of it is important and relevant to me.
| [deleted]
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| That most significant byte first is only good in the context
| that the receiver already knows what they are expecting and
| waiting for. It's perhaps good update in an exising
| communication. It's not good communication in general or when
| opening a new context.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Though, maybe not. Opening a new context still wants some
| kind of summary opener.
|
| If your message is short, you might just say it.
|
| But if your message is even slightly long, you probably
| start with a heads up what the overall gist and point will
| be. "I have a question." rather than just the question. Or
| "Accounting just told us we have to..." and _then_ all the
| stuff Accounting said and what you have do do about it.
|
| Are those openers the most significant bit or the filler?
|
| Definitely "I'm OK" or "You have to turn in your laptop."
| is absolutely the wrong way to start. It's even like going
| out of your way to find the worst possible choice out of
| all the bits in a particular situation. Random order would
| be better.
|
| So maybe it's not wrong to start with the most important
| part, but the definition of most important part is
| apparently up for grabs.
| thrawa8387336 wrote:
| This is what consultants get taught when communicating to
| executives. Start by your conclusion/most important idea then
| support it
| oxygen_crisis wrote:
| Even in lower-stakes communication it's a good practice, I
| figured this out early in my career when I was doing tech
| support.
|
| In e-mails, I noticed a lot of customers didn't register
| much beyond the first couple sentences. Or they would react
| to some point of curiosity or contention about the
| explanation without taking the steps forward or providing
| the information we were asking for.
|
| In real-time conversations it meant the machines were idle
| during the explanation of why we were going to do the next
| step, when often there would be plenty of time to explain
| why while we were in the process. (In the days of dial-up
| and RAM measured in megs instead of gigs, even "open a
| browser and go to our website" could take a minute)
|
| It's a huge time-saver. You want that little excerpt in a
| pop-up mail notification to have the call to action
| displayed. Especially when you need them to take ten
| seconds to provide some information. Seeing the call to
| action immediately might bump you up in their multitasking
| queue whereas they're more likely to sit on it if they see
| the opening sentence of some exposition pop up.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Put the conclusion first and people will assume the context,
| stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you.
|
| Put the context first and people will assume the conclusion,
| stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you.
|
| It's just a matter of deciding what is worse.
| hinkley wrote:
| It always pissed me off in movies where there's a communication
| medium the characters supposedly are experienced with and the
| most important part of their communication gets chopped off.
| They never repeat themselves. Terrible, terrible writing.
|
| One of the things I appreciate about Contact. When Ellie's
| radio becomes mostly static she just repeats that she's ready
| to launch, in a loop until they do.
|
| Your typical schlocky movie? "CHHHZZZK is the killer! I found
| Sarah's body. Don't trust him!" "Do you think they heard me?
| Hopefully he is t killing them now."
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| >"Hopefully he is t killing them now."
|
| I like the active example of your point ...
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| There's also the way overused, "just blindly trust me- I'm
| not giving you any information just because" (which is
| critical missing information the plot depends on being
| unknown) or the argument "<here's my clearly incorrect
| perspective of what happened> right??? pauses, storms out"
| and the mc just doesn't say anything or try to correct the
| misunderstanding, which the plot is built on.
|
| Communication breakdown feels so tired
| jonhohle wrote:
| It's actually a pretty contemporary theme, but I agree not
| a good plot device: accuse someone of something and attempt
| to discredit them in the process before they can defend
| themselves, get their employer/social media
| company/affiliated parties to terminate their relationship,
| watch as they rebuild their live's from rubble when as
| accusations are proven false.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Sounds very similar to how academics write with a similar
| anxiety to the future reviewer, trying hard not to get
| dismissed and pigeonholed too early on before they even read
| and understood the paper. It's one thing to defend your idea
| against obvious but incorrect angles of criticism, but this is
| not always enough and you need to order your sentences in the
| correct way and be mindful of what "buttons you will push" on
| the reviewer where they will switch off and go off track to
| some easy dismissal. It really is an art to do this well and
| it's not just the hard science skill of making the
| contribution. You must be able to sell and frame it in just the
| right way.
| jancsika wrote:
| Academia sounds very similar to writing pull requests on a
| large project, or working retail, waiting tables, serving on
| a Church board, going to court, teaching a master class,
| interacting with strangers, and growing up in a large family.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Am I detecting sarcasm here? Is your point that I shouldn't
| have brough up academia because it's too specific and
| actually the thing I talk about happens in every facet of
| our lives and not just academia?
| hinkley wrote:
| I think it's more than this. I've seen several Wikis grow to
| the point of uselessness from lack of curation combined with
| lack of "executive summaries". Before this I thought
| executive summaries were for Peter principled idiots whose
| ties were cutting off oxygen flow. It felt infantilizing
| having to be asked to add them.
|
| What I experienced and others complained about was the
| situation where I know we have a document about X. I can't
| remember what it's called, I thought it was "Y" but I read
| the whole thing and it's not there. Now I'm clicking on
| random things seeing if I can find it. I don't want to read
| eight people's life stories. I'm trying to keep the details
| of my task in my head.
|
| Start every page with "where are you and why should you care"
| and that problem starts to evaporate.
|
| With scientists you have people who go through a lot of
| papers every year. No one paper stands out that much. So I
| can see how they'd run into the exact same problem.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| This is extremely hard though. It's not just some wave your
| magic wand around, or ask people to not be lazy anymore or
| something. Distilling knowledge, understanding where
| readers may be coming, seeing the big picture and keeping
| track of different moving parts, remembering and
| documenting their histories, all this is real work, real
| cognitive effort of the highest sort, on par with
| developing the newest feature or migrating to a new
| solution or whatever is seen as the "meat" of the work, as
| opposed to this type of lower-status "meta" work of just
| documenting. Often, "writing docs" is seen as junior work,
| something easy. Some parts are of course more
| straightforward, but a lot of it is very serious work that
| is underappreciated. And it's a vicious cycle: as long as
| documentation and technical writing is undervalued, smart
| rational actors in the company will just do the bare
| minimum of it and do something more visible and flashy that
| people do appreciate.
|
| ----
|
| Also, I've seen internal wikis and the issue is that they
| tend to go stale, and people are afraid of removing
| information, and some people just don't know how to use a
| wiki and will start using it as a message board or like a
| Wikipedia talk page and add stuff like "Note by Joe: I'm
| not sure the above is still correct since the migration to
| XYZ. Alice should check this part", things not deleted but
| crossed out with strikethrough style, because "what if it
| will still be useful" (they don't understand the page
| history concept) etc. So it becomes a dump of horrible
| mixture of outdated and up-to-date info, where an
| experienced employee will tell you "oh it's in the wiki,
| just check it", then you go back to them that you can't
| find it or you found contradictory info and they tell you
| "ah, of course, you should ignore the page on bla bla, we
| should remove it soon, for this kind of thing you need to
| check the other page, and even though it says on top that
| it's 'outdated', actually _this_ part is still valid ".
|
| The "curse of knowledge" is also very difficult to get rid
| of. It's really really hard to know where the reader is
| coming from. And what may be obvious and over-explained for
| one reader may feel like not enough detail or confusing to
| another.
| hinkley wrote:
| I use a B tree strategy on wikis:
|
| As time progresses, the most relevant topic _areas_ for
| the project consume the main page, and over time
| specifics get pushed down to subtopics and sub-subtopics.
| Anything that hasn 't been touched in a long time is
| prioritized for moving down. If something has been
| sitting at the bottom of the tree for a long time and
| looks wrong, it might be time to delete it. But in the
| meantime you've made it harder to find. Once a page
| sprouts too many links it's time to halve it and push
| some of them down one level. Good activity for a Thursday
| or Friday afternoon when you've fixed a major bug and
| don't want to start anything new.
|
| The guys who need to toot their own horn want to put four
| links onto the main page. For some reason those scenarios
| live rent-free in my thoughts on Wikis. Probably because
| I was formulating this theory while working with one of
| them.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Hmm. That is an interesting idea, thank you for sharing
| it.
|
| We currently just have a big list of pages in
| alphabetical order after a short blurb.
|
| I'll need to figure out a new list order to implement.
| Hmm. Thanks for giving me something cool to think about!
| chasd00 wrote:
| All of this applies to writing RFP responses too. I try to
| communicate the art to content authors during review, the
| ones who actually get it (or at least care enough to even
| try) write winning responses and end up with $$$ in their
| pocket.
| danparsonson wrote:
| > Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same
| way. Though I am not really convinced it is some positive
| character trait.
|
| From what you've described, it sounds to me like a coping
| strategy for dealing with an (edit: occasionally?) abusive
| parent. It may have some utility in your adult life though -
| that's the positive character trait of making the best of what
| you have :-)
| throwoutway wrote:
| > dealing with an (edit: occasionally?) abusive parent.
|
| Its unfounded to call their parent abusive without more
| information
| danparsonson wrote:
| You're right that I am responding to very limited
| information, and of course everyone is fully at liberty to
| ignore my opinion.
|
| That said, how would you describe a person (particularly a
| caregiver) who causes others to walk on eggshells because
| of their random unfounded outbursts, and refuses to back
| down when given reasonable explanations for the things they
| have become upset about? And not just once or twice but
| often enough that it has had a measurable effect on OP's
| behaviour. That sounds abusive to me.
|
| Again though, as you pointed out, it's not appropriate for
| me to continue to speculate on this; I just wanted to
| elaborate on my original comment to make clear my
| reasoning.
| ilyt wrote:
| "A man that doesn't want his kid to get into
| alcohol/drugs and worries too much" ? That's pretty far
| from abusive
| danparsonson wrote:
| It should not be up to a child to deal with their
| parents' stresses and worries. A parent's job is to guide
| and instruct, not to terrify.
|
| 'I was worried' is an excuse, not a reason.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Someone in the age bracket where many of their peers are
| already smoking needs to learn some valuable skills in
| how to present their case. At 16-17, they are not exactly
| "a child".
|
| That said, it can be incredibly frustrating to talk to
| people (e.g. parents) whose style of thinking is to
| _guess_ based on very limited information and then
| sincerely believe and stick to that guess as if it was
| brought down by Moses on clay tablets. I know such
| people, and it 's not even just personal topics, but
| discussing any story in the news or any rumor they
| overheard, they immediately paint some picture in their
| head, fill in the blanks based on a guess, follow a chain
| of reasoning absurdly far without proper evidence,
| working themselves up in the process, and then they are
| utterly unreceptive to any alternative explanations. So
| yes, I agree this is bad and we should try to listen till
| the end, defer judgment, be comfortable with "I don't
| know the details, so I don't have a well-founded opinion
| here" etc. But such meta-cognition and reflection on
| one's own beliefs don't come naturally to all, and they
| may have been punished for it in the past, it being seen
| as a kind of indecisive unconfident weakness, so they
| cultivate a persona that must _always_ know, must always
| have an opinion and a definite view on everything.
|
| This may not always rise to the level of actual "abuse"
| and indeed your knee-jerk pattern-matching response to
| label it as such is ironically itself an example of
| imagining all the details and condemning a person in the
| story you know nothing about. Maybe OP should have
| frontloaded a bunch of disclaimers like "I'm on great
| terms with my parents and we love each other, but there
| are some frustrating aspects in our communications, but
| we are doing our best to meet in the middle. That said,
| here's a story:", so that you don't jump to conclusions.
| danparsonson wrote:
| Thank you - point taken.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I think it's worth mentioning that you seem to be in an
| argument that I see again and again. I am mostly on your
| side here - it is not for the child to work around the
| parent and this is a sea chnage in (western?) psychology
| that is filtering through to even idiots like me. And yea
| it is part of the culture war we are (always) going
| through.
|
| So yes, we need to up the game on parenting and personal
| responsibility- it's going to be a tough ride as we find
| out just how bad most of our families are - but the
| upside is good too.
|
| However I think we need to also find different words -
| abuse is a strong term. And most of the reaction I think
| you are getting here is reaction to specific words as
| opposed to your philosophy
| danparsonson wrote:
| Thank you, yes I think you're right - an unfortunate
| choice of word on my part it seems.
| porknubbins wrote:
| If you had the same type of parent you can read between the
| lines (possibly wrongly but its better to be over
| sensitized than miss it) to see the narcissism or abuse. A
| stable parent would say "I trust my child who I raised and
| will hear the whole story", while the abuse parent is
| having some kind of fear or anger response triggered that
| is all about them and their emotions and they kind of stop
| paying attention to whatever else you say.
| danparsonson wrote:
| Indeed. Some things that education and hindsight has made
| obvious, can be impossible to see when they are all
| around, and even for years afterwards.
| tough wrote:
| Psychologically?
|
| I dunno man, if you as a kid have to come up with
| strategies to -not piss off- your dad during -normal-
| regular conversation, maybe there's an issue there?
|
| Maybe the dad had some issues too, who knows
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I will go further: If someone cannot wait until the
| completion of a sentence to get ticked off, they have
| problems.
| brookst wrote:
| I think it's just semantics of whether "abuse" requires
| intent. If yes, then the commenters parent was probably
| not abusive. If not and only the behavior matters without
| regard for intent or psychology, then it does seem
| abusive.
| danparsonson wrote:
| For what it's worth, I am certainly in the second camp -
| in general (without reference to this specific example),
| it's certainly possible for people to behave abusively
| towards others without even realising that they're doing
| it. One can be responding to internal pressures without
| thought for how those responses affect those around them.
| tough wrote:
| Obliviousness to how your actions affect others do not
| make those actions disappear.
| danparsonson wrote:
| Yes that's my point - behaviour can be abusive regardless
| of whether or not the perpetrator intended or even
| noticed it.
| tough wrote:
| Yes I was agreeing with you.
|
| Im on your camp.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Every human on the planet is "abusive" by that measure.
| Including, with certainty, you.
|
| The father sounds anxious and protective. Child figured out a
| hack, as we _all_ figure out hacks to optimize our
| interactions with other people (all of them imperfect), to
| avoid that diversion, and life goes on happily. Calling the
| father "abusive" is honestly grotesque, and it is the sort
| of petty, detached-from-reality moralizing that leads to
| everyone hiding any real world details lest they get the
| boorish, cliched response.
|
| It's akin to the sort of over the top, rush-to-conclusion
| relationship advice common online.
|
| "My husband forgot a McDonalds drink cup in my car last week
| and now it started leaking out of the bottom!"
|
| "Abusive! Manipulative! Gaslighting! Lawyer up, hit the gym
| and divorce his ass!"
| danparsonson wrote:
| > ...we all figure out hacks...
|
| "Hack"/"Maladaptive coping strategy" - pot-ay-to/pot-ah-to
|
| With respect, I'm not sure there's a middle ground for us
| to meet in here, and I don't have anything to add beyond
| what I've written elsewhere.
| bluepizza wrote:
| This careless comment hit me a bit hard.
|
| I grew up with two abusive parents. You have no idea of what
| that is like. There is no communication adaptation that saves
| you from the abuse. They will fly off the handle because they
| want to, and they will find a reason, even if there is none.
| The coping strategy is to avoid and keep away.
|
| OP sounds like they had a short tempered but caring parent.
| The situation was alleviated by their adaptation. We all have
| our weaknesses and strengths, and I am quite sure OP's parent
| is not the only human to be quick to judge. After all, look
| at your own comment :)
|
| Don't make being a fallible human something bad. We need to
| tolerate each other's flaws, and compromise towards each
| other.
| danparsonson wrote:
| Let me open by saying: I'm so sorry to hear about your
| experiences, and for evidently triggering some bad memories
| for you. And please understand that I mean no harm when, in
| response to:
|
| > ...I grew up with two abusive parents. You have no idea
| of what that is like...
|
| ...I reply - how can you make any assertion about what I
| know? I haven't said anything about my own childhood. Abuse
| is a harsh word but it's not a yes or no question; there
| are shades of abusiveness. What you went through sounds
| awful, and I certainly don't mean to diminish that, but
| please don't thereby suggest that others who have suffered
| less, have not suffered at all. Even mild psychological
| abuse can have far-reaching consequences, and I'm sorry
| that I will not elaborate, but I do have some relevant
| knowledge and experience about this subject.
|
| > Don't make being a fallible human something bad. We need
| to tolerate each other's flaws, and compromise towards each
| other.
|
| I agree, the world needs more genuine compassion - I
| intended, at least, to send some compassion towards the OP
| - but from the original post I don't agree that 'fallible'
| adequately covers it. That's only my opinion though, and as
| another commenter pointed out, based on incomplete
| information.
| bluepizza wrote:
| It's not about you, though. It is about OP, and the story
| they shared. Your comments are turning the narrative
| towards you - I believe accidentally, because I don't
| believe you meant to hijack the thread. But that's what
| you are doing, unfortunately.
|
| You don't have to justify or alleviate your views. It's
| all good conversation. But let's keep the focus on OP,
| and let's not make very, very persistent commentary on
| their parent's behavior.
| danparsonson wrote:
| You're right, of course - that is not my intent.
| xwdv wrote:
| I don't think you really owe people anything to put the punchline
| first like this. Sure it helps ease some people's anxiety, but
| there have been times where I've purposely taken an opposite
| approach, meandering through various vivid details, dropping some
| callbacks and winding up a story's tension to the point where
| people were on the edge of their seat waiting to hear what
| finally happened. Maybe it's sociopathic to prey on emotions this
| way.
| passion__desire wrote:
| > Maybe it's sociopathic to prey on emotions this way.
|
| This is why greeks practised Rhetorics. Remarking on the
| practice, one philosopher said the exact same thing. He said,
| "You are using people's emotions to weigh in as against the
| facts of the case."
| wodenokoto wrote:
| > I was greatly impressed by Raj's succinct way of giving me the
| right information in the right detail without going into
| unnecessary explanations.
|
| Did he though?
|
| "I'm okay" is a good start, but then maybe "there has been an
| accident", followed by "the car is fine" or "I hit/got hit by a
| bull, which is now dead".
| nathell wrote:
| Yeah. You need to form a graph of pieces of information where
| edges are 'X is a prerequisite for Y' (or 'without X, Y makes
| no sense'), and sort that topologically.
| tpoacher wrote:
| He never said "I got hit by a bull"
|
| It could be the case that he crashed into a farm and killed a
| bull and now the farmer is about to kill him with a shotgun.
|
| Which according to the author is secondary information.
| 0xBA5ED wrote:
| Yes, the anecdote is not a good example. "The bull is dead" is
| tragic but irrelevant. It would be like "Milestone 4 missed.
| Joel is gone". Who's Joel? Is he on vacation? Did he quit? Was
| he fired for causing the missed milestone? Is he dead?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Agreed. Personally, I would have gone for:
|
| > "I'm OK, my car hit a bull."
|
| What happened to the bull isn't the most important information;
| the author wants to know why his son didn't come home. Saying
| "the bull is dead" kind of answers that question, but only via
| inference ("oh, the bull must have been killed by his car"),
| which is why the father was initially confused.
|
| And then "the" should be "a" because the bull hasn't been
| introduced yet.
| mrkeen wrote:
| It's fine.
|
| The shorter the first sentence is, the sooner you can move onto
| the second sentence.
|
| Neither party expected the conversation to end after "the bull
| is dead".
| KnobbleMcKnees wrote:
| No he didn't, it was needlessly confusing and the fact that it
| introduced uninformed and unresolved intrigue for him and his
| wife goes entirely against the point he was trying to make. The
| reason being that: context is everything. When we structure a
| project status report this way, context is high and the
| audience desires new information over and above further context
| unless the balance changes.
|
| Starting with "I'm okay" was the right thing to do in context:
| an unexpected call from a child at an ominous time of day is
| the context, and knowledge of their safety is therefore
| paramount. But following it with a riddle about bulls is
| useless nonsense in the same context.
|
| Putting that aside, I didnt really appreciate this either:
|
| >Though a bit angry
|
| Angry at your son for being in a car accident? Was this before
| or after finding out the reason for the accident? Where is this
| context and why isn't it provided in the same structure you
| _just outlined_ several paragraphs earlier?
| aftergibson wrote:
| Maybe this is a cultural difference but I find this method of
| communication very confusing. Without context "the bull is
| dead" is so useless as to be meaningless. I'm OK and safe,
| there's been a car accident, I am at this location, there's no
| rush. This the most important and actionable detail for a
| parent. Bulls and their mortal status are irrelevant. This just
| reads like two robots trying to sound succinct but failing to
| communicate. Again might be a cultural difference.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No it's not cultural, it's a truly terrible example.
|
| It's actual quite ironic that a blog post about emphasizing
| clear purposeful communication, uses a main example that is
| anything but.
|
| "The bull is dead" is indeed totally meaningless and
| irrelevant here. Assuming nobody else was harmed, the status
| of the car is the next important thing here.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| > Bulls and their mortal status are irrelevant.
|
| But it's India where they are pretty big on bovines in
| general and their mortal status in particular.
| lolinder wrote:
| Is it India? The author was residing in California at the
| time of writing and the bull was a Texas longhorn [0].
| Given those details and the fact that the author didn't
| bother specifying India as the location (even though he was
| writing for an American magazine), I would assume the
| United States as the location.
|
| [0] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-
| bull.a...
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| > Without context "the bull is dead" is so useless as to be
| meaningless.
|
| It's possibly because you live in a location where bulls
| wandering on the road doesn't ever happen, and where the
| author lives it does happen?
|
| If, for example, the call was instead "I'm okay, the deer is
| dead", I wouldn't find it confusing at all.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Using "the" in this case almost seems (probably
| unintentionally) misleading or confusing. It is a definite
| article, it implies that there's a particular bull that we're
| talking about. Since there isn't a bull already introduced in
| the conversation, I think most people would begin searching
| their memory for a bull that both parties are familiar with.
| It is discombobulating.
| gostsamo wrote:
| Quite agree. The example given is bad because we don't know
| about the bull and we don't care about it. Lots more, we are
| not given the final details about the accident, so the report
| looks rather incomplete at the end.
| piecerough wrote:
| The example is brilliant and leaving it hanging for the
| reader is the intended purpose (e.g. a far-away third-party
| like me reading a team's report doesn't have a reason to
| care past that)
| philipswood wrote:
| The example is good storytelling, but bad reporting.
|
| When telling a story you want to introduce the maximum
| meaningful uncertainty into your telling to attract the
| listener into listening attentively to try to resolve it.
|
| "The bull is dead." immediately introduces clearly
| important information that tells the listener they need to
| focus, but at the same time makes it clear that more
| context is needed. i.e the subtext is "listen up important
| details to follow".
|
| For status reporting you want to allow the listener to stop
| as soon as possible to free up his/her/its limited
| management focus "bandwidth".
|
| "I was in an accident, but I'm fine" would fit his paradigm
| better. (But would make a less notable/memorable story)
| j_french wrote:
| To be fair to Raj (the guy who had just accidentally killed a
| bull), from his perspective "the bull is dead" is a very
| important part of the story.
|
| It's maybe a question of perspective. His ability to consider
| his parents' perspective might have been somewhat limited by
| the fact that he was 17, it was late at night and he'd just
| been in a car crash which resulted in the death of a bull.
|
| I think he did a great job and it's a great story. Glad to hear
| he's ok, he's lucky! RIP the bull though :(
| wodenokoto wrote:
| I didn't mean to criticize the kid, although I can see how it
| came out as such.
|
| I'm criticizing the dads ability to showcase a great example
| of the "right information in the right detail without going
| into unnecessary explanations."
|
| And I think a big part of the authors choice of example is
| exactly because it is "tantalizing" - it piques your
| curiosity because there isn't enough information to make
| sense of the situation.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Dad isn't an insurance adjuster.
|
| The point of the whole piece is to just get to the point. How
| the bull met his fate is a story, but who cares. All dad needs
| to know is _Raj is fine._
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Why mention the bull at all then?
| another-dave wrote:
| Exactly -- by front loading the bull, it's saying that this
| is the next most important bit of info after "I'm OK"
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| "You have to turn in your laptop."
|
| Way better than "IT is upgrading everyone."
| [deleted]
| elihu wrote:
| That sounds like an interesting and useful technique, but he
| never gets around to explaining how the bull dies.
| kebman wrote:
| That's a great observation. Though on the other hand, you can
| probably deduce that it was some kind of accident involving the
| car. Which begs the question; what happened to the car, which
| might even be more important than the fact that the bull dies.
| This question is of course answered, but IMHO not very well,
| and while leaving out more than a few questions that might help
| assess the damage.
| simmerup wrote:
| I think putting the punchline first will be gamed to make the
| punchline sound worse than the situation is, so you sound better
| than you are for dealing with it.
|
| What you need is a good culture rather than any reporting
| strategy in my opinion
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Yeah a lot of companies have stacks of these kinds of rules
| then it gets tiresome. I rarely find a problem where people
| waffle on too much and if they do it can be addressed in an
| individual review.
| lisper wrote:
| Reporting the punch line first only works if your interlocutor
| knows what you are talking about. In this case there is no
| antecedent for "the bull" and so there is no way the person
| hearing this story could know what "the bull is dead" actually
| means, or even whether this is a literal bull who has actually
| died, or some metaphorical reference to something else.
|
| The Right Way to report this is something like, "I'm fine, but I
| got into an accident. I hit a bull and killed it." But that
| doesn't make nearly as captivating a headline.
| elliottkember wrote:
| I think the point of the story is that his son used the process
| instead of panicking.
|
| It's easy to say he said the wrong thing, but compared with a
| panicked phone call, it's pretty good.
|
| A process like this helps override the natural response to a
| situation. People often think they would be cool in a crisis.
| But panic makes you do weird things.
| adammarples wrote:
| His son literally didn't use the process. Status is supposed
| to be step 2 but he opened with "I'm ok". The correct report
| would be "I hit a bull but I'm OK". Which is boring, obvious,
| natural, and not a click bait style headline which leaves us
| wondering what it means. Whether the bull survived or not is
| also superfluous information which shouldn't even have been
| reported at all.
| torstenvl wrote:
| "I'm ok" is the punchline, not the status. The status is
| "police are on their way, car is operable, I can explain
| more soon (no rush)"
| adammarples wrote:
| "I crashed the car" is definitely the punchline, it's
| what happened. "I'm ok" is reporting your status. "the
| police are coming" is also status. But if someone just
| texts to say that they're OK and the police are coming, I
| still have no idea what's happened.
| torstenvl wrote:
| No. You are grossly misinterpreting the point of both the
| story and this system of communication.
|
| You don't need to know what happened. You do need to know
| your kid is okay.
|
| Being so preoccupied with the "story" that you think it's
| more important than your kid being okay is
| unconscionable.
| lisper wrote:
| Sorry, but you are mistaken. From TFA:
|
| > 1. Punch line: The facts; no adjectives, adverbs or
| modifiers.
|
| > 2. Current status: How the punch-line statement affects
| the project.
|
| The facts are: I crashed the car. The status is: I'm OK.
|
| (The real lesson here is that this methodology is not
| always a good idea.)
| Talanes wrote:
| Even one of the parents in the story didn't find the
| communication method helpful.
| lisper wrote:
| Yes, but _my_ point is that it 's a really bad example,
| chosen to optimize for marketing rather than illustrating
| actual effective communication. In and of itself there is
| nothing wrong with marketing, but intentionally sacrificing
| effective communication in a piece whose topic is effective
| communication strikes me as particularly ironic, and it
| really rubbed me the wrong way.
| smeej wrote:
| I used to do this with questions at work, but I realized nobody
| actually read to the end.
|
| My format was: --- *Question.*
|
| I previously thought the answer was X, but X is not working.
|
| I have tried troubleshooting steps A, B, C, D, and E, with A1, B1
| (etc.) results. ---
|
| EVERY SINGLE TIME, the sequence of replies would be, "The answer
| is X."
|
| No, it isn't. I thought it was, but it doesn't work, as mentioned
| in the initial post.
|
| "You need to try A." I already tried A. My results are in the
| initial post.
|
| "What about B?" I also tried B. My results are in the initial
| post.
|
| "C? D? E?"
|
| :facepalm: _Please_ read the initial post. I wrote it for a
| reason.
| hkon wrote:
| I used to do this, however I have now reverted to the
| "traditional style".
|
| Reason being this punchline-first style demands "great patience"
| from the reader or listener. The reason for delaying the punch-
| line is to make sure the proper context and information is
| available before the reader or listener starts inferring the
| reasons why.
|
| Too many times the punchline carried enough punch to completely
| derail the conversation.
| rkangel wrote:
| He compares it to the "academic approach" of starting with
| background etc. But that's not what an academic paper actually
| starts with - it starts with an abstract that very briefly lays
| out the whole thing.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Don't bore us; get to the chorus.
| [deleted]
| Sprocklem wrote:
| In some disciplines, at least, the background also follows a
| separate introduction that briefly explains the problem and the
| paper's contribution. This follows an explanation->conclusion
| order, but only explains enough to understand their
| contribution, before diving more deeply into prior work in the
| background.
| sn41 wrote:
| Yup. And in CS papers, we are told to very early on (within the
| first 2 or 3 paragraphs, never later), to introduce our
| contribution. It may use some undefined terms and so on, but we
| should give the reader enough to go on. The "punchline" cannot
| be 3 pages in. Of course, the rest of the paper is to flesh out
| the details.
|
| There's also the pragmatic advice given to most graduate
| students: read the abstract, then the conclusion, then the
| introduction, then the rest of the paper.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Funny, I usually find it best to jump from the abstract to
| the methodology. Or, maybe pass through the introduction in
| between if there's any word I do not understand.
|
| The only papers I think the conclusion is more useful than
| the methodology are on the social sciences and software
| engineering.
| ilyt wrote:
| If your job is to read the paper, sure, but if you're
| wondering whether it is even relevant to what you're
| looking for abstract is useful
| a1o wrote:
| Yeah, that's true, a good abstract is usually similar to an
| executive summary, it's very short and easy to read.
| enriquto wrote:
| And a good abstract, precisely, starts with the punch line.
| If anything, modern academic writing style is guilty of using
| overly whimsical and exaggerated titles and claims to grab
| attention.
| tough wrote:
| Attention is all you need?
| karaterobot wrote:
| Not in papers, but that is definitely the way a conversation
| goes when you're speaking with a typical researcher. Ask me how
| I know. Anyway, the abstract is sort of a metadata element,
| written precisely because the rest of the paper is _not_
| concise or succinct.
| somsak2 wrote:
| fun story. in general i find it preferable to have a brief TLDR
| section of 2-3 sentences before an email, and then use the more
| traditional approach below. i think it can be a bit jarring of a
| read otherwise -- having a summary on top still accomplishes the
| same thing
| gcanyon wrote:
| "I'm okay, the car is damaged but repairable, I need you to come
| get me." -- doesn't make as good a title, but a better status.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| This is nonsense.
|
| Raj didn't even tell his dad where he was.
|
| The optimal:
|
| "I need a lift, I'm at this address, no hurry, I'm okay, the car
| needs towing."
|
| By the way "I need a lift" is said, the other party will know
| you've crashed the cad, and that your ok.
|
| This comes up again: Star Trek TNG S05E02 Darmok.
|
| Something like, "Clive and James at Sleaford".
|
| I've ridden the Seaford to Wanna 4wd track on a dirt bike, so the
| implications of three consecutive nouns would be certain as the
| referent is the exact same scenario, only the names have been
| changed, different actors.
| rkangel wrote:
| I don't use the whole reverse order thing, but I do start with
| the main point "I think we should prioritise refactoring the
| scheduling component", then build up the argument to justify it.
| I'm generally thinking about _persuading_ though rather than just
| communicating.
|
| The consultancy I used to work for called this Top Down Thinking
| but it's basically just the Barbara Minto Pyramid Principle.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| In my family the line is "The good news is, nobody got hurt."
| euroderf wrote:
| In mine, calling home on the phone, it was "The good news is, I
| didn't fall on my head".
| yakkomajuri wrote:
| While this is a fun read, I'm not sure adding "the bull is dead"
| is actually a good example of effective communication that strips
| out the fluff. "The car is damaged but operable" is, but adding
| that the bull (which hasn't been explained) is dead is actually
| fluff, given it is now irrelevant, and since it wasn't explained,
| leaves the person on the receiving end confused _and_ focused on
| this bit of technically irrelevant information (while no more
| details are provided).
|
| Nevertheless a nice read and the point of the piece still stands!
| Just think the example isn't perfect.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Like the author I immediately concluded he was in a car
| accident with a bull and that the bull was dead. It's like a 6
| word story: http://www.sixwordstories.net
| yakkomajuri wrote:
| That's fair - I mean that's what I concluded as well but my
| point was that I think adding in the bull is more distracting
| than just: "Car accident, I'm ok".
|
| But, thinking back now if I were to arrive at the scene and
| not have known about the bull beforehand that'd be quite a
| shock, so I think I've changed my mind on this one!
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Surely noone would argue that communicating in a 6 word story
| style is a good idea?
| mizzao wrote:
| This reminds me of "military style communication"
| (https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-pre...)
| and BLUF (bottom line up front).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-12 23:01 UTC)