Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

I am all for being in control of what exactly you are saying and being alert to unintended slights but this example from TFA<p><i>"But we don't have the budget or skills to do that, how would we overcome that?" ... makes the presenter look very bad. ... be diplomatic and tactful ...<p>You could phrase it as, "This seems like an amazing idea and a great presentation. I wonder how we could secure the budgeting and get the team for it, because it seems like it'd be a profitable if we do, and it'd be a shame to miss this opportunity."</i><p>I don't think the first question necessarily insults the speaker, but that aside, does the second version even mean the same thing as the first?<p>The technique used seems to be an overblown [positive-(watered down)negative- positive] sandwiching. I am not sure it is the most effective way to communicate intent without giving offense.<p>If I heard something like that in a project meeting I would have to think about what exactly was being said and mentally strip away all the bracketing empty phrases to understand the real concern.<p>The first question can be modified to lose its sting (assuming a sting exists, I am not so sure, it wold depend very much on shared history, context and tone) by softening it up a bit without the unnecessary padding of the second version.<p><i>"What are your thoughts on the budget and skillsets needed to implement this idea?"</i> or the more narrowly focused <i>"How could we secure the budgeting and the team for this idea?"</i> asked in a friendly tone avoids the middle manager speak of the second version (imo).<p>I've been in meetings (Hello Intuit!) where everyone was constantly trying to avoid giving even the slightest offense and every point was hedged in a lot of positive stroking and pre-declarations of non offensive intent, with sideways glances at the top dog in the room, to the point where no one could make out wtf was actually being said or who had what concerns.<p>Another example, the second response to his blog post didn't seem to be offensive to me, unless you are predisposed to see offense in any feedback that didn't use the sandwiching technique - positive stroke-mildly negative feedback with more hedging about ultimate altruistic purpose etc-then another positive statement about your intent/the speaker etc.<p>How much of this is a predisposition of the author vs sound advice that should be followed to get specific effects? Just something to think about.<p>By all means, be aware of how your speech/writing etc could give offense and avoid such instances where possible. Be careful in your phrasing, tone etc. Be socially aware.<p>That doesn't mean you have to be longwinded or speak in sandwiched Middle Manager-ese all the time. I think the central point of the article is valid and worth thinking about but the examples aren't very convincing. The article would be stronger with better crafted examples, considering the target audience.<p>PS: just saying: my only "strategic intent" (heh) with this comment is to provide a bit of a counterpoint here on HN, not to provide acritique feedback to the author etc, which means I don't have to follow the sandwich strategy or pad up my comment with superficial stroking to make him more amenable to my suggestions and so on and so forth.

This is great and all, but there's a bigger skill to learn: how to react appropriately in context. People who are tactful in meetings can also be overly tactful in casual conversations, to the point of giving offense.<p>Check out a few of his examples:<p><i>#1 is kind of clever pointing out a spelling error. But you have to realize, in normal society that's going to upset and make hostile the person you're addressing. Whether you mean to or not, it comes across as, "I'm demonstrating that I'm more clever than you."<p>There's a few ways it could be done differently. For instance, an email that says, "Hey Sebastian, I wanted to give you a heads up. I saw your recent post, but you spelled "wisen" as "wizen" - easy spelling error to make, since they're uncommonly used words, but I thought you should know. "Wizen" means for things to dry up and lose water. Cheers and best wishes."</i><p>If somebody posted a comment like that aimed at me, I'd think, "Wow, why is this guy working so hard to maintain distance? Is he afraid I'll think we're best friends or something? Or do I really seem so fragile he needs to soften the blow?"<p>In a meeting at work, I appreciate more tact, but I still don't like being treated like I'm fragile. Treating someone with inappropriate sensitivity is actually a great passive-aggressive way to make them feel like shit. You should only do that on purpose, never accidentally ;-)<p><i>Let's look at point #2. "FWIW, I think posts like this are more valuable the more they include real-world examples; it's kind of odd to read a post which says I had theory A of the world but now I hold theory B, without reading about the actual observations."<p>This is something which makes people trying to help or create shake their head. See, it's potentially a good point. But after someone takes some time to create something and give it away for free, then hearing, "Your work would be more valuable if you did (xyz) instead. Your way is kind of odd."</i><p>Didn't he just do the same thing? He got free feedback on something he wrote, and here he is criticizing it without first thanking the guy profusely. Irony upon irony, this is shortly followed by a list of guidelines for social self-awareness.<p>Context is everything! I appreciate tact at the right times and in the right doses, but misspelling a word is exactly the kind of small error that can be treated lightly, and excessive formality destroys any feeling of frankness or openness. Criticism is always hard to take; excessive solicitude for a person's feelings just adds an implicit criticism of, well, their ability to take criticism. To some extent, this varies by situation. Anything that aggravates the inherent anxiety of the situation -- a superior criticizing a subordinate, or criticism of a sensitive personal characteristic, for example -- indicates more sensitivity.<p>But there are many situations where directness and informality is better. Actually, I'd rather somebody posted, "Hey, it's 'wised up,' not 'wizened up,' you pompous dickhead," than for them to act like they're afraid my ego will be crushed by having a spelling mistake pointed out. At least I can assume they're kidding about calling me a dickhead.

Bad explanations of the prisoners dilemma are a constant fascination to me. They pop-up in so many otherwise excellent bits of writing, imho, because the standard mental image of two prisoners being interrogated is such a mismatch for the actual dilemma.<p>For example, in this case he's talking about "defecting by accident", yet two paragraphs before he's just outlined the fact that "the best solution individually is to defect".<p>So you're "accidentally" following the optimal strategy, which is the same one you'd pick if you had perfect information about the situation. I fail to see how that's a problem.<p>The key to the prisoner's dilemma is to avoid being in that situation. Once you're in that situation, a situation that is fascinating precisely because you are so totally screwed once in it, the "game" is over. You (and your partner) only have one rational choice and it leads to a poor outcome.<p>Change the game when and if you can, that's the lesson of the prisoners dilemma (also, if you can't change the game then defect because the other guy should logically defect too leaving you high and dry if you try to cooperate and if for whatever irrational reason he doesn't defect then you get the best possible outcome by defecting when he doesn't).<p>To be extra clear, "defecting" will always gain you something in the standard Prisoner's Dilemma. That's kind of the whole point. In an iterated prisoners dilemma, where the guy you betrayed previously gets a chance to get even it's not so simple and gets more confusing if people hold irrational grudges. Interaction with colleagues obviously fits that kind of iterated version better as does pissing off your partner in crime who'll have you shanked in the prison showers as revenge for betraying him.<p>For a discussion about nerds needing to communicate better, leading off with a false technical analogy seems like a perfect way to piss the techies off and make them ignore the rest of your message, which all seems reasonable enough in itself and doesn't really need the reference to the PD and talk of defecting to jazz it up.

This matches my experience exactly. So many times people, especially technical people, have something to say, some information to convey, and almost arbitrarily many ways to say it. They then, from among those arbitrarily many ways, fail to exercise any judgement as to which is going to achieve secondary goals of improving working relationships, making people feel good, getting people on-side, and generally improving the working atmosphere. Often they think that the information is enough, and how you say it is irrelevant.<p>Or perhaps, more accurately, they simply don't realise that there really is a choice to make, and it's an important one. How you say something can make the message more impactful, more effective, and additionally, get people working <i>with</i> you to make things better, instead of resenting you and potentially sabotaging your work.<p><a href="http://www.penzba.co.uk/SoothSayer.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.penzba.co.uk/SoothSayer.html</a>

I've always suspect that the almost ritualistic indulgence in self deprecating humor common in many places I've worked is pretty much the antidote to the "over direct" form of communication that technical types are so prone to.<p>This is probably related to the suspicion that people aren't completely comfortable working together unless you have all got very drunk at some point.... but perhaps that's because I am Scottish.<p>[NB I did find that British self deprecating humor does <i>NOT</i> work with corporate attack lawyers belonging to a certain extremely large semiconductor manufacturer]

Speaking of rhetoric, I loved the essay "How to Teach a Child to Argue" by Jay Heinrichs <a href="http://www.figarospeech.com/teach-a-kid-to-argue/" rel="nofollow">http://www.figarospeech.com/teach-a-kid-to-argue/</a><p>I also found his book "Thank you for arguing" really interesting and informative.<p>His essay is a delightful read. His book, unfortunately, somewhat more heavy handed... but still worth your consideration in my opinion.

I switched my strategy as soon as I got out of high school.<p>I used to defect all the time. Then I shut my mouth. I was initially surprised at how much information I could get if I didn't say anything, forcing the hand of others. over 10 years later and I've gotten pretty good at social and professional politics.<p>The trick is this (Socrates thought of it first). Ask questions. Still havent won? Ask some more. Only answer when you absolutely have to. Information is critical. Don't let it slip.

Oh my.<p>My <i>mom</i> often insisted on the importance of criticising with care, to avoid making the other feel bad. Yet I needed this article, written in a foreign language by a complete stranger, before I realized on a gut level that she's right.<p>And it's not the first time. So, note to self: Mom is right until proven wrong.

You never really win an argument.<p>Is it that important to be correct? Just go with the flow, it's social lubrication. Try to just go with it, vibe! [1]<p>&#62; GOOD VIBING:<p>GUY: You’ll never guess how much I got this coat for.<p>FRIEND: Wow.. Umm, 200$.<p>GUY: No man. 45$<p>FRIEND: Wow.. Nice man.<p>BAD VIBING:<p>GUY: You’ll never guess how much I got this coat for.<p>FRIEND: Oh you got a deal. I guess 30$ then.<p>GUY: Umm, actually 45$<p>FRIEND: Oh.. well that’s not bad.<p>I've gotten better as I've gotten older, and I remember times where I've literally butted horns with my dad - over such things as silly as how far into the intersection should you go when making a left turn. I didn't want to get caught in the intersection so I always waited until the last moment to spurt forward and make the turn quickly as the light turned yellow. My dad on the other hand - believed it should be halfway or whatever in the intersection - and even Google'd up a DOT/Driver's Manual to prove his point - and CC'd all our other family members who had no interest/idea we were so fired up about our respective viewpoints.<p>[1] "Social Vibing"<p><a href="http://www.bristollair.com/2008/outer-game/pua-skills/social-vibing/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bristollair.com/2008/outer-game/pua-skills/social...</a>

I remember clearly that I already had understood this when I was 12 and corrected some of the teacher's assertions (such as people not having weight in the Moon because of <i>lack of air</i>). Classmates used to laud my soft and well-mannered way to tell the teacher he was wrong, without saying it explicitely, and leaving him a graceful retreat path.<p>So either I'm not a proper geek/nerd or the generalization is a bit overextending.<p>My impression is that most persons do understand that vocal negative critics are a fact of life (and specially online forums) so don't worry too much about them. They're just too visible, but the same happens with ads.<p>Once I've cleared the constructive comment stuff, I feel the urge to write some snarky comment on how the author's understanding of HTML tags made his cursive text appear without spaces around :-)

<i>Hey Sebastian, I wanted to give you a heads up. I saw your recent post, but you spelled "wisen" as "wizen" - easy spelling error to make, since they're uncommonly used words, but I thought you should know. "Wizen" means for things to dry up and lose water. Cheers and best wishes.</i><p>I see where he is going and agree, but if it takes someone a whole paragraph to tell me I misspelled a single word I am <i>not</i> going to be as joyful as he makes it sound like.

hmm... I think many rationals problem is that they don't interact enough and then use their positive social interactions to social proof their bad ones.<p>Consider his first scenario where the person puts up his hand and says that they don't have the budget to do that. The speaker might indeed be mad and likewise some others in the room. Invariably there would be someone there that likes your outspoken or directness[just by the share number of people in the room, probability dictates it].<p>Now, if our rational guy stands there by himself and refuses to interact with others, the speaker and his allies will brand him as rude. Every move he makes, no matter how trivial would only be seen in this light.<p>If he had started interacting until he found someone who likes his disposition, he is then social proof by that person. Then he begins to climb a ladder of social proof. He would meet someone else who because that one person liked him they would like him too, and you can see how this spreads exponentially. Now, it would be just the speaker left hating him; well no actually, the speaker will now think his evaluation of the situation was previously wrong and that the guy is alright.[Appropriate reading: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments</a>]<p>And if our rationalist is lucky he can turn his new found social proof into Authority by running for some prestigious position such as president. At which point, people will like him cause he is in that given position.<p>Being nice has it's only problems also. For instance, people would assume you want something from them if you start acting nice the first time you meet them.<p>Again, social proof can over come this problem of being suspecting of wanting something.<p>Social proofing can lead to what I call, the lovable Jerk. People who act in a way that undermines others but the general populous loves them so they are forgiven time and time again.<p>With that said let, me sum up my points. Being social proof will lead to people liking you but as a rational you only have a few people who naturally like you but you need to build from those few.[Appropriate viewing: Derek Sivers - How to start a movement <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V74AxCqOTvg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V74AxCqOTvg</a> ]

Defecting by default is actually a pretty stupid and inconsiderate move. There are many variations of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but commonly the options are weighted such that the least punishment (or greatest reward) is gained _overall_ when people cooperate. Defection has a certain chance of bringing a locally maximized outcome to one individual, but that chance is relatively small considering the risk, and even if the gamble succeeds the global rewards from cooperation would have been higher. I believe this basic scenario also applies to many if not most real-world settings. Defecting is a stupid and risky, a gambler's choice in pursuit of a questionable (and often time elusive) outcome.

I believe it may be due in part to valuing the channels of communication. A lot of social politics / etc. muddy the waters, because being to the point is socially disadvantageous so often.