Introverts, Emotional Processing, Self-Esteem and Salary Negotiations
cliffc.org
cliffc.org
To use his first example, when he's being insulted why spin off into emotional-analysis neverland? What's happening there is you're being abused by an asshole, and you should respond to said abuse and, once that situation is resolved, examine the real issue more thoroughly.
I'm speaking as someone who used to think exactly like this guy. What I realized in early college was: In general, no one cares. No one cares if you're partially wrong, no one cares if you're a little off or awkward, no one beyond your family/SO and close friends gives a flying fuck about your emotions. Nor will they remember a slight moment of awkwardness a week later. They're simply far too consumed with their own lives for it to matter. Demanding perfect social interactions is paralyzing, irrational and not expected.
He does arrive at some appropriate conclusions ("Know thy worth"), but all the analogies and self-analysis he does isn't "emotional processing", it's simple insecurity. IMO the only emotions he's processing in those moments are fear and anxiety.
Took me awhile to figure this one out, but once I did, life was significantly better.
The bottom line of the book is that people that want to get along fine with others should be wary of the other people's emotions. For instance, of the the first "principles" in the book is to not criticise, condemn or complain people openly, because people get defensive (an emotional reactional) when you do that, and you can't get nothing out of them. The rest of the chapters are also related with other people's emotions.
As for "genuinely cares", the book also talks about it in some chapters. What I could get out of it so far is that someone who listens with attention is mostly grasped as someone who genuinely cares about other people..
All in all, the bottom line of the book is all about "managing" the other people's emotional reactions..
But in my amateur opinion it is at the end of the day simply a mal-adaptive reflex, and reflexes can be trained. Working out, mediation and proper sleep also helped a lot more than I thought they would. I wonder if reflexes like this partially stem from an mildly overactive adrenal system or something.
You are the only constant in your life. The only person with complete continuity (outside any mishaps/substances). That moment you're obsessing over? To everyone else it's just a 3min awkward interaction with a random person they're never going to see again. Or a bit of weirdness in a relationship that's going to last a small fraction of their life if you're lucky.
Relax, do stuff, experiment, have fun. You're the only one who cares. Say something random, see what happens.
To expand on this point, a solid "whoah, whoah, whoah...slow down for me...what happened" goes a long way. Recognising someone is in emotional pain, and working to solve that, goes miles with even the crankiest people.
I'd prefer to maintain a level of mindfulness towards emotions, and avoid allowing them to force a state of "emotional processing" along with the various actions required.
For somebody who seems to run into the same issues in all aspects of his life, I can only recommend the Costanza method. [0] I did however begin to wonder if the author was pulling my leg when he complained of partners wanting to talk during sex--because, based on the rest of the post, how is this guy getting laid? FWIW, when in doubt, whisper in French. [1]
[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0697744/?ref_=ttep_ep10 [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier
In the first example presented in the article, it would have been much more effective and kind to come to the other person and try to understand why the module failed instead of ranting. Ranting and yelling almost never leads to positive outcomes even if it feels good at the time.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-op...
I stopped at:
> Getting anger out requires some physical activity to get the adrenaline to metabolize.
This has been disproven. "Letting it out" only leads you to be more aggressive. Maybe at a more appropriate time, but still, it doesn't "calm you down". Time and reflection do that.
The bit about "The Aspects of Farmer, The Magi, and the Warrior" seems particularly out of place. It is pure conjecture, and seems arbitrary to me.
It's good to know yourself but please refrain from giving general advice based on your personal anecdotal evidence. I'm talking about everything after your own introspection. It seems like helping but it isn't.
Edit: Also to anyone reading this, for the love of god, don't take psychological advice from untrained internet strangers. If you find yourself struggling with the same issues, see a therapist. They're good at this stuff.
Preferring to stay home and read a book rather than socialize at a bar is an introverted trait, but dungeon mastering (or even participating) in a role playing event is extroverted. Being unsure what to say at lunch is introverted, owning the tech meeting is extroverted.
I mean, its obviously more complicated than this, but the basic rule is that there is no such thing as an introvert, and honestly, as a manager of people with varying degrees of loudness, it's not always the loudest or most social people who are good at bargaining for a raise.
Yes introverts do some "extroverted" stuff, and may be even very good at that. What makes them different from extroverts is that extroverts get energised by doing that, and introverts get drained.
From reading the below article [0] which talks about what you say, the 'letting it out' is e.g. punching a pillow.
Perhaps he's wrong about the part where you're actively thinking about the aggression towards the other person, but the advice to go and run or do something physical instead of shouting at the ones you love is definitely a good idea.
[0] https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/anger-and-stress-letting-it...
A lot of the psychologizing and self-diagnosis in this post could be cut out if the author realized he was simply being verbally abused by an asshole. Which he was. No need for the "red" and "green" stuff. "Why" rarely matters, and even less often is something you can do anything about, while choosing your response is. Sometimes that response should be "you're a fuckin' asshole, Chad," which doesn't rely on knowing why they're being an asshole. Do I have to feel that I grasp the "Warrior" mentality in order to tell someone they're being rude?
There's a lot of metaphor and cruft in this story as it trundles on, and oftentimes naming things is used to not deal with them. Is anybody disrupting copy-editing as a service for bloggers?
Essentially some act "stuns" you, in this case a direct challenge or statement made by the guy verbally assaulting him sends him reeling. Each statement is made successively so he was stunned by each statement... hence "stun-locked" as in he was stunned, then stunned again, then again, and had no time to collect himself or respond.
In video games "stun-locking" usually means to render another player out of control of their character temporarily, but when the effects are chained the other player can do basically nothing until the perpetrator has run out of ways to keep the "stun-lock" going.
[1] https://youtu.be/_UPVa_ftVWk?t=58
(Explanation: in Final Fight, you can normally only chain 3-4 hits on an enemy before knocking them down, which makes them invulnerable until they stand up. However, if you miss an attack, it resets the counter. Turning around, punching the air, and then landing another hit can be done in less than the length of most enemy stuns.)
If you're (or anyone else) interested in talking more about it, feel free to let me know. I had to do a lot of similar work starting from a similar place as you're describing. You (and anyone else seeing nothing "wrong" with the author's response) might also consider reading Karla McLaren's _The_Language_of_Emotions_.
Yes, that's exactly the point made in the article. How did you manage to miss that point, Chad, you fuckin' asshole?
The point of the article is that for some people it's impossible to respond in that situation, hence the "stun-locked". You feel the adrenaline rushing, but something holds you back. The author describes this fairly comprehensively.
Also, if you look at this guy's achievements, he's no blogger. I remember studying his lock free hash table implementation at one point.
But alas, I do agree with you that all this stuff is pseudo-scientific, and could well use some epistemic framework.
(Src: read it on HN a few weeks ago ;) )
People have a prerogative to speak freely in the language that makes sense to them, and you are totally capable of making the effort to figure out what they mean when they say stuff in their chosen tongue.
The way to think about a situation like that is in terms of having boundaries, not about ego. Don't take abuse. You don't need a witty comeback. Or, it will come when you stop thinking you need to tolerate abuse.
The part about talking with your partner about what works for you in sex is lovely.
“What’s your current salary?” is a trap question–Here's how to answer it | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724755
"Before you even get a job offer, it's important to decide what your "walk away" number is [...] I recommend literally writing it down" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14447890
Looks like the "current salary" question came up. Any other topics I should jump on for this thread? (Soooo many comments, it's taking a long time to get through them.)
Cheers!
What mindset is needed as someone with minimal production development experience (perhaps an internship or something) goes into a job interview salary negotiation? That first negotiation forms the foundation of the rest of their career -- no pressure!
Since you mentioned mock interviews, I'll assume that Twitch channel is mostly focused on interviewing, getting more interviews, and ultimately getting job offers. If that's the case, the single best thing they can work on is their positioning - telling a story about how they'll make the company better if they're a part of it.
I have a video of how Software Developers can do this effectively here: https://fearlesssalarynegotiation.com/software-developer-pos...
This is especially useful for internships and entry-level jobs because most of the resumes submitted for those jobs look very similar. But positioning can help a Developer stand out from the pack. Sometimes, standing out as a slightly stronger candidate is all it takes to get an offer.
> <verbal abuse from coworker>
Hell no. Not even close.
What kind of terrible places have you worked? If you ever experience anything close to this level of abuse you should report it if possible, and if nothing changes, quit.
My current hypothesis is that a sever lack of self-esteem causes me to rely on esteem from others. But because negative interactions hurt so much more than good interactions feel good, I just end up avoiding others.
There's also my mother's hypothesis that some combination of drugs will fix me. I think this seems improbable, but she claims it's how she was fixed.
Once you've really really realized that ( knowing it is not enough, you have to know people that seem brilliant and successful and find out how shite or vulnerable they sometimes feel), you start to be a little less ashamed of your own weaknesses.
Another good thing is your start to be a lot more tolerant and human, and, well, less of an asshole.
You also become less afraid of failing, which lets you try more things.
That usually gets me fired up enough
This throws the attacker into a bit of mental confusion and their anger subsides instantly as they're trying to process this unexpected deviation from their pre-planned storyline. Example:
Ahole: Your code broke while demoing it. You're a shit dev and you should feel shit.
You: You demoed with the alpha code?! Really? Did your mom never tell you to ask before you touch? hope you learnt a lesson today. Maybe you should write some lines.... ' I shall not touch alpha code....'
This is probably an extreme example but it works in every day situations too. The goal is not to argue back at all. Just flip the entire thing on its head and leave them out to dry. If they come to battle with a knife, shoot to kill.
If I weren't livid already, that would get me there. It's condescending, needlessly brings in and insults a loved one and offers zero empathy or productive feedback.
If someone is trying to be the alpha-jerk, playing emotionally manipulative games, they're not teachable (at least not at that moment). Compassionately asking whether they had a rough childhood is not going to help. (I mean, it might, at a different time and setting. It won't in the current one, though.)
And what they are doing is not OK. Life is too short to have to deal with that kind of garbage.
So what are your options? Silently take it, but that's not helpful - not for yourself, for your coworkers, or even for the aggressive jerk who's abusing you. It's probably better to inform the jerk, in no uncertain terms, that behaving that way will have immediate negative consequences.
Now, it's better if that message comes from the jerk's supervisor, rather than from a coworker. And it may be better to start with a slightly less aggressive response (the first time).
Note well: I'm assuming that the behavior is deliberate. If it's not - if they genuinely don't know any better - they need training on how to not be a jerk. (Hey, we've all got to learn sometime.)
There's a bright line between telling someone they're being rude and being rude back. OP could communicate something like "you're coming across super aggressively right now; that makes it hard for me to have this conversation." That draws a clear maturity line. Such lines can motivate better behavior, by laying the groundwork for mutual respect. They also, in the worst case, clearly establish fault.
In a professional environment, you can't demand someone stop being an asshole by being one back. That just invites others to feel fine being rude to you in the future.
> I'm assuming that the behavior is deliberate
That is an untested assumption. Double check, preferably by asking them as directly as possible, e.g. "this is coming across in an incredibly hostile way; I don't think that's your intention."
Today doesn't seem to be my high point for patience...
Ahole: Your code broke while demoing it. You're a shit dev and you should feel shit.
Example You: Damn right, absolute shit. At least I do a pre-demo check before trying to show my shit to people.
If you are applying for a job at a company, there is no chance you are going to change their entire compensation strategy as a precondition to getting the job. So it's either engage Warrior mode and negotiate, or move on and interview somewhere else.
If you found a company, or in a position in your current company that upper management will listen to you, that's a better opportunity to switch to Magi mode and discuss how to change the entire compensation policy to something better for everyone involved.
I think you're right. But the GP is apparently more comfortable as a Magi; so why not make it into an advantage?
I think it's fairly easy for these models to fail at bringing in experts because they put extreme downward pressure on the gains from expertise and aggressively enforce regression to the mean. If someone makes twice as much as someone else you have to justify it not just in terms of market demand and a personal outlook on the skillset but also in terms of the morale effects of paying someone else twice as much openly. I'm not sure that's good for many parties and I'm quite certain it's bad for at least some. I think the likely effect is fewer people in security and fewer people in AI at the companies that do these things.
Why does this sound backwards to me? If a position is hard to fill, wouldn't you want to pay the person more so that they don't leave?
Conversely, if a position is easy to fill, wouldn't the university pay less, since if the person leaves they'll be easy to replace?
How does paying someone less because their position is hard to fill make any kind of sense? What am I missing here?
I don't know if this strategy even has to pay off in actuality, in the long term, but that actual performance of the strategy isn't as important as maintaining that model of control of labor costs.
I don't think you're missing anything. Free markets (or supply and demand) are perfectly symmetric. That's why they cannot enforce any kind of morality, like meritocracy, whatever it is. Only people can do that and it will always have a cost in the completely free market.
The only way transparent salaries help the majority instead of being used as a tool for businesses to just say, "We only pay 100k/yr, that's what everyone makes" is if there is some body enforcing fair pay.
"Jane gets paid $X in the same position, it would be unfair to give you a raise and not her"
I don't work somewhere with transparent salaries and I already get that excuse — I've more than once heard "you're kind of already at the top of our range for X position" and "if we pay you anymore you'll be making more than me!"
It sounds like managers will be doing that either way. With open salaries they at least wouldn't be able to lie about it.
This stance fools the left into thinking they need to tell the working class that they are losers. People react badly to that; they will happily forgo new welfare programs and regulatory subsidies and will instead rail against the status assertions behind it all.
Which brings us to Trumpism...
Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Strawmen!
CEO's? Really? Walking into a conversation with a CEO with this stereotype in mind surely impacts the conversation, no?
For example, it would probably be a bad choice to go into negotiations with an used car salesman without a "Warrior"-like mindset.
If you sucked you will suck forever to the people who knew it. Know thyself and move on.
It's so easy to fuck this up when you are a decisive competitive extroverted energetic person.
I cannot stress enough the importance of a soft touch around quiet creators.
If I could humbly recommend a trick that will warn someone like me of the damage they could do. Send an email after the first "stun lock". Explain how the interaction made you feel. If the person isn't toxic they will realize what they've done and apologize immediately. If they don't you're dealing with a grade A asshole and there's honestly nothing you can do short of learning to be a bigger asshole which would probably violate your integrity.
But I would not handle all such social situations so quickly or confidently. And sometimes the moments I miss are opportunities to be nice. The point being that moving along a personality dimension can't replace a missing skill, though it can partially amelirate the effects.
The problem is getting past freezing up. It's hard because it was my brain's innate reaction all through my young adult years, so I had to put a lot of time and energy into rewiring it to not freeze up first.
Once I could get past freezing up, I could practice ways to stay rational in emotionally charged situations, which in turn allowed me to learn how to defuse situations better. With more practice, I was able to manage the same situations with a strong sense of principle. That in turn let me say "no" in a way where people consistently respected my answer.
But that was a 5 year journey filled with unpleasant moments.
In the pursuit of not letting my own emotions and tendency towards avoidance of potential conflict or failure rule my actions I had the notion that no person is well served by being much more self conscious than a golden retriever. That is, their feelings remain in the moment, and then they move on.
This got me running with a few other dog metaphors that have served me well. For instance, I consider my own emotions, instincts, and drives as if they were also 'dogs'. Different dogs with different dispositions. Some fearful, running to hide at the drop of a hat. Others willful, jumping up on the table to grab the steak even though there will be hell or hangover to pay for later. Still others coiled, tense, and ready to bite.
The question is, is the measure of a (hu)man, the sum of their dogs? I would opine that the better measure is in the ability of their master to keep them on leashes of the right length, and to perhaps, if possible, train them to sit and shake when it is needed in order to act as the person that you really wish to be. Just like training a dog or strengthening ones grip on their leash it takes consistent, deliberate, exercise and it will not happen with any amount of wishful thinking or un-acted-upon research into bettering ones' self.
Stoicism seems to be a bit of a cliche of late, but I can say that it found me at the right time, and that it's brought a lot of value as a non-doctrinal system of perspective for ones' place in the universe and how to best leverage the one thing that you can actually hope to control, yourself.
I'll allow myself a feeling of pride when I reach the point that a surprise verbal assault leaves me not with an hour of bruised ego, red face, and bristling nape, but with the same neutral irritation as when the ornery dog of a negligent owner barks and growls at me in passing. After all, what's the difference if the persons belligerence has as little to teach me as the dog's? Would I vow vengeance on the dog to protect my honor? Lie awake at night wondering what I did wrong? Of course not. It proves nothing and I have better things to do.
If its treated as an opportunity for improvement, and specifically not an exercise in assigning blame, then I've seen it be very successful. People have knowledge gaps, incorrect assumptions, institutional knowledge from other institutions, or just flat out make the wrong call under pressure, in hindsight. Learn from it and improve. That said, I've also seen it be completely pointless when a team believes it to be an exercise in blame assignment, no matter how much its been promised to the contrary. If its not possible to hold such an exercise, then the company has way bigger problems, and wouldn't you much rather work somewhere healthy?
> I have the following problem: "..I can’t do verbal processing and emotional processing at the same time..." Here are ways to mitigate it.
Mitigation, in my opinion, is secondary to actually solving the problem. I'm not sure whether OP believes it's solvable and chooses to mitigate, or just mitigates because he thinks there's no solution -- either way, I believe it IS solvable.
People who have that problem can learn to do both things at once, A person can gain control of his Farmer/Magi/Warrior aspects instead of just exhibiting a given, and most importantly: People can avoid win the war without engaging in battle. There are so many "fights" going on in that piece, when things can be solved without them.
Don't underestimate your own capabilities.
> Why was I stun-locked?
> Why couldn’t I think of the snappy response?
> Because I can’t do verbal processing and emotional processing at the same time!!!
This is worth repeating from the article. It explains an unbelievably common feeling I've had for my entire adult life - not knowing what to say at the time and then getting frustrated later on when you do think of something
That one piece is an absolute gem.
His answers for solving this aren't perfect, but certainly worth reading.
I learnt to cope with those situations by emotionally distancing myself from them. Then I'm free to respond more naturally.
Lately, I've started to read some peer-reviewed research and book by researchers on emotions, and I've come to accept that emotions are mostly a biological mechanism which allows for a faster reaction to inputs (from external inputs or internal inputs - thoughts) before your intellect has time to process those inputs.
The book "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman has a very interesting chapter (Anatomy of an Emotional Hijackin) that tries to explain biologically what happens with emotions. The idea is that some of the sensory inputs, for instance, visual, are sent to the amygdala as well as to the visual cortex. But since the visual cortex has to do some processing which takes time, the amygdala has a faster but sloppier response. For instance, someone throws a ball into you while you're looking away. You can grasp something by the corner of your eye, and then you raise your arms to defend yourself. Only later you see that it was an inoffensive beach ball. The first reaction was by the amygdala while the identification of the ball was done slowly by the visual cortex..
So now I try to enforce a small amount of time to understand my emotional feedback mechanism before reacting to things. But if it's a shark coming my way, I flee, of course. You learn a lot about your self and your own beliefs by listening to your automatic emotional responses before commiting yourself to any action/reaction. For the case of the coworker, ideally I would say him to slowdown, unless I knew beforehand he was a jerk, and maybe I could be more prepared..
The engineers were INCREDIBLE ASSHOLES.
Really cold and dickish, to me that is.
But to each other! JEEZ. Cliquish, abusive and just fucking mean. Total lord of the flies shit. Really toxic.
I had a serious talk with a couple of the more abused ones. Told them, "no, it isn't you, it's them. You need to quit."
I've seen some places that were a bit... diseased... but wow. Is this normal?
So, for example, there is the "Indian Brotherhood" within Microsoft (NOT being racist, it is THEIR term). There are people who send in doubles to interview for them (to help you understand: at Microsoft you interview with a team you won't be working on, and on top of that, several months to a year may pass between the interview and when you actually start work). Such that, it becomes the case that the guy who shows up on day 1 is not the guy who passed the interview a few months ago. If you are a manager, and maybe you came from India and were hired in by the same route, you may feel an overwhelming social obligation to protect persons like this. It becomes the case that anyone who shows disgust, or judgement whatsoever is now a threat to them. On top of that, you have an incredible amount of leverage over this person. They have demonstrated that they are willing to lie, cheat and live a totally false life in order to impress family that lives across the seas. That person is your bitch now, and they'd better do whatever you say, or you will reveal them as a fraud/fire them (or so they think).
Reality sucks so hard.
That said, there's more to what was presumably male socialising, than what's on the face. There's a distinct difference in ribbing each other and poking fun versus being verbally hostile.
It’s possible that in his specific situation he is both introverted and highly emotionally responsive. But it’s a logical fallacy to then extrapolate that connection to other individuals with only one of those attributes.
You ask a girl out she says no, you have to just move on to the next one. You have to tell yourself she does not know you yet properly and it is her loss. Our brain is very good at forgetting failures over time. You do it sufficient number of times and you learn to take No like a champ. Spending too much time thinking about that one failure will only result in waste of time. Of course it goes without saying that you need to see how to improve things over time.
I was lucky to learn this lesson quickly. Every year I remind my boss that the salary needs to be either adjusted for inflation (and real estate inflation) or I should be put a performance improvement plan because if my performance is down you should not keep me employed.