edit:spelling
The assumptions made by a listener as a result of intentionally limited data are not your responsibility in any way, indeed even if you were able to predict them with any reasonable level of accuracy, which you are not.
I have an essay pending on this exact topic.
We all look forward to reaching a conclusion you didn't intend us to due to our assumptions.
http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Gricean_maxims
I find it unlikely that you really abide by this stated disregard of implicit assumptions - it would make communication impossible. The amount of information required to convey even basic facts is encyclopedic if you and your conversational partner don’t make use of assumptions about what the other already knows.
It turns out that if you abide by those linked rules, casual friendly discussions (things that are nonessential, for the most part) are pretty much ruled out. I find myself more often communicating with people who I have no explicit business or goal with, in social settings, and abiding by rules for cooperation on a team/task would make me a very boring person to speak to, indeed.
Basically communication is bidirectional, if the listener don't understand anything, it's probably their fault too.
Understanding is not a right or a gift, it's a process.
You can't force people to understand and no matter how you think about the listener, the listener have to do their part: listen.
I wouldn't say "probably". It might be. It might be the fault of the speaker. Or maybe both. Basically, my point was that it's not ONLY the listener's fault.
I.e., both sides have some level of expected interest/gain in successful communication and that makes each of them implicitly responsible (at least to themselves) for their part of gain from communication.
I fully agree. :-) My point was it does not fall only on the listener.
By this logic, one can lie by remaining entirely silent. I don't buy it.
Yup. An example would be listening to someone reach the wrong conclusion, and by staying silent and not correcting them, implying that they were correct.
The listener's assumptions (or lack thereof), which happen after the speaker speaks, cannot retroactively cause the statement to be or not be a lie.
However, the original point still applies. He does not suffer from these issues, and directly communicated that he did. That is a lie.
At no point did he directly communicate anything about custody in his statement.
You are confusing implication with direct statements.
Whether you deceive by purposefully implying a falsehood or by purposefully denoting a falsehood it is still a lie.
Seriously, how far are you willing to go in your attempts to justify lying? You are basically saying "If I define my lie this way, it isn't a lie"
It's far easier and better for all involved if you simply tell the truth.
Recently I had a corporate installed process maxing out my CPU so I went to the help desk to see the techs (the triager at the front desk thought it might be a fan issue and that I didn't know what was wrong). Since I was able to tell them the exact process and other details, they immediately recognized it as a specific issue they had seen before and we skipped the whole diagnosis back and forth. If I had gone in there and said, "the fan is running really high" I'd probably still be there.
Dear users everywhere: the point of the exercise is not to prove there is a problem. I believe you when you say there is a problem. I need enough context to understand what the problem is.
wpr -start GeneralProfile
do something, or let process spin
wpr -stop foo.etl
Include foo.etl with your bug report. Be aware that it will include personal information from your machine (machine config, user paths, process names, etc.).
You wouldn't do this with a doctor. You wouldn't do it with a police officer. So why do it with me? Or tech people? Are they somehow less impressive? I mean you are seeking their help. Maybe show some respect.
if you're ever at the garage waiting on a repair, just speak English. Yeah I know my questions are going to be a little basic and repetitive sometimes but they're for my understanding. What sounds like a waste of breath for you is actually helping me to formulate a solution and troubleshoot a problem. Work with me, not around me.
Doctors enjoy a higher reputation for "honesty and ethical standards" [1] and have the specter of medical malpractice if they yield a misdiagnosis, particularly if it's one that harms the patient. There is no equivalent for mechanics and frankly the public on average trusts mechanics far less than doctors. Auto mechanics got 32% in the high/very high trust category vs 67% for doctors in the latest Gallup poll. [1]
Anecdotally distrust of mechanics is such an issue I distinctly remember my youngest sister getting approached by car dealers from all over the city after she took auto shop in high school. She was told dealership repair shops needed women because some female customers simply didn't trust what they were being told by male repair shop representatives. Despite this apparent need the pay offered wasn't enough to entice her from just working at the O'Reilly Auto Parts down the street.
[1]
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions...
We have mandatory visits at work here in Italy and to save time when I go there, instead of following the usual routine, I say immediately: my grandfather suffered from high pressure, my mom has been curing her high pressure her entire life, I also probably have it so if you find high pressure, I know everything about it already. Also my parents worked in healthcare, you can use medical terms, I get those.
I also tells them I suffer from a genetic heart condition, not worrying, but existent.
It's called anamnesi, it's a necessary process to establish the patient's background and saves a lot of time to the both of us.
They don't have to explain to me that I should avoid using salt and all the side effects of a condition I know very well and I don't have to listen to things I already know, since 40 years ago.
Assume competence if they show competence
If they don't, assume they will be part of the problem, you won't get any help and they will make the situation worse
This breaks down when dealing with monopolies and companies that are too big to fail. Customer service in their case is always monkeys (from my experience) - they aren’t paid enough to care, they don’t know anything about their company’s product/service (because a skilled person wouldn’t put up with the low pay and working conditions) and have very limited power in actually fixing your problem even when they understand it.
In that case scaring them into escalating the call might be a better strategy than just running around in circles trying to make a monkey understand what you’re after.
Installing an IDE just to have the icon to show for it is a stupid hack that'll stop working once people see through the charade.
OTOH, running the test suite and showing the failing tests or, if they pass, explaining very precisely what misbehavior you're seeing and how you reproduced it, is actually helpful.
Be helpful to the extent of your competence but honest about its limits. Trying to bullshit when you clearly have no clue makes you annoying to work with, but so does being a noob who doesn't even try to understand what's going on and just wants someone else to do all the work.
It's like going to a foreign country and making an effort to speak their language. Even if you're bad at it and end up having a conversation in your native language they'll respect you for the effort.
You wouldn't see a doctor and pretend to also be one but understanding some basic terminology and diagnostic procedure will help.
What do you do if after all this, they still keep circling the problem?
If you want to add authority pick Y = Newspaper. If you think the person will respond better to you placing yourself societally lower, say 'online' and weaken your statement with something like "but who knows how true that is" etc.
The objective is to place the thought in their head but keep them believing they're putting the pieces together. You could even try "It's probably not Z, right? Like in that movie". There doesn't have to be a movie, no one will follow up.
This part is hard because you really need to read their reactions and make sure you come off not as a kook hypochondriac but as a bumbling layman who just happened upon the right thing.
Do it wrong and you'll be patronizing and insta-lose. Do it right and you'll get everything you want.
I employ this + being as non-threatening as possible (cheerful, less smart than, less powerful than) + minor groveling ("would you mind doing this anyway, I know you're probably right but it'll make me feel so much better").
I get pretty quick service everywhere, even where other people complain.
In general, though, this is last resort. Usually the fastest way to get good service is to rapidly and clearly comply with orders. Just like when you're debugging an issue, you've got a standard process, other professionals do too and letting them prune their search tree is important. You know that lingering feeling you have where you're like "maybe the DNS server is flaky, naaah it couldn't be"? That's what they're avoiding and giving that to them means you get bucketed it into "smooth interaction" which is superior to anything else because in the end, nothing works better than someone wanting to help you.
I think what method works best really depends on your personality type. I agree that the goal is to ensure that you are making the interaction smooth by get the person you're asking for help what they need. But I also see asking for help as two different modes.
1. I'm asking for help because I am not empowered (access controls, specialty tools) to fix my own issue, but if I had been so empowered I could have resolved it on my own easily.
2. I'm asking for help because I don't know the solution, but I'm competent enough to narrow it to a particular trouble area.
In #2, I acknowledge outright, internally and externally, that because I am asking for help I have reached the limit of my competence. My request is inherently respectful, because I'm acknowledging the superior competence of the person(s) I'm asking for help from, but out of respect for their time I do my best to ask a good question and provide all the necessary details to make helping me a low friction event.
In the case of #1... often it's better to aggressively establish your own competence to get them to just do what you need done. Unfortunately in the world of large organizations and bureaucracy you will deal with a lot of incompetent people who are put in a position of some tiny fraction of power over you. You need to get them to exercise that power to your benefit, but you also need to not alienate them so they withhold it. People with only a small amount of power can be extraordinarily vindictive, so it's best to approach them with a measure of respect, but also clearly establish the boundaries of the interaction so you can proceed as quickly as possible and be on with your life.
I've worked roles in which I was in both situations on the other side of the table, but I had enough self-awareness to realize when I was the monkey in #1 and I did my best to be as efficient as possible and let people get on with it. In situation #2, I understand very deeply the frustration of having someone essentially toss something over the wall and in so doing show their disrespect for your competence and the value of your time. As always, you want to go through life without making other people feel badly, but taking a submissive pathway will not always work for you, especially if that is not in your nature.
In the last fifteen years or so of adulthood, I've met few roadblocks. Perhaps I would take a different approach if that's what I saw.