Hacker News Reader

Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

The baseline expectation of social niceties is the lubricant upon which our human systems run. That you don't personally find them necessary, or even perhaps find them aggravating, does not mean that they should not be by-default valued in the recognition that the person at the other end of the line is a fellow human being with feelings and needs.

It does not take much effort to be nice in the general case. Your desire for efficiency does not supersede respect for others' humanity. And, frankly--resentment at a coworker for saying "good morning"? Yikes.

View on HN

There's a difference between having niceties and content in one message:

> Good morning! When I foo the bar, I expect it to baz, as per documentation at <link>, but it seems to be drizzling instead. Could you please tell me if it's me doing something wrong, or there is a bug in bar that prevents me from fooing it? Thank you!

Compare this with the typical annoying IM exchange that happens across multiple timezones (EU ↔ India seems to be the worst):

  <Mar 01 2021 05:59> Them: Hi
  <Mar 01 2021 10:00> Me: Hi, what's up?
  <Mar 02 2021 04:03> Them: Do you have a moment?
  <Mar 02 2021 10:00> Me: Yeah, what's your concern?
  <Mar 03 2021 04:20> Them: I have a question
  <Mar 03 2021 10:00> Me: What's the question?
  <Mar 04 2021 04:54> Them: I'm trying to foo the bar and it doesn't work

Grrrrgggh! Four days! FOUR days pass and they are only starting to ask the damn question!

Okay. Sometimes it's not so bad. Sometimes it's only two days wasted.

Yeah, this is a really annoying habit in instant messangers, even without the long delays in response. I've just taken to not responding to messages like 'hi'. Either state what you want or I'm not going to interrupt my workflow to ask. (that said, I don't mind (and may appreciate) pleasentries included along with useful questions or information, even on bug reports, just don't add more round-trips for the sake of them).

Ooof, never seen it that bad, but that would be really annoying and you shouldn't tolerate it.

My rule is if the help I need isn't so urgent that it requires chat, then I'll send an email.

Also if I'm doing something in response to their request then I'll always say what I'm doing when I do it, so they at least know that their request is being worked on. Kinda like Mav: Switching to guns Goose: Ok Mav: Firing! Goose Ok, hit? Mav: No - trying it again as sudo ...

There absolutely is a difference between inefficient and efficient communication, and you're right to highlight it. There is no gap between efficient and pleasant communication, though, and attacking pleasantry as if its sin is inefficiency is pretty messed up.

Like you say, that exchange is no less pleasant, and of course way more efficient, if it's one message with better information density. That takes some coaching, but the answer (and to be clear I don't think you're advocating for it) absolutely isn't "be a grouchy turd in the name of efficiency".

(And arguably that should then be an email, but most folks have forgotten that email exists, so, yeah.)

Two straightforward questions. You already dodged one when it was framed as an observation; I'll repeat it again as an explicit question.

1. Do you think that your comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26628064 is nice or shows "respect for others' humanity"?

2. What about your message, or any of the other messages here, exempt them from requiring the sorts of obligatory pleasantries ("good morning"; politeness and courtesy that should be "[written] in words"; etc) that you're so strenuously arguing for as a "baseline expectation"?

(I'm going to pre-emptively call bullshit on any "giving a taste of one's own medicine" response to the latter question. I'm not interested in dishonest answers.)

"Good morning" in chat is not a pleasantry. It is a demand for the other person to switch to synchronous communication and attend to their conversation ahead of everything else the other person has to deal with. Respect for others' humanity implies respecting their time first of all.

I'll note that you didn't start your response here with pleasantries, and no one else has, either. By leaping at the opportunity to condescendingly explain human behavior, you've slipped into attacking a strawman. Take your passive aggressive yikes elsewhere.

Being delayed by a "good morning" from an oblivious coworker? More than just annoying. (Obligatory "pleasantries" from coworkers who otherwise take glee in making you miserable and obstruct you for sport? Much, much worse.) We're not friends--we're coworkers, at least nominally, and I probably have a stack of shit this high to deal with--that you may or may not be the cause of. How about this for being "nice": don't force me into dealing with your bullshit, against my wishes. Where's your recognition that I'm a human with feelings and needs?

You're unable of living in real life if you can't exchange pleasantries. It's kinda sad for some of us introverts out there, but the reality is that these things can do a lot for even simple things like job mobility in the subconscious sense. You may get mad at someone for interrupting your work for instance, but saying hello and goodbye and thank you does wonders for getting people to like you more, being able to tell someone to stop bothering you when you need it, and even in what people perceive as personality.

So you're doubling down on condescendingly explaining how to human. Cool.

Consider this: I have a high emotional IQ and acutely understand whatever lesson you think you're imparting here, I just don't have the kind of bullshit budget required in this context.

Here's the obvious consequence that no one ever seems to get, even with having it explained to them: if I'm going to have to start dropping things on the floor and make some people unhappy, guess who I'm going to choose to be the recipient? All the people most responsible for squandering the resources that were available.

I don't see how I'm being condescending or doubling down?

I suspect they mistook you for the last poster, eropple.

> how to human

That's not a quote from me? I think you're just proving my point.

You're right, it's my quote--where I gave an inline description about what was condescending about it. Since you asked, I repeated it.

But I never said that? I was asking what part of my description was condescending, not what part of your description was condescending.

> I never said that

I know. I said it. Why am I having to repeat this?

> what part of your description was condescending

What? I'm not saying my description was condescending. It is a description of your reply. It pinpoints what was condescending about that reply. You are "leaping at the opportunity" to explain "how to human". This is condescending. It would be like if I launched into an explanation about why it's a good idea to shower and maintain good hygiene, as if you needed to be told that body odor can be unpleasant for other people and might make them not want to be around you.

Are you sure you're not dealing with a lot of burnout right now?

Your call, your problem, I've no stake in it either way. I don't need an answer here, although don't let me stop you if you feel the need. I'm just saying, is all, because the kind of analysis you're describing reminds me of the way I tend to get thinking when I'm too burned out to have realized yet how burned out I am.

Maybe I'm wrong to make the comparison, and in fact I kind of hope I am, because you sound like you're in a bad way.

> Consider this: I have a high emotional IQ

Given that you felt the need to say that, you might want to reconsider whether your powers of self-diagnosis are as accurate as you previously thought.

> I just don't have the kind of bullshit budget required...

> ...if I'm going to have to start dropping things on the floor...

...then you've already failed. The goal is to never get to that point in the first place. Perhaps if you spent some of your "bullshit budget" sooner, it wouldn't have even occurred to you to make plans for throwing a tantrum.

Civility is incredibly cheap and has a multiplier effect on most other human resource metrics—such as productivity, enthusiasm and loyalty.

> Given that you felt the need to say that, you might want to reconsider[...]

You're responding to an anonymous comment on a message board with zero IRL context. Consider your own ability to diagnose here.

I didn’t offer a diagnosis.

The remark "you might want to reconsider whether your powers of self-diagnosis" is not using "consider" in the same sense that I used it in the comment you're replying to. You are not really asking me to consider anything. You are mirroring the word choice, but the thrust of your comment is an argument that my comment is probably not true, and that it is almost self-invalidating.

Perversely, you are doing exactly the thing that the statement "Consider this: I have a high emotional IQ" is exhorting you not to do, which is to tunnel vision your way to one of the possible outcomes--the one where it isn't true--and then try to reflexively use it to justify the starting position that leads to that outcome. You are failing to consider the counterfactual.

You wrote all that to tacitly admit that you had failed to convey your point effectively. Cool.

That marks attempt #3 here at begging the question.

If you can describe how what I said fits the informal fallacy of begging the question, I'll concede all disagreements, accept that you're correct in everything and donate AU$500 to a charity of your choice.

> I'll note that you didn't start your response here with pleasantries, and no one else has, either.

There are obvious differences between expressing an opinion and asking others to do something for you. Understanding that distinction makes this apparent contradiction entirely explicable.

Actual problem: not understanding the distinction between a bug report and form meant for "asking others to do something for you".

Actual problem: believing that the distinction between those two is relevant.

This is the second instance of an attempt on your part to use circular reasoning so that it might be impossible to argue with you. It's clear now that you're just here for the conflict, and not (sound) resolutions. This is a dead end.

If you can describe anything about my argument which soundly qualifies as circular, I'll concede all disagreements with you, accept that you're correct in everything you have said and I'll even donate AU$500 to a charity of your choice.

> It's clear now that you're just here for the conflict

Says the person who thinks that basic, pro forma civility requires a "bullshit budget."

Hi, good evening, you seem like a dick. Bye now.

24k rep on HN, you should know that's not how we converse here, regardless of whether or not you agree with GP.

I stand by my assessment of GP, but that's beside the point. You're right, and I apologise.

I wouldn’t apologise. I strongly respect the social rules of hacker news but they are by no means perfect and tend to break down in the face of a well calibrated troll.

This particular variant is the verbose non sequitur anti-pattern. It’s effective because it generally can’t be identified at a glance. It requires a lot of contextualised reading. This means it gets few down votes, the canonical sign of disapproval here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com