Hacker News Reader

Comment by version_five | Hacker News Reader

I agree in many situations. In many kinds of discussion (debate, sales, other persuasion), people are asking you to elaborate so they can tell you why you are wrong. In sales it's called "objection handling" and it's something salespeople learn and practice. If you believe you are in such a discussion, explaining is just providing a larger attack surface.

In good faith discussions, where you and your discussion partners are actually trying to understand each other, it's better to explain

View on HN

> If you believe you are in such a discussion, explaining is just providing a larger attack surface.

Only if you lie about your objection. Otherwise, maybe it can get overcome and you can engage in a win-win transaction. That is, it's not in red, it costs too much and it's not available delivered Thursday are all problems that may be solveable.

Now, if you invent a problem for something you aren't interested in at all, that's an issue.

It is still a larger attack surface. A salesperson can give a false impression about the value of the ongoing relationship over the transaction and make a ~promise that is not legally binding.

I.e. if you give the actual date you need something they may say they talked to a friend in logistics and they have it on good authority that it really should be here by then. Getting their offer with no indication of your requirements means any misrepresentations aren't tuned to your specific requirements.

I mean, I guess if you think the person is lying to you, don't do business with them. But that seems to apply regardless of what you tell them.

Ironically, what has happened here, is that the poster above you thought it polite to explain themselves, which gave you an opportunity to attack a super-specific not-necessarily-representative scenario of their argument. All while effecticely counterarguing that explaining yourself cannot possibly backfire, ever.

The irony is delicious here xD

Reply on news.ycombinator.com