Hacker News Reader

Life pro tip: don't think that the usual act of apologising (i.e. saying 'I'm sorry') is the only path to a genuine apology. Personally I don't really care if someone doesn't explicitly say the words 'I'm sorry', I care far more about their actions insofar as they show some level of contrition. If you've done something that has deeply hurt me, and never say the word sorry, that's fine (although it's not like I object to someone actually saying that literal phrase) - so long as you took other actions to rectify the situation.

I think being aware that different people value different forms of apologies is useful, I highly doubt I'm unique here.

Personally I've found there are ways to communicate that dramatically lessen the chance of hurting someone else, thus avoiding having to say sorry much/at all. It's worth finding out what these methods are (e.g. couching criticism in general terms while still being specific to someone's work can be very effective).

I place more value on the words than you do, but I agree that actions have a much larger impact. Another way to see the same thing is that there are more ways to communicate than literal words.

Apologies are about rebuilding trust, communicating to someone: 'I breached your trust, and now you can trust me again: I care about it, I care about its impact on you, and I care about your trust.' Talk is cheap; actions are what really convey it.

I feel like the more it matters the less likely I will get an apology (or apology equivalent). Or maybe the causation goes the other way.

There's merit to what you're saying but I think the crux of the issue depends on what the person who needs the apology (whether verbal or not) wants.

If the scenario is one where the person apologizing can't verbally apologize but the other person wants/needs a verbal apology then maybe what that first person is offering isn't really an apology?

In that case it's a 'water, water, everywhere but not a drop to drink' kind of scenario and what they're offering isn't so much for your sake, but their own.

Without the explicit words, there is no acknowledgement, no admisssion, no character, no integrity.

Concilliatory actions without admission are not apologies, they are just a way to have your cake and eat it too. Abusing someone and then getting them to still deal with you after. It's even a brainwashing and abuse tactic, following abuse with kindness.

There was some article a while back that said '"Do you want to go to the store?" is not "I apologize"'

When I was younger, I had the impression that people said "sorry" way too quickly and weren't sincere about it. So I set myself a goal for one year to not use the literal word "sorry", instead using word and deed to apologize.

In one particular case I still remember, a batch job I had set up had failed to run, and an entire department couldn't do their work properly the next day; during the "no literal sorry" year!

Instead of just saying "sorry" and being done, instead I was forced to come up with something more:

* "Oh no, that's terrible! We were anticipating this issue due to <reasons> and were already partially mitigating it"

* "Additional QA will likely lead to diminishing returns, but we can still add extra testing time to our daily batch update, at least it can't hurt"

* "Did you know your sysadmins can manually continue the job if this occurs? Send one of them over and I'll show them how!"

Apologizing 'properly' with or without the word "sorry" is hard, but can be done. You need to show that

a) you are aware of the problem/mistake and recognize it.

b) you are acting to prevent the problem from happening again.

c) you are (willing to) engage with the other party and empower them where possible.

How was that incident received versus one where you could just say sorry?

* They accepted that my team was doing all it could to mitigate, and found ways to make life easier for us.

* they agreed to let us to continue writing batch jobs the way were were doing, and even gave us more complex tasks.

* They sent over a sysadmin to learn how to work with our scripts.

I don't have an exact duplicate scenario in which I only said "sorry"; but I think we can assume that it would have been rather less likely for the above to happen if no-one had explicitly mentioned them.

If a vendor says sorry but can't or won't do anything, that gets frustrating quickly.

If you're dealing with a chronic abuser then it doesn't matter one lick if they apologise or not. I'm only talking about dealing with non-abusers, or otherwise people who you can relate to in good faith (which doesn't mean there won't ever be problems).

There are many contexts in which you may apologise, and the cause of getting people to recognise this is not well-served by this frankly hyperbolic stance that all of these contexts are abuse and that not apologising (properly, in your estimation) must be brainwashing.

Acknowledging mistakes and sincerely apologizing for them is a social quality that I strive to achieve and that I appreciate in people I interact with. Everyone makes mistakes, some might have higher consequences, but ignoring them or refusing to own up (recognize, apologize, make up for it) is the worst imo. For non-serious things I gladly give it a pass the first times. But when done repeatedly, I find it hard to maintain an acceptable relationship.

I learned my lesson through a romantic relationship where my ex-partner would never apologize, regardless of how small or big the issue was. Even when bringing it up, she would straight up refuse to simply say "sorry", justifying herself that it's not worth dwelling on this and to move on. I tried to understand her point of view and adapt but ultimately after years, it made me feel terrible and I just couldn't get over this. It ended up not working out for various reasons, but this is definitely red flag I'm looking out for now in any type of relationship.

As said above, I tolerate it when it is not repeated, as people might genuinely not realize it or just forget to do so.

Alternative life pro tip: Don't do anything in extremes.

Neither do always X nor do never X.

PS: Yes, there are cases were "always" or "never" should be used but they're special cases and easy to identify because they relate to law, ethics, identity.

Absolutely, there's often a context that isn't always obvious to people not directly involved. In with people directly involved actually, which may be specific to an individual.

Surely it’s ok to do some things in the extreme, no?

Don’t do anything in extremes, including not doing anything in extremes.

Ethics and apologizing seem very intertwined.

never do anything in extremes, except this rule… and of course, many many other rules

there’s no single pattern you can apply to an extremely complicated existence

> I went around far too long with this "don't apologize for anything" power move mindset, but truth be told - you turn into a colossal douchebag

My first exposure to that mentality was watching Jersey Shore

It was so amusing how a simple apology was the line that couldn't be crossed

I didn't understand it at all, and, yes, they were the laughing stock of the country. Douchebag mascots.

I occasionally see that mentality, but from people in that same region in the US. I wonder if there is something cultural and if that extends to a culture from “the motherland” (often times people in the US just believe a cultural pattern they practice is from a place in Europe they share some heritage with, but its all made up)

Nah dude. Northeast born, raised, and living. I apologize whenever I'm in the wrong out of realization and empathy, as do others.

Self absorbed douchebags are everywhere in the world unfortunately. If you encounter people like that, it's just a sign that they're a bad bunch.

Half the jersey shore folks came from where I grew up and I apologize when I’m wrong.

I’m definitely a strong presence and being able to apologize when I’m wrong helps me be more forceful when I feel I need to.

Not apologizing is a sign of insecurity IMO unless you really feel like there’s no possibility you could’ve been wrong.

There's a great amount of ego wrapped up in it. Nobody really likes the idea of being wrong or incompetent, or being seen to be weak or ineffective – despite it being a thing that happens to all of us, all the time, and it not being a moral failing.

Different people do seem to develop quite different tools for dealing with this – some people over-apologise for minor transgressions the point of annoyance; others react with anger at the idea someone might accuse them of being less-than-flawless. Still others have a habit of avoiding engaging in anything with the risk of making them look foolish, or beat themselves up relentlessly, or just live in denial that anything's gone wrong.

I would definitely back up what you say, though. There's probably not much that leaves me with more confidence in a person's competence and character than taking ownership or an error and apologising for the inconvenience.

I don't really understand why anyone would consider "don't apologize for anything" a "power move". I understand why someone who lacks empathy would default to that kind of behavior, but I don't agree that it's rational. Being open, honest and actionable is what creates a dependable leader or co-worker in my mind, anyone that attempts to cover up problems, blames others and avoids resolving issues would lose my trust very quickly, which from a Machiavellian perspective is not in that persons interest. Humans are very social beings and we have been conditioned over thousands of years to identify unreliable partners and shun them, the idea of the "highly functional psychopath" is a complete myth, because the only context a person like that can succeed is in one where human relationships are irrelevant (because they are temporary, for example).

I always wondered how so many people I know who are in high positions manage to be so immature and irresponsible, they never take responsibility, they play childish blame games, and so on. I feel like if I followed their example, I'd be a pariah.

Then I realised... That stuff is not the way you become powerful, it's a perk of power to be enjoyed. Not having to consider the lives, experiences or needs of others is the reward, it's the entire definition of success for these people.

And in the personal examples I know, the people just arrived at their positions of power via their parents, their background, and their connections, not through shrewd Machiavellian manoeuvring.

> That stuff is not the way you become powerful, it's a perk of power to be enjoyed.

Well, I don't know. I partly agree. First of all, I don't think it's a "perk" that people who did not have that kind of personality in the first place would like to enjoy. I also think that there's an inverted funnel of empathy when it comes to people in leadership positions, because the larger a group becomes, the more beneficial "maneuvering" becomes and the less beneficial "classic" emphatic traits becomes that would make you likable in a smaller group.

> the people just arrived at their positions of power via their parents, their background, and their connections, not through shrewd Machiavellian manoeuvring.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that anyone that grew up with "powerful" parents will have a pretty Machiavellian personality by default just based on the context they grew up in, so even if they get the position completely on the merits of nepotism I think it's pretty unlikely they will be very empathetic and "bleeding heart" kind of people. There are scientific studies for example that show that empathy decreases with material wealth.[1]

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...

'Power corrupts' is the entire answer to the puzzle.

Or to put it another way, people with money and power don't get shunned for their shitty behaviour because people need money. What actually happens is that people turn themselves in to codependents or enablers.

Was with someone who was a some people are professional victims. Offended at everything, forcing apologies over every perceived slight. Particular if they were at fault.

A no apologize rule is sometimes a defensive measure to shut such people down. Doesn’t mean it’s healthy at all. But I’ve found it critical to survival

Demanding verbal apologies is an curious technique.

Generally I was taught I need to apologize when at fault yet sincerely, and never lie. So in situations where a harm was accidental, or not clearly a harm to anyone, except in the mind of the victim it can be an awkward place. Moreso if the victim has a glass jaw and a habit of throwing stones. Of course every person and situation is unique, so diligence is required to maintain a healthy sense of empathy without reinforcing destructive behavior.

I do not say sorry but I will admit my mistakes, work to make up for them, and try to understand why I made the mistake so I don't repeat in the future. Sorry is cheap and I refuse to use it.

There is nothing cheap about saying sorry if you do all those other things you mentioned?

The problem with sorry is that it invites someone to say "It's OK" or even "It's not OK." Neither of these matter because it is about you not them.

how does that work? do people forgive you, does the relationship/friendship return to what it was before? do you say "I made a mistake" or some phrase similar to "I'm sorry"?

Yes, something along the lines of "I made a mistake" or "what I did was wrong". I am not talking about accidentally bumping someone and saying sorry; those really are shallow and just about being polite.

So here is an example of how I want to to say "sorry" to others. I was rude and not contributing to the conversation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29835478

For sure, however really get the feeling now days people are too sensitive now days get offended by anything a bit taboo, not PC or out of norm.

There's definitely been a shift over the years, so I can see why someone would attribute it to sensitivity. However, actions that were done in the past that caused people to live in silent misery when done now are openly confronted. What appears as an increase in sensitivity is simply a perfectly natural response to abject behavior. People weren't less sensitive in the past, there were social mechanisms which curtailed these natural responses. The reinforcement of the idea that "people are too sensitive now days get offended by anything" is an excellent example of such a mechanism.

It does not seem you read the article.

Why were you a “colossal douchebag” to people?

I find one doesn’t have to apologize if one isn’t cruel in the first place.

He didn’t say his original transgressions were bad enough to make him a colossal douchebag. He said refusing to apologise for them turned him into one.

While I'm sure not intended, this comment sounds quite sanctimonious.

While I'm not the OP, I would say that the answer to your question is that it doesn't require being intentionally cruel. People in general will (metaphorically) step on each other's toes from time-to-time. If a person is unwilling to apologize over even a small matter, that suddenly becomes pretty rude.

How do you know the other person doesn't see you as cruel, or selfish, arrogant, self-centered jerk, or simply douchebag?

This whole thing is about accepting other possible viewpoints if you don't want to end up as social outcast. I mean we're already in the territory of not-very-balanced people that hurt others enough to have apology expected and don't figure they actually need to apologize on their own (or are too lazy/afraid to do so).

Actually, I take back what I said. I was wrong.

Apologies are useful and not necessarily indicative of cruelty. It acts like a social lubricant and I can understand using it tactically, just to keep the peace.

For some reason, I was only thinking of genuine, remorseful apologies, as if OP was just harassing people all day long, but obviously that's not the case here. There's a lot of small gestures one can do to avoid social faux paus.

The Life Pro Tip should be to avoid mistakes in the first place. An apology is an express acknowledgement that you've screwed up that first part, for the avoidance of doubt; hence, it is best kept short and to the point. "Apologizing" simply has no meaning otherwise.

That's why you see people often saying things like "I'm sorry that you seem offended" and the like. It's a way of clearly stating that you don't think an apology is called for in the first place, without being outright insulting or burning bridges in the process.

My principles aren’t contingent on how other people feel. I don’t accept “never hurt feelings” as a moral imperative so it’s not something I’d apologize over alone. That’s not to say that violating my principles couldn’t also hurt feelings, it often does. Also, from a getting cooperation perspective hurting feelings can have pretty low utility. But imprudent and immoral are different.

This seems logically incoherent to me. Maybe I’m reading it wrong. But anyway here’s my version:

Avoid making mistakes that harm others. Be aware that you will make some anyway, and you won’t always recognise them as mistakes at the time. (If you take pride in having a spotless record, you’re liable to deceive yourself.) And when, on reflection, you realise you have harmed someone by mistake, figure out what you can do to 1) fix the harm and 2) prevent it happening again. And then tell them this plan in a way that commits you to it. That’s an apology. This way you make fewer and fewer harmful mistakes over time. The idea that someone can just “avoid mistakes in the first place” to avoid needing to apologise is dangerously lacking in humility, in my opinion.

It's not about taking pride or lacking in humility, but simply about not considering it "normal" to screw things up. If you don't think of screwups as something "everyone does anyway", fixing them and making damn sure they won't reoccur becomes second nature. You don't need more than a simple apology, because everything else is implied and a spoken commitment would be meaningless anyway.

What I’m not getting is how you get from “making damn sure screwups won’t reoccur” to “you don’t need more than a simple apology” when a screwup occurs. These seem like opposing sentiments.

> That's why you see people often saying things like "I'm sorry that you seem offended" and the like. It's a way of clearly stating that you don't think an apology is called for in the first place, without being outright insulting or burning bridges in the process.

Nah it's blatantly insulting for anyone who can hear and has half a brain.

It's not an acceptable "apology" if you even want to call it that. It only proves that whoever said that is self absorbed, tone deaf, and not someone worth interacting or doing business with as they're only looking out for their own bottomline and saving face.

In my experience, people are generally offended over minor stuff that shouldn't bother them. I rarely apologize for offending people because I think they're in the wrong/I just don't care.

That’s often called a non-pology and is considered a dick move. Everyone knows what you’re doing and saying and it only serves to make you look like a fool.