Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ravenstine | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

ravenstine

My favorite form of poor communication:

---

ME: Is X true? And if it is, does that mean Y would also true?

THEM: Yes, Y would be true.

skip a beat

ME: Ok, so to be clear, X is true?

THEM: No, X isn't true.

ME IN MY HEAD: :facepalm:

---

This happens all the time, and is why I've learned to simply not write multiple or compound questions per message in Slack. They have to be broken up into single questions I ask one at a time or else ~1/3 of people will only address one part of what I'm asking.

I still have no theory of why this seems necessary. My only hypothesis is that some people just glance at any given body of text and don't parse the entire thing. Understanding begins to break down as soon as a person has to read more than a single sentence.

Or perhaps my style of communication is the dysfunctional part and I just don't understand why.

View on HN

I think your questions were answered correctly by someone who was rather patient with you (am assuming the direct leader, but only speculating).

You asked if Y would be true given that X is true. It's called leading the question. The other party agreed with your assertion, hence the "would" as in "Y would be true, IF X were true," with the emphasis on the if being mine. Then you used that to assume X is true, which they never admitted to, so they corrected you by stating X isn't actually true.

Also "X implies Y" isn't commutative, so even if Y is true X may not be.

Plus colloquially if asked a two part "or" question, there is some ambiguity in a single part answer, but usually a "yes" will refer to the second part.

"Shall we go to the shop or the café?" "Yes." -> café.

This drives computer programmers nuts because we're so used to thinking in boolean logic terms but it's very common.

Native English speaker here.

> "Shall we go to the shop or the café" "Yes" -> café

Not a pattern I run into. Maybe it's regional?

I think you're committing the same mistake he's complaining about. The first question is a question (that needs to be answered, since it was asked). The second question is a follow-up question, that is clearly structured to be some sort of dependency on the first question (hence, more reasons to answer the first question). Just answering the second question is still ignoring parts of OP's communication.

> You asked if Y would be true given that X is true.

Yes, as a separate question from the former.

I know you're trying to explain why people can interpret my hypothetical questions as a single question, but it still doesn't make sense. What you're saying that I asked doesn't describe everything I asked.

The first question is independent of the second, and the second question is dependent on the first. The first question takes precedence, and was asked separately. It stands alone and doesn't depend on the answer of the other question. Otherwise, I would have structured it as a single question statement, like "If X is true, then would Y also be true?" That's a different question from what I asked because it's not asking whether X is true, but in the case that X is true.

To place precedence on the dependent question seems backwards and inefficient to me. Why answer it when it's negated by the independent question preceding it?

If the roles were reversed, my answer would be "No, X isn't true" followed by either "And yes, Y would be true as well if X is true, but X is not true" or "And no, Y is isn't related to X and can be true even if X is false."

> (am assuming the direct leader, but only speculating).

No, this is usually not with direct leaders. It happens with colleagues I need information from, and occurs even with a query that simple.

I literally number my questions in those instances:

1. Is X true?

2. If X is true, does that mean that Y is also true?

People sometimes, but not always, follow suit and number their replies.

I know someone who attempts this type of communication and it's incredibly ineffective, at least in the way they do it. The problem is when the focus is trying to make Y be true, and when X+Y are more complex. The person I have in mind loses track of X being false, asks if X is true then y must be true, gets a yes, then gets frustrated when it's repeated that X is not true.

Because the focus isn't on communicating. The focus is trying to make the discussion a logic puzzle.

It's also possible X isn't true right now but could be made true given extra work, and the other person has mentally skipped ahead.

illusion of shared mental context

Reply on news.ycombinator.com