Hacker News Reader

Comment by fsckboy | Hacker News Reader

I think the key to brutal honesty is the ability to deliver and accept brutal honesty between peers and rivals. This is the skill you f'ing idiots seem to be losing, because it hinders hearing the autistic perspectives which are quite useful in science. I dropped the completely meaningless f-bomb not to insult anybody but to test your ability to read the sentence without the most basic of intensifiers, what I like to call the f-italics. https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html

View on HN

I came across a great John Dewey quote recently that seems relevant here:

"We may insist that a man needs tact as well as scholarship, or let us say sympathy with human interests... Lack of reverence for the things that mean much to humanity, joined with a craving for public notoriety, may induce a man to pose as a martyr to truth when in reality he is a victim of his own lack of mental and moral poise."

It's a good thing to push back on people being assholes, mostly because it'd suck to live in a world where people feel like their being an asshole is a signal of their intelligence and superiority. It's not. It's a cost they inflict on themselves and others. Sometime it's worth it for both interlocutors to put up with an asshole, but in those scenarios you don't need someone chiming in that "being an asshole isn't being an asshole."

There's absolutely no reason to be "brutally" honest. It's entirely possible to be respectful, clear, and concise all at the same time. And yes, as easy it is to read that sentence without the intensifier, it's also easy to write it without it as well.

>There's absolutely no reason to be "brutally" honest.

You mean to say there's no absolute reason to be "brutally" honest, because then you can see there's no absolute reason to be smotheringly polite either. (did you read the brief piece I linked?)

There absolutely is a reason to say what springs to your mind, it's quick and efficient, and that's something that people who quickly come up with quality thoughts prize as the ultimate. Laboring over how to say something a different way is very time-consuming, and unnecessary especially if you are addressing people who think-speak the way you do.

And, you're saying people like me should change? Why? Why not suggest that people like you change? (did you read the brief piece I linked? included here for the lazy or those who think there is absolutely no reason they should need to read links)

All people have a "tact filter", which applies tact in one direction to everything that passes through it. Most "normal people" have the tact filter positioned to apply tact in the outgoing direction. Thus whatever normal people say gets the appropriate amount of tact applied to it before they say it. This is because when they were growing up, their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!"

"Nerds," on the other hand, have their tact filter positioned to apply tact in the incoming direction. Thus, whatever anyone says to them gets the appropriate amount of tact added when they hear it. This is because when nerds were growing up, they continually got picked on, and their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "They're just saying those mean things because they're jealous. They don't really mean it."

When normal people talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they say, and no one's feelings get hurt. When nerds talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they hear, and no one's feelings get hurt. However, when normal people talk to nerds, the nerds often get frustrated because the normal people seem to be dodging the real issues and not saying what they really mean. Worse yet, when nerds talk to normal people, the normal people's feelings often get hurt because the nerds don't apply tact, assuming the normal person will take their blunt statements and apply whatever tact is necessary.

So, nerds need to understand that normal people have to apply tact to everything they say; they become really uncomfortable if they can't do this. Normal people need to understand that despite the fact that nerds are usually tactless, things they say are almost never meant personally and shouldn't be taken that way. Both types of people need to be extra patient when dealing with someone whose tact filter is backwards relative to their own. Reflections on this Essay after Ten Years

Yup, I read it, and I read it months ago too, it's come up a few times.

What I'm saying is that it's absolutely possible to quickly and efficiently say those quality thoughts that springs to mind, in a respectful manner. And yes, it is a skill people should learn because it gives you a superset of advantages compared to if you don't. You can talk to a wider slice of people, and learn more from them as well. It's not very time-consuming or laborious, either. If I'm able to communicate my thoughts to you in a respectful manner, why would I change to be brutal about it? Once you know both, you tend to see that the brutality, aside from its other disadvantages, is simply superfluous.

You hit the nail on the head, especially about the time-consuming aspect. People confuse honesty and respect. You can always be truthful while still maintaining respect and appreciation of others.

"Did you like my singing?"

Option A: "No. You sounded like an animal being slaughtered. If this is a hobby of yours, I would recommend a different one."

Option B: "Not really."

Option C: "It is not my style, but you sounded like your were enjoying yourself."

Option D: "You really had a lot of passion. There were times you struggled, though, so you should record yourself and practice on those points. When you have everything ironed out, I would be happy to offer an honest critique again."

This is going from rude responses to respectful responses. Option B is actually more honest than Option A, but is less 'brutal'. However, if a person is truly seeking a critique, you can offer one in detail, but it is probably better to ask if they are seeking your actual preferences or your critique in that type of situation.

Brutal honesty can't really work without being on the same page, which is why I reckon most attempts at brutal honesty lead to miscommunication and shortcomings from people who share the same goals.

This is also why I believe brutal honesty for some works better coming from rivals, there is that shared assumption that both of you (or more) are going to disregard niceties.

Unrelated, f'ing was more difficult to read than the alternative using your name (fscking) or even f*cking. Yet f-bomb was easy to read, but I didn't mentally substitute it with the word. I wonder where I picked up these assumptions.

Ever read Popper on the scientific method? It’s a classic: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf

I couldn't help myself but I think at least GPT-4 gets you:

USER What is principles can be extracted from this saying:

>Is the ability to think scientifically the defining essence of intelligence? ; Physicist Carl Sagan once wrote that "science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking." This type of thinking requires skeptical rigor and brutal honesty to thoroughly investigate,... I think the key to brutal honesty is the ability to deliver and accept brutal honesty between peers and rivals. This is the skill you f'ing idiots seem to be losing, because it hinders hearing the autistic perspectives which are quite useful in science. I dropped the completely meaningless f-bomb not to insult anybody but to test your ability to read the sentence without the most basic of intensifiers, what I like to call the f-italics. https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html

ASSISTANT 1. The importance of scientific thinking: The saying emphasizes the value of adopting a scientific mindset in understanding and problem-solving.

2. Balance of skepticism and openness: A scientific thinker should be rigorous and skeptical in their analysis but also open to new insights, even when these challenge previously held opinions.

3. Brutal honesty: To engage in a productive scientific discourse, it is essential to be brutally honest, both in terms of providing feedback to others and in accepting any criticism directed at one's own work or ideas.

4. Valuing diversity of perspectives: It is important to consider and respect diverse viewpoints in a scientific discussion, including those that deviate from the norm or that challenge mainstream thinking.

5. Emotional resilience: To thrive in a rigorous and honest intellectual environment, one must develop the ability to remain focused on the message and not be derailed by strong language or perceived slights.

6. Effective communication: Being able to deliver honest feedback or critique in a way that is both clear and constructive is a vital skill, even if it involves using syntactic intensifiers, like the f-bomb, to emphasize a point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com