When to Shut Up: A Visual Guide (With Included Algorithm) | Hacker News Reader

When to Shut Up: A Visual Guide (With Included Algorithm)

shaungallagher.pressbin.com

126 pointsjawns35 comments

Open articleView on HN

Another heuristic is to ask yourself:

- does this have to be said

- does this have to be said now

- does this have to be said by me

I love this framework, but I learned a slightly different one from… Craig Ferguson? At a comedy show? Pretty sure…

The ordering I learned was:

- does this need to be said? - does this need to be said by me? - does this need to be said by me, now?

I find this construction particularly useful in the “lead/senior/principal/blame-sink” role, as I’m typically trying to get the team to come to a conclusion without my explicit direction. Once it gets to the “okay, this needs to be said by me, now” moment, I pull the trigger. Otherwise, I try to just nudge the team in the right direction, leaving folks feeling more ownership over their work.

This could almost be useful (I know it’s mostly j/k), but it really needs some multiplier or something for the size of the audience.

For example, if you’re speaking 1:n, the numbers should shoot way up as n approaches 1, and way down/zero out — particularly for some branches of the chart — as n approaches higher orders of magnitude (so using a log scale).

That is, you shouldn’t need to prepare a speech when you’re taking 1:1. And you likely shouldn’t be talking at all without preparation when speaking to, say, 100 or more (unless you’re not the speaker and you’re asking a question, for example).

> And you likely shouldn’t be talking at all without preparation when speaking to, say, 100 or more

I'm probably saying what you mean but preparation should mean (or include) practice. That is, if you're speaking to 100+ people, it better not be the first time anyone has heard your speech in its entirety. (source: once bombed a conference talk thinking I could "just wing it").

Sadly, there’s no “am I dominating the conversation?” multiplier. That’s the sort of thing I wild have lived to have in a hackerspace’s monthly meeting.

You could use Roberts rules of order

I am always fascinated that in US conversations Robert's rules of Order are assumed common knowledge (and in a way I envy that there's somewhat consensus that in a debate you use Robert's rules instead of reinventing the wheel each time people meet) but as not having ever been to the US it took some research to figure out what these rules actually are and if there are alternatives or how things governed by Robert's Rules are handled elsewhere (reinventing the wheel it seems)

And Bottom Line Down Last

10 minutes[^1]

[^1]: https://archive.org/details/robertsrulesofor0000unse/page/1/... p. 39

I learned about it from drug dealers. Kinda. From watching The Wire really haha

I agree.

Missing a "Has the audience been listening to other people talk for the last 90+ minutes?" condition

The top of the flowchart needs more options - there's a whole opinion golf world of trying to distill a point into as few sentences/syllables as possible,or trying to find a punchy way of summarising.

If you can say all you need to say about something with a terse and pithy throwaway comment, then you've found the hidden non-zero safezone.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"

Several years ago I started just walking away from people when they ignored body language and conversational cues and wouldn't stop talking. As a result, there is now a cadre of people who both talk at great legnths and think I am rude. However, I used the extra time to get better at the things I do, so the extra bit of disparagement nets out.

Using Russell Brand as an example, how do you describe the pattern that causes the kind of infinite nested open loops that make a polite interruption impossible? I'm occasionally guilty of it myself, where when my ignorance stupefies people into silent awe, it can read as rapt interest, but I try to always start with the intent to ask a question. What's a good conversational interrupt signal to give?

What works sometimes is to raise your hand slightly and then:

A) as politely but forcefully as possible admit you don't care what they are talking about ("I am afraid you have lost me here") then either pivot the conversation or make an excuse to leave

B) repeat to them in brief what they have said and affirm that you are completely with them on their point and either add your point to it or pivot the conversation or make an excuse to leave

> when they ignored body language and conversational cues and wouldn't stop talking

Aka "terminal squirm" - that thing people do where they start turning their body and backing up to signal they want out of a conversation.

I learned this term a long time ago and quite surprisingly it only has a single page of hits on google.

> What's a good conversational interrupt signal to give?

“Excuse me, I need the bathroom.”

Mostly good guidelines, although I disagree with this one:

> Will you be reading a prepared, written copy of the speech?

I feel that when a speaker reads their speech word-for-word, especially if they are visibly reading, then it takes away from their ability to communicate. People like to make eye contact, and feel like a speaker is talking to them--when a speaker is reading, it has a distancing effect.

Better to write the speech out (either word-for-word or in bullet form), learn it deeply, and then say it without looking at the text. This lets you phrase things in a natural way in the moment, to make eye contact, to adjust the rhythms of speech to make the communication more effective.

This will be useful next time I’m Jesus

Stock up now on loaves and fish

Avoid the stocking problem with this one weird trick: accept a few from the crowd and multiply them—it also helps keep the crowd’s attention.

Now do "when to stop writing."

I heard that most books could be at least ten times slimmer, but then they wouldn't stand upright on the bookshelf.

See: any book by Stephen King

Yes

Better still is to be attentive to, and sometimes explicitly solicit, feedback from your audience.

General rules like these are useful with enormous audiences, because they are so heterogeneous that you have to play to the average. But even in that case, your sense of the average should be getting continually updated, people samples will differ -- Chicago is different from Miami, grad students are different from management types, 2023 audiences are different from 2018 audiences, etc.

I'm a fan of the Buddhist approach of "right speech": Is it timely, true, gentle, beneficial, and spoken with a mind of good-will? If so, say it.

This reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Halt and Catch Fire, when the marketing guru tells the sales engineer (in no uncertain terms) when to shut up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOR8mk0tLpc

My flow chart consists of <STFU>? -> Yes

Is safe, optimal, maximum the amount of time I should not talk for or the amount of time I can talk for?

- What about if you’re an improviser?

Learn other ways of speaking besides improv?

What if you're just a fake?

If only life was this simple.

Then you should never speak up to injustice?

Remember:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

— Martin Niemöller

Sure, but ask yourself in each scenario if it has any impact beyond boosting your own sense of self-worth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com