Defecting by Accident – A Flaw Common to Analytical People (2010) | Hacker News Reader

Defecting by Accident – A Flaw Common to Analytical People (2010)

lesswrong.com

15 pointssicromoft6 comments

Nice piece. I broadly agree with many of the overall points (I think) although putting them into practice maybe be harder than the writer makes it out to be. One can certainly just avoid nitpicking over stuff like spelling (unless you're editing pre-publication) and likewise when seeing a talk just let it go.

In regards to "softening", eg:

>"Hey, you got your math on example X wrong... I think it actually works to 11.7. Anyways, I only recognize that because I made that mistake dozens of times myself, it's a common one to make, just wanted to point it out."

Stuff like that always reads as condescending to me. Not just a waste of time, but an expense of time which actually hurts ones cause. I suspect my feelings are neither unique nor universal, and that delivering respectful and constructive criticism involves knowing your audience. So it's always going to be difficult if you try to do so to a stranger.

I agree -- I find such "padded" criticism condescending as well. It feels as if the commenter thinks I am not capable of emotionally handling basic factual feedback. Or (in the "wizen"/"wisen") example, not capable of understanding why spelling is important or of looking up meanings myself in a dictionary.

I do not take offense, because I know the commenter means well and is erring on the side of kindness, but personally I'd rather see "s/wizen/wisen/". It communicates no offense (by being low-effort on the part of the commenter), and respects both my ability to research on my own why I made this particular mistake, and my own motivation to correct the mistake.

Stick to the facts.

Your comment is interesting because it shows the dilemma posed to those of us who struggle to communicate positive intentions without unintentionally upsetting people.

On the one hand, there are people who would be offended by a reply of “s/wizen/wisen” _because_ they feel it’s low-effort, nitpicking, and/or talking over their heads (not everyone would even understand that comment, even on HN).

On the other hand, there’s many people like yourself and many commenters on the original article who feel that “padded” criticism is condescending.

The dilemma is that both the “Stick to the facts” group and the group who feels that “just the facts” is rude — feel strongly that they are right and everyone else should know that.

At least you’re willing to assess the intentions of the speaker rather than attacking. Unfortunately, not everyone will do that.

Perhaps the real takeaway is: there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to interacting with people.

> there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to interacting with people.

I think there is one, actually, which is: be consistent. At least then, those who interact with you regularly can learn your style and calibrate accordingly. Even on forums, you can look to one's commenting history to calibrate your reading of a comment with no other context. I've certainly done this, on occasions when some comment deviated significantly from the norm of polite discourse, usually to find that the commenter simply has a different norm than I expect.

Your feelings are definitely not unique. There’s a big thread in the article comments with a number of people expressing a similar view. I think you’re right that the whole thing is difficult. There are certainly people who take offense at the constructive criticism being offered with no “softener”, and there are obviously others that take offense as the “softener” being added. Perhaps the ultimate takeaway is what you stated:

> delivering respectful and constructive criticism involves knowing your audience.

I yet need to finish reading, but the first quarter already rang so many bells. Thank you for posting!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com