Hacker News Reader

Comment by nullify88 | Hacker News Reader

> I notice that my contribution was evaluated based on my identity rather than the quality of the work, and I’d like to understand the needs that this policy is trying to meet, because I believe there might be ways to address those needs while also accepting technically sound contributions

Wow, where can I learn to write like this? I could use this at work.

View on HN

It's called nonviolent communication. There are quite a few books on it but I can recommend "Say What You Mean: A Mindful Approach to Nonviolent Communication".

It's also Rose of Leary like [0]. The theory is that being helpful to someone who is (ie) competitive or offensive will force them into other, more cooperative, behaviours (among others).

Once you see this pattern applied by someone it makes a lot of sense. Imho it requires some decoupling, emotional control, sometimes just "acting", but good acting, it must appear (or better yet, be) sincere to the other party.

[0] https://www.toolshero.com/communication-methods/rose-of-lear...

Interesting site. The proper "Rose" comes (in a variety of forms, I suppose this is close to what I believe is the canonical one) from Leary's 1957 work _Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality_ and his pioneering work on group psychotherapy / interactions. He used (variants of) this wheel / rose as radar charts, scoring interactions in group situations. The actual wheel has a middle stripe / ring about "provokes", and arguably the behavior becomes pathological when provocation takes place.

As a term of art the "deconflicted", neither dominant / submissive, middle-right is sometimes referred to as the "Dale Carnegie quadrant".

I've been using it for a number of years to diagnose the personality dynamics humans erect around software and tech stacks. I had mused about it, but done nothing, until I came across a SxSW talk about Lacanian analysis of the personalities of various computer languages... just for fun of course.

(Compare Nanos and Docker... see what I mean?)

I went to a meditation garden yesterday and noticed their signage was much more nonviolent and “together” inducing than most, without coming across as too woowoo:

Next to a Koi pond: “Will you help protect these beautiful fish? Help us by not throwing coins, food, …”

I'm pretty sure the question was sarcasm. (Upvoted.)

Step one reframe the problem not as an attack or accusation, instead as an observation.

Step two request justification, apply pressure

Step three give them an out by working with you

How shall to frame if there is actually a problem, which is not only an observation?

what do you do when they are not operating in good faith?

One of the effects of communicating this way is that people who are not operating in good faith will tend to quickly out themselves, and often getting them to do that is enough.

I hate this sort of communication, it's very manipulative. If I have to justify my decisions to every single person that asks something of me then I couldn't get any work done.

While apparently well written, this is highly manipulative: the PR was closed because of the tools used by the contributor, not because of anything related to their identity.

Parent's first paragraph will point you the right way

Reply on news.ycombinator.com