Hacker News Reader

> No amount of knowledge or discussion will make a person accept something they don’t want to accept.

Not sure it's ever good to assume this beforehand though. Most things are negotiable, if you know how to negotiate right.

More than that, sometimes one side doesn’t want to accept something because everything they know about it says it’s wrong. Then they’re faced with evidence and reason prevails.

I usually have very strong opinions but try to hold on to them very loosely. It happened that I was convinced with evidence that I am right and refused to accept any alternative until new evidence slapped me in the face. At that point knowledge and discussion made me accept something I had previously thought preposterous, sometimes to the point of outright dismissing any conversation, this is how preposterous the proposition sounded at first sight.

What I want to say is that if you don’t know your audience, if you don’t know for sure your attempts are fruitless, it’s always worth a shot to use your knowledge in a discussion and let the other party digest that and see if it that moves the needle.

Still a good thing to mention as lots of people think they can continue arguing and convince someone else. That always ends up in a fight.

Though one strategy I've learned is I'll explicitly tell people what will change my mind. I think this has a few benefits.

  1) it helps *me* avoid being too stubborn and ensure my mind *can* be changed [0]
  2) it helps the other person know what to focus on and direct their arguments [1]
  3) it signals to the other person that I'm making a good effort and encourages them to do the same

It's not bulletproof, nothing is, but I find it helpful. When it's not helpful I find it is informative about the type of conversation I'm having. It's far more likely to fail on the internet than in person, which I think says something...

[0] were always, to some degree, wrong. So your mind should always be able to be changed. You're not omniscient

[1] often we talk past one another rather than against. Because we have different base assumptions that have been... assumed... and so we assume this assumption is shared. That's often a point of breakdown

I believe you’re right, it’s not great to assume this beforehand. Many things are negotiable, but there are a whole lot of things that aren’t.

When you’re faced with convincing someone of $TruthA or $FactA and one of those two collides with a persons worldview, makes them uncomfortable, or causes them pain. Sometimes that truth or fact will be thrown out because of its ramifications.

For example, if we’re in Iowa, and you prove to me that plastic straws don’t kill turtles.. but as a kid my first trip to the ocean resulted in seeing a dead turtle die to a straw. It’s going to be very difficult for me to believe otherwise.

My statement about a person not accepting something because they won’t want too… is less about them.. and more about the person trying to argue/explain/etc.

It’s important to identify when a topic won’t be accepted by an individual and to move on. It’s something I’ve struggled with in life. If you don’t identify it, you can risk overstaying your welcome. Which can lead to losing a trusted advisor status. It’s far better to keep the trusted advisor status and tackle the issue another time.

>For example, if we’re in Iowa, and you prove to me that plastic straws don’t kill turtles..

Black swans.

Quite often the they are telling a correct truth, but failing to give it proper scope. For example no turtle in Iowa falls victim to straws because of these species. It's the difference between "There are no black swans in ______" and "There are no black swans"

Much of humanity's misery is not taking the time to understand probability.

You don’t have to assume it, but you should be more than prepared for it to be the case

Well people love to try even though they always fail. It's a fun challenge to change someone's mind.

"To truly listen means to place yourself mentally and physically in a vulnerable state."

If you can guarantuee me this will not be abused in every situation ever and/or come back to haunt me, i will gladly always give up as much time as i can to actually listen. :)

Id guess by your smile there is an element of humor in your response, so this isn't a rebuttal, but rather i identified a lot with your point, and I was thinking that this is such a human response to vulnerability.

If it was guaranteed that it will not be abused or that I would regret it, it would not _be_ vulnerable. Just like its not bravery if I am not afraid or I am assured of my safety. Such a paradox. Being vulnerable for me is acknowledging that it might have an increased probability of a more negative outcome, but still trying to be vulnerable because of the huge connection unlocks that (often) occur in my experience.

On balance intellectually i am coming to see the expected value from being vulnerable in communications is high, but my little lizard brain keeps saying to me "what if you get hurt though" and being closed off haha. its an exercise to shut it up.

I've had the privilege to have been more than half a century on this planet and my experience has not been super great regarding being vulnerable. It takes great skill to not have it mentally affect you. Even if you get ten thousand positive results, a mere two bad results will affect you even more. Nevertheless i agreee it is always better to start with empathy.

Yeah. As phrased it is bad advice - nobody actually needs to be "vulnerable". Everyone should be in a headspace where they might actually change their mind rather than persuade the counterparty, which feels like vulnerability to people who define themselves by their own beliefs. The trick is not to do that; a person isn't their beliefs. People have beliefs, but those can change. They're still a person both before and after the change (which sounds a bit ridiculous to have to say, but by observation some people don't seem to believe it to be true).

Some people are just too stubborn, especially if they come from a place of authority and seniority. I'm doing house repair work right now with an older relative. He learned how to do repairs and renovations by himself, things like working laminate floors, mortar, laying tiles etc. The things is, he has his own reasoning and rhythym of doing things and doesn't like to be challenged, but I feel his ways don't always make sense, esp when I feel he is rushing and improvising (a programmer can tell). I haven't done much handy work myself in the past, but I'm a millennial, so I google things, watch youtube videos, and I read instructions. I also know that it isn't rocket science, my parents built our own home brick by brick. And now, every step of the way I have to be pushy to get my way, and make it sound like I'm not imposing or too nitpicky or challenging his "expertise", it's very taxing, I made a big scene once already and the whole relationship is now strained.

That's kind of it though, isn't it? If you're going to convince him there has to be a reasonable chance that the opposite will happen and that he'll convince you that he's too old to learn new tricks or whatever and he's going to have to do it his way because he isn't up to the challenge of doing a better job.

If your range of outcomes is [He'll do things my way, There'll be a scene and a strained relationship] then sometimes there'll be a scene and a strained relationship. If the range of outcomes is [we do things my way and he hates it, we do things his way and I hate it] then that's at least softer on the relationship. If you're lucky maybe you don't even care and you can just live with some parts of the work being bad.

One of those awkward things is that being good at negotiating means that other people are more likely to get what they want. It is actually a bit counter-intuitive.

There is no guarantee of this. The only guarantee is that if you put yourself in a vulnerable state, and someone abuses that, you now know their true intentions and can adjust accordingly.

I am biased in this answer on vulnerability, and I know it. I’ve lived a full life. I’ve nearly died multiple times, one instance was on my knees with a SWAT Team standing behind me with rifles pointed at back.

When you’ve lived through such events your risk calculus changes. Things that seemed terrible like being fired or laid off, tend to feel not as insurmountable or scary.

I say this to outline my bias, but also add evidence to my view on vulnerability. I’ve seen both sides, and while being concerned about abuse when vulnerable is a concern that should be seriously considered.. often people who are forced to make that decision miss the other part. The audience.

Vulnerability will almost always grant you the favor of the audience. If you work a job with half decent people, being vulnerable and abused when exposed will cause leadership to side with you. In my experience, most people are decent and want to cause the least harm to others in personal and intimate settings. So being vulnerable is almost always a win, even if it’s not the win you want.

And the place/scenario in which you’re purposefully vulnerable results in abuse/neglect without recourse for action… well.. then unfortunately you’ll know that situation is untenable and unlikely to change. So you can react accordingly.

Without effort there is rarely a big effort. You have to listen to achieve better results. If you don't listen, your results will be misaligned. Unfortunately no one can guarantee that you won't be abused. You have to ask yourself if the risk of being abused is worth the result (typical result: bigger money for a better program).

Kinda depends on what your position and circle of influence is.

I will admit that sometimes the circle of influence seems bigger than expected though.

I was the yielding type, not speaking up, letting others take charge. In my experience, it's not always worth it, especially if you care about the thing you are working on. I went so far as to just dissociate from everything and distance myself from others. The problem is that people deserve your honest opinion if you care about them, even if it's not what they want to hear. But it's so hard to spend mental energy to listen, correct, try to prove your point... even if you succeed, they will resent you for it.

They'll resent you insofar as it was confrontational vs. collaborative. If you can incept your conclusion into others they will not resent you. It's the whole raison d'etre of the Socratic method.

I had someone tell me, earnestly, that they hated me because it turned out that I was alright right. Not in the stubborn sense either.

> No amount of knowledge or discussion will make a person accept something they don’t want to accept.

I think this is what causes many people (software or otherwise" to shut down. Listening is important but a 2-way street. Someone choosing not to listen to you turns a discussion into a demand.

And "demands" are where the technical/Non-technical split get tricky . Does a doctor listen to some executive to do a thing that betrays their parient and oath? Less seriously, does a programmer listen to a product manager to prioritize B over A (A in which turns into a showstopper in a few weeks' time), or try to go around them to emphasize A needs work now (remember, PM is assumedly not accepting it anymore)?

Discussions devolving into demands into your craft is the worst.

Presales discovery in a nutshell. It’s truly an art.

> 2. To truly listen means to place yourself mentally and physically in a vulnerable state. Because you will likely hear things that run contrary to your experience, beliefs, and worldview. Judging people is often a self protection mechanism; which means you will almost never listen to someone.

A gem, thanks.

This can be especially rough for fans of early pg essays. You might find out that you didn't actually keep your identity so small after all. A double whammy!

The points in # 2 are profound. I plan on sending this to someone who is dear to me. Maybe he will "listen" to it, too.

Thank you.

Let us know how that goes, telling someone who is defending themself from you how they should "Be More Vulnerable!"

it's my son. he's young, bright, but puts up defenses to protect his perceived vulnerabilities. I try to explain to him that exposing your vulnerabilities humanizes you... at least it does to the type of people I admire.

but sometimes being 19 is difficult in that way.

It's hard. Just a thought - maybe he will open up more if he feels more safe.

"The closed mind, if closed long enough, can be opened by nothing short of dynamite."

> Listening often means not jumping to a solution; but absorbing and processing someone’s pain

> When in actuality, they should [...] finding a way to solve the pain points

Honest question, how do I 'absorb someones pain'? And how do I transition from that into eventually formulating the feature/ticket?

"When in actuality, they should be listening to the use case, looking for the pain, and finding a way to solve the pain points."

You have now described the value of product design (no matter if the person doing this is labeled PM, UX, Product design, or whatever)

> and finding a way to solve the pain points. As opposed to trying to understand what feature the user wants to request.

Careful, this is also arrogance that you know what the user wants better than they do.

> 1. No amount of knowledge or discussion will make a person accept something they don’t want to accept

Discussion, probably not. Modifying incentive structures, absolutely.

Do most people in an organisation have that power?

> To truly listen means to place yourself mentally and physically in a vulnerable state

if it's not two ways, stop trying, stand up and leave.

What a privilige it must be to be able to have a job where you can stand up and leave when your psyche can't handle it. Ever done tech support for ten hours a day? :)

I've done tech support for years, since 1996.

Your assumptions are also very wrong, my psyche could kill you, I simply know what I want on my side and you on your side, we have to meet somewhere in the middle, otherwise it's not listening, it's abuse.

If you don't stand up for yourself, nobody will.

Your view is US centric, I live in Europe, we have rights, we can't be fired for having opinions. We don't work 10 hours a day, we have rights.

You have this strange stance where employees are slaves, living in a one man dictatorship.

We are not.

Yes this clearly illustrates the difference in labour laws and basic human rights between US and Europe. "to have a job where you can stand up and leave when your psyche can't handle it."

This just sounds nuts to me, not being able to have the right for sick days/leave when your mentally unwell...

It's also counter-productive, people that are unwell won't be very efficient. Happy and healthy people work better.

For a while now, the US has been on a position where they do not care about "better work", because better work is not making the line go up as fast anymore. That's pretty much the core factor that will lead to the next major financial crash when reality eventually catches up.

It's a somewhat preoccupied and privileged pov.

There absolutely are 10h+ workdays in europe where ppl are not treated well.

Unless you are literally in manacles chained to an oar on a slave ship, you have the option to stand up for yourself. Everyone has to navigate the needs of life somehow. The simple universal requirement to find food somewhere somehow in no way translates to "what a privilege it must be". You have exactly that same luxury because it's not a luxury it's simply existing.

>in manacles chained to an oar on a slave ship

Yeah, we call that health insurance during a recession in the US

Either leave or make your psyche able to handle it. If your psyche won't be able to handle it, you will have a mental breakdown and leave anyway. Which outcome would you like more, leaving before or after mental breakdown?

Whichever pays for health insurance longer.

When I lost my faith I was frequently engaged in debate by my friends and family. I was eager and willing to try and argue for the logical and moral necessity of atheism. It was never productive.

Eventually, when someone would ask me to engage in debate I would start by saying, "Is there anything you can think of that I could say that would possible make you lose your faith or decide I was right?"

The answer to this question was always "no, it is impossible for me to lose my faith". My next question was always "then what would be the point of debating?"

This was also never productive. But it was efficient.

ive listened my fair share . sometimes ppl get stuck in cogitation . especially around their pain points . having someone throw them off by implementing a solution helps reframe their thoughts . we discuss the solution instead . on the other hand, my empathy may come off as lacking .

You must be in a position to be convinced yourself, in order to be convincing.

> You must be in a position to be convinced yourself, in order to be convincing.

This claim is demonstrably untrue.

Do you believe that a written argument cannot be convincing? Or do you believe that when you read a written argument, your beliefs can somehow be transmitted back to the author, even if the author is long dead, and be convincing in that author’s mind?

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!

> listening to the use case, looking for the pain, and finding a way to solve the pain points. As opposed to trying to understand what feature the user wants to request.

... What is the distinction you're drawing here? How is "the feature the user wants to request" (note: not necessarily the feature the user actually requests) different from "the solution to the pain point"? Why would the user want a feature that doesn't alleviate the pain?

I don't worry about such things, because I have never been in error yet.

OK Nomad!