I'm OK, the bull is dead: Communication skills for engineers | Hacker News Reader

I'm OK, the bull is dead: Communication skills for engineers

computerworld.com

96 pointsrubentopo25 comments

Sorry, but this is contrived. One can speak clearly without resorting to a formula.

The story contradicts itself. The author describes at length the process he had to go through to decode this supposedly clear communication. The one person without a vested interest in the formula (his wife) just found it puzzling and annoying. Besides, it's obvious how to communicate the information "I've been in an accident, but I'm ok" straightforwardly.

I kept hoping that the story would turn out to be a clever parody of the father's pet theory by an impudent son. That, as anyone who has been mercilessly imitated by offspring knows, is what children are made for. But no such luck.

It reminds me of a book I read years ago by a psychologist who used to insist that people (including his children) speak in active tenses so as to take responsibility for things. Instead of saying, "The milk got spilled," one should say, "I spilled the milk," and so on. He knew he had gone too far when his 8-year-old came in soaking wet one day and said "Sorry Dad. I guess I rained all over myself."

This kind of thing appeals to technical people who like algorithms for things and want algorithms for human interaction. But that's a category error. Engineers who really want to get better at communication would get further by paying more attention to their audience (and themselves).

"Sorry Dad. I rained all over myself."

That's a breakdown in the kid's/family's communication. It is simple to say, "I walked in the rain." It conveys the exact same piece of information--I'm wet because it was raining outside, and I was outside without something to keep the rain off of me. There are numerous other ways to say the same thing without sounding backwards.

Sure. But I think the point was that the father realized that he had overemphasized a linguistic device at the expense of a general principle. He'd got his 8-year-old into a state of clueless, if not malicious, compliance, which didn't serve the real goal. (In fact, it often backfires, because people will instinctively resist anything that inhibits their freedom.)

By the way, using active instead of passive language really does change one's thinking and foster responsibility. I've found it to yield pretty rich rewards, and the whole subject is fascinating. Similarly, beginning a status meeting with a one-sentence summary, then proceeding to details, can be quite effective. But when people focus on the trick rather than the substance, it doesn't work anymore. And the OP is an example of that. A car accident is not a status meeting.

I know it changes one's thinking. It's one of the biggest issues I had working on the traditional side of banking. Whenever someone did something wrong, we would end up getting an email written entirely in passive language because no one wanted to point fingers. Passive language is a tool used either to not accept responsibility or to avoid pointing fingers at the true culprit. Both are terrible things, especially in the office where everyone knows who is to blame anyways.

The phone call reporting it is. I imagine his son put in the "bull is dead" bit to be funny - which it was. But when I've had to make similar phone calls, I always start with "I'm okay, but..." It tells the person on the other end the most important thing first: I'm okay.

I never start a conversation with my mother like "I've been in an accident ...", if you're cut off then she'd go psycho and be needing tranqs. As the parent said "We're all OK but ...".

Formulas are a good way to begin practicing something - keep your eyes on the ball; rotate your shoulders; name your variables a certain way; etc.

I believe most people dislike giving status reports so having a formula that keeps them short and to the point seems like a good idea to me.

Contrived?,yes, useful?, yes (at least in my experience), do i plan to use that formula in every interaction?, i don't think so, it wouldn't be natural.

Thank you for sharing the example of the kid who "rained all over himself", it clearly shows that exceptions apply.

I don't see anything wrong with using a formula to communicate when the formula is State conclusion first, then how that effects current status, what to do next, and finally why all this happened.

When I give research updates, I basically follow this format. I don't give a long explanation of what I did, leaving people guessing at the outcome, and only at the end presenting my numbers and finally, my conclusion. I state my conclusion first, the numbers I have to back up that conclusion, then go into why I think these numbers are correct (what I did).

Best presentation advice I've heard: put your conclusions first. People zone out after five minutes if they're not interested. Tell people up front what you want them to take away from the talk. Then, even if they fall asleep, they'll know what you did - just not how you did it.

This is in an academic setting, by the way, and that advice was given from the chair of my department to someone in my research group who was prepping for an interview talk at a government lab.

I feel like I was tricked into reading an Oprah magazine article.

I liked the story. I remembered my grandfather (a very successful engineer) once told me I should take acting classes or something that would force me to address an audience and communicate something in a way the audience would understand. He then explained to me that engineers are usually not taught how to communicate things effectively, and how this can make a big difference in trying to accomplish your objectives in life.

I've oft thought that was the failing of most college programs. You're asked to show all your work, but rarely is the explanation for your decisions given nearly as much weighting as the actual outcome and how you got there. In reality is what you actually learned.

Switch over to the real world where 'cheating' becomes 'teamwork' and problems are discovered rather than verbosely outlined. Communication becomes the face of your reputation. While the ability to deliver may be the heart, no one can see it without closer inspection.

Surely it should be: 'I'm OK, but I've been in a car accident'? Then maybe mention the bull.

That doesn't fit the "conclusion first" advice that makes sense to clarify a situation. Problem is, an irrelevant conclusion was chosen. A better alternative following the advice would be something like "I'm OK but the car is wrecked."

I agree that's a better phrase based on the rules, but stating what happened ('car crash') rather than the result ('car is wrecked') conveys more information (ie. why 'I' am not already home). Either works though.

I know Gopal (and Raj). This is an old, old story, but I get a kick out of it every time I hear it.

Do you know what the story behind the bull is?

I don't know much more than the story as it's told, just that Raj was driving past a farm late at night and hit a bull that had somehow escaped. It wasn't a head-on collision, but it was enough to kill the bull and wreck his car.

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9d5sq/im_ok_the...

This was shared by a co-worker due to a problem i had at work, the business and engineers speak a very different language...anyway, the article has proven useful many, many times for me, hope you guys like it.

Maybe he should follow the style himself when writing the article about it. The punchline should almost stand alone by itself. It shouldn't say, "Hey, audience, now you have to listen to the rest of this to understand what I meant." "The bull is dead," is a very provocative clause that leaves the audience scrambling for (irrelevant) context.

This reminds me of a business case study done during my undergrad days. I don't remember the finer details of the study, but I remember the lesson. The case study was basically a company that had screwed up royally. We were not given much of any hints as to what needed to be done. Most people, including myself, went about creating huge forecasts for trying to solve a problem that really couldn't be solved. We were all wrong. The lesson of the case study was this: Sometimes the only answer is to admit that something has gone wrong, stay calm, severe ties to the project, understand what went wrong, and go about things with what you have left. This is one of the most important things I learned in business school.

As a project manager managing multiple projects, I often need status updates from my team. I find that without a standard structure, people often fail to convey the most important information. I ask my team to report status in the following manner: 1. Of the things that were expected to be done at this point, what is not done? 2. What other deliverables are in danger of not being done in time? 3. What is being done about items in #1 and #2 4. Of the things that were expected to be done at this point, what is done?

I'd love to receive feedback about this process. What has worked for you?

All the academic writing I produce and read begins with a conclusion, in the abstract.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com