How to Be Polite | Hacker News Reader

How to Be Polite

medium.com

219 pointscjr65 comments

I'm all aboard with being pleasant and respectful of others, but find some aspects of this distasteful. Specifically, the portions of the author's "politeness" that involve performance, or adhering to a script I find off-putting. For example:

"Just ask the other person what they do, and right after they tell you, say: 'Wow. That sounds hard.' "

While it seems that many aspects of "politeness" are intended to trigger pleasant feelings in the other person (which seems harmless enough), I find it hard to be in favor of something so disingenuous. Even when it comes to small talk, I think one can be both respectful and charming without having to fall back on a script and cheapen the interaction.

> I think one can be both respectful and charming without having to fall back on a script and cheapen the interaction.

Sure, one can be. But what about with people you find incredibly boring or distasteful? Usually we'd just choose not to interact with those people, but that's not being charming.

I would say you should hold off your judgement of value a bit. That is the charming part, to give a chance to people to interest you. Maybe they will too find it boring or distasteful and you will have a chance to be charming giving incentive to they chase their dreams. Or recognize that if they find what they do interesting, that is enough. There is no reason to judge how they experience their job. It is not like it is common to meet a dictator or something.

I agree with your parent comment, where a script that includes a fake reaction cheapens the interaction. Be open to diversity is a more honest way to be charming.

EDIT: 6d0debc071, for some reason I can't reply once more. But my answer is very much in the line of mbech last comment here. Use something that doesn't involve deception. A question rather than an affirmation.

> There is no reason to judge how they experience their job.

I wasn't saying that you should, indeed some of the most boring people I know find themselves endlessly interesting. The scenario I'm suggesting is closer to: You give people a chance to interest you, your interests don't align with theirs - now what?

Or recognize that if they find what they do interesting, that is enough.

Exactly. I'd have few issues if the original author had used a canned response like "Oh, do you enjoy it?" or anything that didn't involve deception.

It's meant to be a phrase that will draw more information about the job; it's not a compliment.

Instead you could say something like "I don't know much about that line of work, what sort of challenges do you face?", and I think you'd get the same results. His phrase gets the same response while using less words.

This and other statements only work when he is actually listening and genuinely interested.

What's disingenuous about it? To them, it probably is hard, and you're just reaffirming that fact. If they said "my job is easy", you would go "off script" and hit them with "oh, do you ever wish things were harder at work?", or an equivalent.

The mechanisms and communication patterns are repeated, but every interaction and person is unique, and there's nothing cheap in that.

The disingenuous aspect is simply having a canned response intended to induce positive feelings (intended to make them like you?) regardless of whatever they are saying. Even if it's often factually correct (e.g. "Everyone thinks they do difficult work") I still think it's insincere to have this line up your sleeve that you march out regardless of input from the other person.

It's ok though :-) It's a little inaccurate, maybe, but it's not really insincere. What he's saying is that he'd like to hear more. And he would.

"What do you do for a living?" is a canned question to begin with. It's what you ask when you don't know what else to say. People in social situations usually aren't there to talk about work, they're often there to get away from it. The point of the canned response "oh that sounds hard" is to give the other person an opening to talk if they want to, because the phrase signals that they have a sympathetic listener, but it doesn't require them to do so (because you didn't ask a direct question). It also signals that you aren't about to start asking direct questions about their job, which is something they probably don't want (because, again, this is a social situation).

You may decry it as "canned" all you want, but it's a phrase designed purely to allow the conversation to flow and to make the listener feel like they aren't being put on the spot. I bet you have a bunch of canned questions/phrases you trot out in social situations too, for various reasons, you just haven't catalogued them.

I think the author is treading a fine line between "nice person" and "confidence man", maybe without realizing it. He's describing social engineering, and I have no doubt that it's a very effective strategy.

> “I thought you were a terrible ass-kisser when we started working together.”

> She paused and frowned. “But it actually helped get things done. It was a strategy.” (That is how an impolite person gives a compliment. Which I gladly accepted.)

There is something disappointing about realizing that someone's confidence tricks do work. It sounds like this coworker was grappling whether this is a strategy that they should adopt, because they can see the efficacy, but it feels morally painful.

I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt when using tricks like these for work, especially if you're a politician or marketing person, or something else where appearance and illusion dominates the field...

> One of those people is my wife

But this makes me cringe. I know that if I was this person's partner and I read this article, I would start to feel very uneasy.

I think the distrust of confidence men is that its a lie. They have an ulterior motive and are willing to say whatever you will respond to.

With politeness, ideally there is no lie. It's not a polite surface--its a core personality trait. As he described, you may be polite to people you dislike but that's because you know you may simply be having a bad day so no sense in taking it out on a person, or pushing aside a budding relationship. That's really the story of his wife: he was polite, thus he left the door open to meet her again and not sour her impression of him by reacting rudely.

He gives the lie to himself by (almost compulsively!) categorizing his 'marks' as impolite when he feels that they've failed to realize or follow the same rules that he understands so well. It's well and good that he's willing to give people the benefit of the doubt if they're having a bad day, but being unable to relate his coworker's compliment without also noting that it is, in fact, the mark of an impolite person demonstrates that, at core, he doesn't hold her in particularly high esteem. So what's the point of being polite?

The point is to allow people to get along, get to know each other, and profit from each other's company, despite our human failings. We all have things we'd like to hide, moments of weakness, beliefs, distastes and intolerances both logical and otherwise, all of which keep us apart. Politeness is the strategy which allows us to keep all that shit to ourselves, in check, so that we can get along.

Personal growth through empathy.

As in the example of the jeweler, the author's politeness caused the woman to reveal information about herself. And as he states later in the article, he actually enjoyed learning about her work. He now understands this person's perspective a bit better.

I would be interested to know how he has handled conversations with similarly polite people. Did they arrive at a common ground, resulting in a profoundly enlightening conversation, or did they end up in a sort of politeness stalemate, with neither party wanting to disclose information about themselves?

Except his coworker didn't offer a complement. His coworker offered an admission that what she thought was a personality flaw ended up working out. It was, in fact, a rather impolite and off-putting delivery. I see no problem with his description of his coworker as being impolite. The important bit about that interaction was that, because he was a polite person, he didn't immediately treat the impolite remark as being off-putting or insulting or any other way that another not-so-polite person might take it, but he understood that this was just his coworker's way of offering a complement, and that he should take it as a complement despite the delivery.

In other words, a polite person forgives other people for inadvertent impoliteness and recognizes the intent behind the words.

I once felt this way as well (and a little part of me still does), but I think its normal.

For the past few months, I've talk to possible 12-20 people per day, salesmen, marketers, business owners, the works. On occasion, I'll talk to someone and they've completely forgotten who I am, and I find the conversation goes the exact same way as before. Even if I'm 'off script', they're still going through the motions they rely on, and probably don't realize they ask the same questions in the same way and give the same responses.

For my part, there's only so many ways I can respond to a given situation. So what if I happen to fall back to well worn neural paths, and spit out "wow, that's sounds so hard".

Hypothetically, what if you actually believed it in every instance? That is, what if you genuinely felt (as I do) that nearly all jobs are hard. Granted, some may be harder than others, but I've never met anyone who worked a job I would describe as "not hard."

If author had put in an internal check for "do I really believe what I'm about to say" and came back with a "yup" every time before speaking, I'd have no problems at all.

However, as I see it, the pleasant lie baked into the original case is essentially "regardless of what I might genuinely think about what you just said, I'm going to give a response to make you feel good about yourself thereby making me more likeable."

*rephrasing

You will run into an awful lot of people thinking you are being sarcastic.

In my opinion, this is simply making a concerted effort to like this person, and start comfortable dialogue. Even knowing this is a script, I'm excited to talk to this guy, rather than the usual challenging, testosterone-filled reactions I deal with on a regular basis. However distasteful and/or transparent, at least its a positive environment for conversation. Nothing is worse than talking to someone and thinking, their guard is already up

Following a script to start a conversation can help if you lack social confidence. But it shouldn't be a means of manipulating people. That seems a bit too much like being a Pick-Up-Artist.

Conversely I find it really annoying when I tell someone what I do and they say "That sounds hard" or "You must be really smart". It's dismissive. Like, that person has written me off as someone they're capable of interacting with. I get that it's intended to be complimentary, but it's quite alienating.

It's not like it's rocket science (apologies to rocket scientists), you could almost certainly understand if you took a few minutes to try. Not only that, but who says that's the only thing I want to talk about anyway?

He clarifies that his interest is genuine, at the end.

"For all of my irony I really do want to know about the process of hanging jewelry from celebrities."

On the other hand, I know what he means when he says "I’ve found that people will fear your enthusiasm and warmth, and wait to hear the price." I know someone who operates like him, and based on that experience, it's weird for someone to be super nice and try to engage you enthusiastically when they know nothing about you. Maybe the person I know just does it wrong, I'm not sure, but even if they are genuine, I always have an inkling suspicion that they aren't.

About having a predefined script of things to say: we all have them, whether or not you realize this consciously is a separate matter. It might be a bit disingenuous to use such a script, but that slight is less important if the conversation doesnt feel disingenuous. The only difference to the other participant is whether or not he knows of the disingenuousness. That is a cost which, however, can also be offset by potential gains. In this case, the gain is sympathy. People, in most conversations today, remain remarkably distant and non caring.

For example, contrast how the following two sentences make you feel: "That sounds hard" and "I don't know much about that line of work, what sort of challenges do you face?" The first sympathizes with you whereas the second is more interrogatory which distances the speaker. The first is something a friend might say and the second is something an interviewer might say. Lastly, the line isnt meant to be a literal script pages long, but rather as an icebreaker to make this person feel like they can talk to you without being interrogated. Where the conversation goes after that is completely unknown. This is also the logic behind trying to put off asking "what do you do", because you again become an interviewer.

Most of our social interactions are "performances."

If I could upvote this twice I would. I still haven't gotten to the point where I can be polite all of the time. However, I find that when I try to be pleasant to people on principle, it takes away a lot of stress. I stop worrying about whether they are treating me well, or if I should start pushing back, because I've already made the decision to be friendly and polite. If they choose not to take advantage of this, that is unfortunate. However, I no longer have to react to their perceived bad behaviour in kind. It is remarkably freeing when I can do this.

How to be polite IN NORTH AMERICA.

He talks about North American obsession with touch like a normal thing, but in fact it is the exception in the world.

Being polite changes with the culture. In Morocco it is totally ok for male friends to hold hands in the street.

In South America you touch a lot other people. The same happens in Africa. I had India children and adolescent jump over me just after meeting them just playing.

I had played soccer all around Africa and touched shoulders of my playmates, grab their head and hug celebrated with them goals without a problem. Also it was very manly thing to do.

In China or Korea people to burp is ok. Using a kleenex on your nose is not.

In Spain we kiss women when we meet them and we touch kids we recently met a lot. I used to photograph kids a lot. In the US or UK with the obsession in sex they have they can put you in jail for photographic a kid smiling.

Oh, if only more of my fellow countrymen could get a worldly experience before they settle down. Many people in my hometown hardly go but an hour or two away except on a vacation.

I remember how I had a culture class before my first deployment to Iraq (USMC, 2007). I, being someone who has always been interested in other cultures, really liked it. I'm not sure my fellow Marines took to it so quickly but after we came back I think they were better people for it (the class and the deployment).

I think your reference to our American Prudish-ness is likely spot on too.

Most of this is only true for Anglo-Saxon values of politeness, which many other cultures will see as insincere, fake, cold, manipulative and even downright insulting.

This may not apply to the author, who writes "I am often consumed with a sense of overwhelming love and empathy", but certainly to the vast majority of people who don't have such extreme levels of empathy but use the same tactics.

Yes, like many people I will fall for the "that sounds hard" trick, but if I see you pull that multiple times I'll file you under "manipulative cunt" unless I have a good reason to assume you're that one in a million who actually gives a fuck. Because most of us really, really don't.

> unless I have a good reason to assume you're that one in a million who actually gives a fuck. Because most of us really, really don't.

I'd encourage you to re-evaluate that.

What if you just so happen to live in a world where most people are nice, kind, and caring?

I agree strongly on his thesis, that being polite is a good thing to be and that too many folks are oblivious to its usefulness. I'm not so keen on his writing style, but he makes a number of good points.

"Useless in high school but extremely useful later on": yes, school is when you'd expect to learn such skills, but high-school is such a toxic environment that too many folks learn the opposite of politeness (like how to dominate in an interaction, or flee it).

"it provides insulation against bad situations" (the gloves/dirty laundry paragraph): very much so. Politeness and etiquette provides guidelines to interact in situations that would instinctively lead to aggression.

"it lets you gather information about people": I don't like the manipulation undertones of this part, but it's true that with a little skill you can turn many a conversation into a mine of information and bonding.

"touching and personal space": as others have mentioned, this is very flexible across cultures, but I believe that everyone has some level of personal space boundaries. Break these and the other person becomes defensive, uncomfortable.

Hair touching aside, the amount of space required between people is bordering on the absurd. I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable but two arm lengths of personal space at all times is not something you're entitled to.

It's like we all want to live in a bubble. In non-western countries bumping into someone isn't the traumatizing horror it is in the US. It's just about expectations, if people didn't expect to have a vastness of empty air around them they wouldn't suffer PTSD for the rest of the day when someone stood almost within touching distance of them.

I'm not saying it's OK to be breathing down people's necks and people should consider the comfort zones of others, but it's kind of extreme in the US. If there's an empty chair next to you, I'll sit in it, and if there's a public urinal available next to yours I'll make use of it. Deal with it.

That is because different cultures have different customs. In some cultures it is acceptable to hug and put your arm around someone you have not met before, in others, even non-western ones, it is seen as extremely rude.

My language teacher when I moved here was telling our mixed nationality class about how in her perception, as you moved further north from the Mediterranean, the personal space people have increases, and how this does not mean people are not comfortable with people near them. This was in the same lesson where we started covering different gestures and how offensive in one is fine in another.

Two arms length is a farther than I usually have, but coming within an arms length if I do not know you, especially at a party, unless to tap my shoulder for attention will make me feel uncomfortable. Two arms length requires me to raise my voice to talk to you, which I consider ruder than being close.

That aside, the OP reads more like a "How to social engineer" than a how to be polite.

I wonder if maybe the amount of space required between people contributes to a shared sense of isolation and maybe even entitlement.

Regarding "How to social engineer" - I rather read it as a nice way to keep emotional distance to people without being cold. I think I'm gonna try it - I have a tendency to constantly judge people which I want to get rid of anyway.

Distance from the Mediterranean sounds about right. Americans inherit our sense of personal space from the English, more or less. Some cultures are even more extreme: http://i.imgur.com/g2DQgr5.jpg

> Two arms length requires me to raise my voice to talk to you, which I consider ruder than being close.

I've been paying attention to this and have come to the conclusion that this is one of the major factors why Americans are perceived as "loud".

As you indicate, this can lead to another type of invasion of personal space (for those who aren't part of that particular conversation).

Part of being polite is being able to adjust to different cultural norms. With that attitude you might have a tough time in Galway, and do okay in Shanghai. But it's not hard to do okay in both places.

I've noticed this effect in eastern cultures, particularly in eastern cultures that have large native population densities. I work for an Indian company and all of my co-workers are extremely laid-back and seem to have no sense of personal space whatsover. It's really not a bad thing! They often lean on each other's shoulders and are very huggy. They're not afraid to play-fight and it doesn't become an awkward space-invasion thing. It's just human interaction for them.

Yeah as a central European it strikes me as quite weird when I hear Americans ranting about how people get way too close to them in queues. And I can't relate to the anger they seem to experience as a result. Wikipedia says "Personal space is highly variable, and can be due to cultural differences and personal experiences."[1] - cultural differences, yes, yes.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_space

I see 2 feet, not 2 arms.

I also don't see a whole lot of angst over it (in the article), just that it's polite to give people that much space.

That's just straight-up cultural norms; just because it's customary in the US (and maybe even then only in certain areas), doesn't mean it's the same everywhere.

To wit: a former coworker of mine was Romanian, and a rather tall fellow. Whenever he wanted to talk about something, he'd sidle up within about a foot and start chatting. This was unnerving because he was probably 6'4 or 6'5, and suddenly he was all up in my business--once I realized that it was just different norms, I was fine with it.

There is a Seinfeld for every social occasion, a bit like xkcd: "The Close Talker"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGVSIkEi3mM

Just remember, polite varies from situation to situation. Growing up in the Caribbean when I was a teen meeting other people my age was a very physical thing. You might have someone's arm around your shoulder or get jostled around a little within hours of meeting them. In fact that was how relationships formed.

Touching a girls hair, or even giving it a light tug was all part of the flirting game. To be clear it's not like you just met someone and started touching them everywhere and it didn't have to happen everytime, but during the course of conversation if it was appropriate and natural a light touch here and there was just part of how things worked.

Moving to the US I found out very quickly that you give most people space unless you were invited in closer, but I've found Europeans that I've met are more open to an appropriate natural touch

Excellent article, and I feel it also applies to me, so I wrote down some thoughts. maqr's comment about this being dangerously close to social engineering rings very true, although I doubt that it's intentional/by choice. Personally I've never had a lot of natural conversational skills, so I find myself falling back to old tricks that work at times when I'm not confident, and sometimes they happen to be tricks that relate to social engineering. I'd like to think that this doesn't make my interactions less genuine. Finding a polite way to proceed through the conversation has not been a problem for me since I learned this.

Lately, rather than moving towards politeness, I'm trying to move away from it. The examples of always replying positively to people, never steering towards or even approach hostility is a very, very tiring path to walk. In my experience, it does pay off on the whole, but I've spent a lot of time talking to people that were just never 'interesting' or 'rewarding' to be with, simply because it always seems easier to please than to confront.

These days I'm trying to move towards blunt honesty with people as soon as I can (after an initial period of polite conversation to gauge if they'd be comfortable with it). So far, I think the people I know appreciate me more for it, and the people who wouldn't appreciate me for it are not in my life.

Or perhaps it just feels good to try something different.

I'm surprised at all the approval of this politeness strategy given my modus operandi -- making sure I'm doing interesting-enough things to have a comfortable influx of people, then filter through them by being upfront and asking hard but honest questions.

I don't think we realistically can connect with everyone on a meaningful level, and given there's 7-8 billion people out there, a search/filter strategy just seems more reasonable than trying to please everyone.

That being said, I am not advocating to the burning of any bridges at all -- as the scenes we walk tend to get smaller and smaller the more focused and specialized they get.

It's a stereotype that us geeks are poorly socialized. After the all-too-common years of school bullying and stunted social growth that entails, I was lucky enough to meet the right people and learn better skills of communication and empathy.

Politeness for me started as a facade to hide behind, but over time it turned into a tool of empathy and connection. I believe this to be my most useful and powerful skill, far beyond any technical skill I have.

I wish more geeks (such as Lennart Poettering to name just one notorious hacker) would learn this.

Politeness serves as a buffer. It gives you time to evaluate the situation and gain more information while keeping you from making a rash judgement - both positive and negative. Later on, it keeps you from unnecessarily making enemies of the people you don't respect but must nevertheless deal with. It works hand in hand with patience, which I see as being in very short supply these days. In my experience, it is an extremely valuable trait.

Despite his points about politeness helping him, which I appreciate, politeness is still following rules, aka doing what other people tell you.

With social skills, as with any other discipline, merely following rules will make you a craftsperson, not an artist. Artistry comes from knowing the rules so well you can transcend them. I prefer the musician who knows how to improvise sometimes the "wrong" note, the quarterback who shines when the play falls apart, the chess player who develops new moves, ... you get the idea.

Personally, I'm more interested in becoming an artist than just following rules. For example, I prefer to find out how I can quickly create deep bonds, which you can do when you break some of the author's rules. I grew up with poor social skills and the geek scientist in me wanted to understand what was going on. Then the geek entrepreneur in me wanted to use what I figured out and develop it as far as I could. Then the business entrepreneur in me wanted to polish it so people would appreciate it. Now I coach people in it too. I feel like the guy wrote a story about how to play scales on the piano, though I enjoyed the writing style. Who wants to stop there?

My story about my friend and Jack Nicholson at the U.S. Open illustrates the social value in breaking a dress code (from my blog http://joshuaspodek.com/high-status-living-rules-jack-nichol...). There are a million other role models of people who shine in breaking rules, but I'll just tell that one story about him:

A friend who grew up in Queens and became the senior ball boy at the U.S. Open told me a story about his friend who worked there too.

One day he was working at the door to the U.S. Open’s VIP room enforcing the jacket-and-tie dress code. Jack Nicholson came by and started walking into the room wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

My friend’s friend, following the rules, in a nervous high school student voice, said “I’m sorry Mr. Nicholson. There is a dress code and I’m afraid I have to ask you to follow it.”

With a polite laugh, Jack Nicholson said “I don’t think so,” and continued in.

I'll bet Jack Nicholson didn't start breaking rules because he became a star. I'll bet he became a star by breaking rules -- not blindly, but intelligently.

Oh look, the PUA community is arriving.

To be more constructive: There are great benefits to having high status, but it's simply unreachable for most of us, in addition to having hidden downsides. Instead, I would focus on being pleasant to people around you and create good personal relationships.

I don't understand your first sentence at all.

I think he's referring to the "Pick-Up Artist" community and their tendency to eschew empathy and solidarity in favor of manipulation and competition. "Don't hate the playa, hate the game"

http://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/

Warning: Possibly NSFW, features ads about how to "bang 6 girls a week", etc

The name escapes me, but I remember seeing an episode of a television series about pick-up artists where the guy talked about the importance of dressing outrageously and not conforming to a dress code.

Perhaps this guy is assuming that because pick-up artists and the original poster both have similar thoughts on dress codes, the original poster is therefore a pick-up artist?

PUA means Pick Up Artists.

There are lots of people in the PUA community who just use the same techniques that work to "pick up" people to be more socially confident and meet people.

Often people will talk about things like maintaining eye contact, escalating, inner game, etc. In the end, its just exploiting how we are as humans the same way slight of hand works and we all clap at David Blane.

I got that part. I just didn't see the PUA signifiers in the comment they replied to.

I think he's keying off of the "know the rules so you can transcend them" idea. It's used in a lot of PUA material.

It's not a thing unique to pick up artists though, it can be applied to most arts or indeed programming.

There was an article posted on HN a while ago that explained a similar effect (dressing differently to show status) outside of the context of PUA. For example Zuckerberg wearing a hoodie to meetings with Morgan Stanley.

I don't know OP, but a quick glance at his bio quickly shreds the "PUA" assumption you lobbed on him.

It is intelligently breaking the rules when you flaunt a dress code because you're a puffed up celebrity?

Being polite can tell people you are perfectly comfortable in who you are and changing into a jacket and tie doesn't take that away from you.

It's flout a dress code. (I wish there were some phrase or acronym we could use to signal a correction offered with friendly intentions. And yes, I'm aware of the [irony?] of offering such a correction in a thread about ... politeness.)

Thanks! :) Maybe he is flaunting his flouting of the rules?

I find this funny because in "As Good as It Gets", Jack Nicholson is barred from a restaurant due to not having a jacket.

Here is part of the scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFGb_l04Dso

Seems kind of annoying and inefficient to me. If I took someone out on a date and started talking about tumors I'd rather they say to talk about something else than just be polite like he did. Then I could integrate the suggestion and maybe we'd have a good time. He had to wait for years for another chance at something that could have been fixed with thirty seconds of honestly.

Here is the daily Medium article

Reply on news.ycombinator.com