On Saying No - The Power of Simply Answering, "No." | Hacker News Reader

On Saying No - The Power of Simply Answering, "No."

esquire.com

78 pointsDarrenMills32 comments

The subtler point of this article is that a simple no is a good test of your authority- service personnel, students, people he had power over; they had to except his "no." Girlfriend? Not so much.

The power in question isn't the added power of using the word- it's the way the word reveals the power dynamics at play. He didn't gain more authority by using the word; the word revealed to him his authority and its limits.

> they had to except his "no."

They didn't. They could have asked for explanations, justifications, clarifications. He might have given them or not, might have continued the conversation or not (as he notes he did with a student), but that doesn't mean they had to accept his "no" for an answer.

If you have the power to not clarify and walk away, they do.

Well, sure, no one _has_ to do anything if you take free will far enough.

Well, yes, they could have asked for any number of things, but the end decision still rested with him. Which means, yes, actually, they did have to accept his "no." If he refused to answer any further questions except with "no," they would have to accept that too.

I don't mean accept in the sense of "be at peace with the decision." I mean accept in the sense of "there ain't shit you can do about it, kiddo."

Surely you must see the Tao in all this?

Reject duality. "Yes" and "No" create each other. They are both to be used, in harmony.

This article is really about honesty. Eliminating posturing and the little face-saving nothings from "No" half-way empowered the author. But at the end, he found it was not enough. Now, he must find honesty in "Yes."

It's a persuasive article, and I appreciate the point being made. An important part was that he thought about his decisions, and when he decided the answer was no, that's what he delivered. He didn't always say no, but when it was appropriate, he made sure he did say it.

The last section tied it up well, however. You have to know when to stop. You have to apply intelligence.

It requires thought, as well as discipline and persistence.

I think some of the article is compelling, but when he's talking about service personnel he just sounds like a jerk. A waiter who asks whether he wants fresh ground pepper is "attempting to dominate the transaction"? Taking care of you is a waiter's job.

When dealing with service personnel one can morph a simple "no." into a "No, thank you." Polite but similarly final.

Exactly, and not as disdainful of someone who is just trying to be friendly and do their job.

I don't see anything disdainful or rude about just saying "No." even without a "thank you." It all depends on how you say it.

It doesn't have to be, but the attitude of the author is that he is standing up to someone who is trying to "dominate a transaction." With that mindset, "no" is bound to come off as rude.

He was talking about the serviceguy trying to get him to buy more expensive service. I think if you just say "no" in a conversational tone, there's nothing impolite about it. You don't have to be an asshole to say "no".

"But when he really did ask if he and a couple of buddies could have a few beers at my house, I just said no. No follow-up, no prevarication, no buddying up for a sympathy injection."

While I see the purpose of a clear 'No', in some cases, it just seems like it's rather jerkish even if said in a nice tone. How hard is it to say instead, "No, and that is final; my reason is such and such, just so that you know"? I know that I would be accepting of the latter answer, but questioning of a pure "No", since it would seem as though he was just being instantly judgemental.

Read to the end of the article, context matters.

If I would his kid, I wouldn't ask the next time.

Чем унижаться и просить, лучше спиздить и молчать. Especially when you've got a parent who really believes in drinking age. Duh, I have a bridge to sell.

True. The guy who brought his kids up with a proper understanding of rhetoric definitely did a better educational job.

The kids of Dr. No, however, will grow up being people who can't express themselves, and inevitably provoke conflict by being obstinate and seeing themselves mostly in the right because of their authority.

They will not value reason.

I might be inclined to think that someone who can't give a straight answer is going to have trouble expressing himself.

The problem with "No, because..." is that it leaves the question open, especially when the person saying "no" is trying to be especially polite. Suppose the father said, "No, I wouldn't be comfortable with that." Well, when he's not there, he can't be uncomfortable, so it's ok. Suppose he said, "No, it's illegal." Well, smoking is legal at a younger age, so that must be ok. Speeding is illegal so when the son sees the father speeding, he'll have to conclude that his father is being unfair since he breaks the law but expects his son to follow it.

"No" with a condition leaves the expectation that when the conditioned is changed, the answer will also change. "No" by itself is straightforward and can't lead to false expectations.

Being a software engineer often means that you are in the job of fending off well-meaning, but unreasonable requests from clients on a continual basis. Learning how to say "No" repeatedly without coming across as lazy or a jerk is an extremely important skill. I read "The Power of a Positive No" by William Ury (of "Getting to Yes" fame) looking for wisdom in that area. Now, I recommend it to every engineer (and manager) that I know. If everyone read Ury's books, the world would be a much happier, smoother-running place.

A "No" could have prevented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

Timing is everything.

Sure, and it could have also prevented any positive achievement you might like to name.

The title get's it right. "No" is about power.

I prefer "yes", which is less about power and more about getting things done.

Interesting article. Will I ignore OP's advice and keep doing what I always have?

Yes.

On the getting things done. In the company where I did internship last year there was completely different attitude. People were urged to use "Yes, if..." instead of "No, because...". Not surprisingly this is the most successful EDA company.

On the contrary, no to superfluous bullshit is a powerful tool for getting stuff done. Someone I know likes to just say I'm bored now and walk out of pointless meetings.

Well, "I'm bored now" hasn't come up, but I sure have said "I don't think I'm contributing to this meeting anymore" and walked out. Fortunately, that gets light bonus points for me with my boss, which makes it easier.

Also, remember that phrasing; even without my particular boss that is likely to make a point with any sensibly-business-minded boss.

Also, try using "fine" as a way of consenting to something rather than "yes"

It conveys the same certainty and closure as "no"

I've personally taken a dislike to using two phrases with people, "fine" and "whatever". Both of them, generally, have a negative connotation to them. Especially when talking to a girlfriend/significant other, it just feels crude.

This is very true. My wife particularly hates "fine" and "sure".

This is what I've always done.

Are there really people out there who feel the need to explain themselves to carwash attendants and waiters???

I think it depends on how helpful the person is being. Saying no to carwash guy is easy, but "can I take that bag for you" suggests a sincere effort to make my expereince more pleasurable as well as an effort to go out of the way to do the best job, not just any passable job. This usually gets "no, thanks" or "thanks, I'll mananage".

Now after reading this article I'm not sure if my reaction is adequate in the latter case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com