That having been said, the specific style of politeness presented here seems tedious, noisy, slightly condescending, and potentially even obfuscating.
Are you guessing, or did you test this?
Because I used to think the same way, but I now find I get better results with just a dash of politeness. I don’t think it takes very much time or is so bad for signal:noise ratio either.
“Oh, thanks so much, silly me not paying attention to the squiggly red lines, hey do you need any help on your projects that I might be able to offer?” would be weird and not productive.
Well, I think the “oh silly me” is fluffy, you could just say thanks. But offering to help in return I think is a great think. Most people won’t take you up on it, but it goes over really well.
Maybe try it for a month or two and see how it goes? I’m always really grateful when someone offers me a hand, and then I’m more likely to ask them a question or for a book recommendation or whatever. Even small things, most people won’t ask you for them if you don’t invite them to. Which is a shame, because then we miss opportunities to connect with people.
I’m not saying politeness is good because it’s good. I’m saying it’s good because it makes people more effective. I reckon that’s true in most non-emergency cases.
I strongly agree with Alicorn’s comment. When you suggested
“Hey Sebastian, I wanted to give you a heads up. I saw your recent post, but you spelled “wisen” as “wizen”—easy spelling error to make, since they’re uncommonly used words, but I thought you should know. “Wizen” means for things to dry up and lose water. Cheers and best wishes.”
as the appropriate way to point out a typo, I had to resist the urge to flame you. While there are people for whom such verbosity is the most effective mode of communication, I and the people I enjoy communicating with are not among them. Like Alicorn, I read that paragraph as tedious and condescending; if such a message were written to me, I would think that the author was either vacuous or thought I was an idiot.
But offering to help in return I think is a great thin[g]. Most people won’t take you up on it, but it goes over really well.
I would find such an offer confusing at best and pretty creepy in the average case. “Politeness” is not a natural category and you should not expect an audience to consider something polite because you or another audience does.
It’s not the “right” way. Just one choice out of a thousand possible.
Here’s a sample email:
--
Subject: Typo in your article
Hi author,
I saw your article and liked it, but wanted to give you a heads up. You spelled (word) wrong. Best wishes,
Writer
--
What’s that take? 15 seconds? You’d probably have some goodwill afterwards.
While there are people for whom such verbosity is the most effective mode of communication, I and the people I enjoy communicating with are not among them.
Okay. And you’re highly analytical, right? Normal people don’t work well with ultra-direct communication.
I would find such an offer confusing at best and pretty creepy in the average case.
So, are you surprised that it’s commonly offered advice on how to become one of the most productive and connected people in any work environment? Offer to help anyone on anything, do double duty on work, and be gracious of it?
Because that is, in fact really common advice. I’d really, really encourage you to try it. I used to believe in being a “straight shooter”, “all content no fluff”, etc, etc, etc. Seriously, try it the other way for a couple weeks. I think you’ll be amazed as what happens.
Try it! Don’t guess, try it. Seriously, it might change your life.
So, are you surprised that it’s commonly offered advice on how to become one of the most productive and connected people in any work environment? Offer to help anyone on anything, do double duty on work, and be gracious of it?
Because that is, in fact really common advice. I’d really, really encourage you to try it. I used to believe in being a “straight shooter”, “all content no fluff”, etc, etc, etc. Seriously, try it the other way for a couple weeks. I think you’ll be amazed as what happens.
Try it! Don’t guess, try it. Seriously, it might change your life.
While there may be environments in which this is in fact spectacular advice and would be well-received, I find these paragraphs so obnoxious that they set my teeth on edge. Why should I believe advice about making people feel good which sets my teeth on edge?
Why should I believe advice about making people feel good which sets my teeth on edge?
Because whether it works or not is independent of whether it sets your teeth on edge. That would be a reason not to act on it, but not a reason to dismiss its validity.
Because whether it works or not is independent of whether it sets your teeth on edge.
I am a person. I belong to the same reference class as those who this sort of thing would be expected to work on.
I do not find this style of politeness to “work” for me.
It is, I grant, a weak reason to dismiss the claims, but it is a reason, and conjoined with other, similar replies under this post, it adds up to a more compelling reason.
While there may be environments in which this is in fact spectacular advice and would be well-received, I find these paragraphs so obnoxious that they set my teeth on edge. Why should I believe advice about making people feel good which sets my teeth on edge?
Honestly, that surprises me. I could see disagreeing for signal:noise ratio reasons, or not having time—actually, I spent time addressing those in my post since I knew they’d be common objections.
But I’m surprised it actually results in a strong negative emotion from you—“sets your teeth on edge.”
Honestly, I’m not sure why. For the record, I’d advocate you do this sincerely, and never insincerely. Me, if I don’t like anything someone is saying and all the points are dumb, I just ignore it. I’ll only venture to give feedback if I see some merit, and then I highlight that merit.
But seriously, I want to get to the bottom of this. Eliezer writes about how when he was fundraising, lots of people wrote in to criticize, but no one was comfortable publicly announcing and praising the cause and expressing their donation.
This can’t be the best way, can it? If it is, much less analytical groups that are comfortable being cohesive, complimentary, and encouraging will out-recruit us, out-perform us in charity, and cooperate more than us.
At least, that’s how I see it… anyway, I’d like to explore this more. In the comments and/or via PM’s or email, if you like. I wrote this post because I’d like to see our kind of people, groups, and areas of concern be more effective. The fact that there’s a very strong negative emotion from a prolific contributor to the community is surprising to me, and I’d like to find out why and reconcile our points of view to some extent if possible.
But I’m surprised it actually results in a strong negative emotion from you—“sets your teeth on edge.”
Honestly, I’m not sure why.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I think I can explain this for you.
It sets her teeth on edge because it’s condescending and dismissive. Specifically, with the line “So, are you surprised that it’s commonly offered advice” you’re adopting a professorial tone—purporting to teach Alicorn something she may find surprising about the expert consensus on the subject, with which she is presumed to be unfamiliar. So right from the beginning she’s going to react by feeling insulted, because you’re “talking down” to her.
A way of making the exact same point without adopting the condescending tone would have been simply to say, “I offered that advice because I read it in How to Win Friends and Influence People and in [a few other sources].” If you proceeded to give direct quotes, that would be even better, because then Alicorn could judge for herself whether you’re accurately representing what you judge to be expert consensus (and whether or not she accepts your sources as expert). By asserting yourself as the expert you’re making a subtle attack on Alicorn’s status, whether you mean to or not.
You compound this insult when you dismiss Alicorn’s criticism as “guessing” and when you suggest that your advice will change her life—because you’re implying that she’s struggling with social interactions now. In fact Alicorn’s writings would indicate that her experience in mastering social niceties is at least equal to yours, and you should be addressing her as a peer rather than adopting this tone of superior wisdom.
The above is much more a matter of tone rather than substance, but your reply is also annoying because you’re only re-iterating your initial claims rather than engaging with the specifics of Alicorn’s criticism. As it happens, an example of a better reply is this one, from you, which addresses what Alicorn actually said in a perfectly nice and reasonable way.
Again, I’m sorry if this seems to be just “piling on.” You expressed a confusion (that I assume to be sincere) about why your writing provoked a strong negative emotion from Alicorn, and even though I’m not Alicorn I thought I could explain it to you. I hope she’ll correct me if she disagrees with my analysis.
This can’t be the best way, can it? If it is, much less analytical groups that are comfortable being cohesive, complimentary, and encouraging will out-recruit us, out-perform us in charity, and cooperate more than us.
I have said, and repeat the sentiment: I’m in favor of being nice and polite and kind and cooperative with each other. It’s this style, the specific sort you use in your examples, that gets the skin-crawling/teeth-on-edge/etc. reaction from me. If I had to characterize the style I’d call it something like “saccharine earnestness”.
I wonder whether that “skin-crawling/teeth-on-edge” reaction only arises when this style appears as text, or whether you get the same reaction from spoken word. Same style, but here (in this vid) it is being used to actually communicate, rather than simply to illustrate a point.
It does give me the same teeth-on-edge reaction, only stronger. But then I may be atypical. I never cared for Mr. Rogers either.
If I had to characterize the style I’d call it something like “saccharine earnestness”.
Me too. Even politicians don’t usually come across as that nice. Which I interpret as evidence that it is too extreme to be really effective.
I find listening to the linked person only slightly grating. I can’t make out most of the words, though, so most of my reaction is “this needs subtitles”.
Alright, I think we’re on the same page. I picked very, very basic examples of the most literal interpretation of my suggestions. Even adding “Interesting point” or “That’s thought provoking” or “Cool, though I wonder...” before a criticism/concern can make things go over better.
That said, that’s a little more subtle, and I wanted extremely clear and obvious examples.
Feel free to ditch my examples if they’re not helpful for you at all, or replace with your own. I read your linked post on politeness and agree with the sentiment of it, so I think we’re mostly on the same page. Toss all my examples if you understand the underlying principles—there’s almost certainly a more subtle, elegant, less saccharine-earnest-seeming way of doing it in any given case.
Perhaps it helps if you define “impolite” as “status-grabby”. Thus when someone says “nice” things in what comes across as a condescending tone it can be recognized as impolite on that basis—regardless of their intent.
It’s a relativistic criteria though: a given statement can offend some but not others. As an example, the degree of technical explanation afforded for a complex topic. If you put in too much, the experts feel like they are being condescended to. If you put in too little, the less trained feel excluded because they cannot follow all the jargon enough to relate it to anything they know.
Perhaps the real cheat code in this case would be the skill of writing things in a manner that people can interpret into their own preferred range.
But seriously, I want to get to the bottom of this. Eliezer writes about how when he was fundraising, lots of people wrote in to criticize, but no one was comfortable publicly announcing and praising the cause and expressing their donation.
There is a wide middle ground between being uncomfortable saying out loud the good things you believe about a cause you donate to, and being unwilling to criticize something without also finding something nice to say about it.
This can’t be the best way, can it? If it is, much less analytical groups that are comfortable being cohesive, complimentary, and encouraging will out-recruit us, out-perform us in charity, and cooperate more than us.
I think you have that backwards. I assume that by ‘this’ you mean the situation that obtained while Eliezer was fundraising. I assume that if ‘this’ is the best way, then a group employing ‘this’ will have better outcomes (by definition?), but you conclude the opposite.
Honestly, that surprises me. I could see disagreeing for signal:noise ratio reasons, or not having time—actually, I spent time addressing those in my post since I knew they’d be common objections.
This far into the thread it shouldn’t surprise you. You have had the causes of the objection explained to you multiple times by multiple people from multiple perspectives. Read through this thread again with the assumption that those who are speaking to you understand the value of tact and politeness, probably better than you. They have an intuitive feel of social dynamics, what works, what is inappropriate and what is insulting. They are also analytical people—they have the ability to describe a model of social behaviour that demonstrates why ‘polite and nice’ can also be a condescending slight depending on how it is done.
siduri’s comment is a good place to start. Then you can look further and try to understand how you have managed to alienate your audience to the extent that they have completely written you off. WrongBot’s reaction is in no way bizarre or unusual. It’s what you should expect from humans if you provide the verbal stimulus like what you have provided here.
Me, if I don’t like anything someone is saying and all the points are dumb, I just ignore it. I’ll only venture to give feedback if I see some merit, and then I highlight that merit.
The person one is correcting is not always the intended benefactor of one’s reply.
This far into the thread it shouldn’t surprise you.
Well, that’s just it. I’m not surprised people disagree. That’s to be expected. I’m surprised people had a significant emotional reaction to it.
Then you can look further and try to understand how you have managed to alienate your audience to the extent that they have completely written you off.
Actually, there’s been overwhelmingly more appreciation of this than disagreement. It got submitted to HN and was +110 there, and 80%+ of the comments were positive. I also got a half dozen emails saying thanks.
It’s what you should expect from humans if you provide the verbal stimulus like what you have provided here.
But you know what? You’re right. I thought I would try to address everyone’s concerns, criticisms, and share my experiences. And some people are taking personal offense, on an emotional level. That’s not my intent—so yes, indeed, I’ll bow out of the discussion now. If anyone has any questions or comments, they’re welcome to email me. Really, I do think this is an area that some minor changes can produce huge dividends. Or maybe I’m mistaken—happy to discuss via email if anyone has questons or comments and wants to discuss, but I’ll move on from the comments now.
I think you should take your surprise as a sign that your model of tact is in need of updating. You were not mistaken when you claimed that following the social norms we do here would tend to serve one ill in real life, but the approach you’ve suggested substituting for it seems like a case of reversed stupidity. I think it would be a good idea for you to review the suggestions others have made in this thread so that you can apply your own advice in a more effective manner.
Actually, there’s been overwhelmingly more appreciation of this than disagreement. It got submitted to HN and was +110 there, and 80%+ of the comments were positive. I also got a half dozen emails saying thanks.
‘This far into the thread’ references comments not the initial post. You can get 110 upvotes on HN based purely based on having a trivially obvious premise that relates to nerds.
But you know what? You’re right. I thought I would try to address everyone’s concerns, criticisms, and share my experiences. And some people are taking personal offense, on an emotional level. That’s not my intent—so yes, indeed, I’ll bow out of the discussion now.
Others are noting that you are doing things offensive as a matter of academic interest.
Note that the ‘for now’ sounds ominous. A threat, if you will, of polluting the epistemic environment in the future. You appear to be unable or unwilling to learn or understand feedback—yet another example of what will be considered an accidental defection, here more than elsewhere.
Yes. Yet I’m not surprised in retrospect. Contempt is the brain killer. At least, that is the one state that I’ve learned provokes me to simple mistakes. Far more than drunkenness for example. Every time I’ve said stupid things (in my best retrospective judgement) it has been when the context has provoked me to contempt. Sometimes I remember to eject before it is too late but I evidently haven’t fully made a habit of it just yet.
So, are you surprised that it’s commonly offered advice on how to become one of the most productive and connected people in any work environment? Offer to help anyone on anything, do double duty on work, and be gracious of it?
Offering to help a coworker and offering to help a stranger from an internet forum are two radically different things. The former is something I do on a regular basis; I agree that it is produces good results.
Standards of politeness are incredibly sensitive to context, and from your first line in the parent I take it you agree. Why do you believe this standard of politeness is appropriate to the contexts of both work and a semi-anonymous internet forum?
Offering to help a coworker and offering to help a stranger from an internet forum are two radically different things. The former is something I do on a regular basis; I agree that it is produces good results.
Okay, cool. You might try offering after a decent exchange—if you look at my profile or “About Me” section on any place I hang out, or any site, I encourage people to look me up for a coffee, or if they have any questions, or I can help at all. Most people don’t take me up on it, but some do—I’ve helped people with their marketing, I’ve helped people get pay raises, improve their writing and creative output, I’ve recommended books and places to stay and go in various cities… and it’s been good. I’ve made friends and colleagues like that.
I learned this because I met one of my best friends this way. When he was a stranger, he emailed me a technical question, and I went over and above the call of duty and wrote him back a 5 page reply with specs and details. He then referred me to a job because I sounded like I knew what I was talking about and invited me to stay with him if I was ever in Los Angeles. I did, and he became one of my best friends. Later, he helped me close a $60,000 deal when I bought out half of a company. We’ve been skiing together in Japan and had lots of cool memories and insights. All because I helped a random stranger, and he was really cool about it afterwards.
It might seem different, but I think most people appreciate it. A fairly prolific photographer/technical blogger emailed me a while back, and after a short exchange, he asked if there’s anything he could help me with. I asked how he made a few of the pictures that were really beautiful? And he shared some software recommendations with me. We’re now friendly acquaintances, and we’ll probably go out for food together next time I’m in San Francisco.
Some people might take it poorly. But who cares? The upside of making a new friend or colleague because you’re always happy to help anyone is huge. Someone doesn’t like it? Well, what’s the downside? Who cares? Most people are grateful anyways, actually, but if a couple people don’t like it… so what? You offer to help someone and they take it the wrong way? Well, nothing significant lost on anyone’s end. The friends and colleagues you make, and the general good you do for the world more than compensates for the (very rare, if ever) negative reaction.
Standards of politeness are incredibly sensitive to context, and from your first line in the parent I take it you agree. Why do you believe this standard of politeness is appropriate to the contexts of both work and a semi-anonymous internet forum?
Good comment/question. I generally try to err on the side of being more polite and gracious unless there’s a reason not to, because I don’t see any real downside to it. You’re right—we’re all strangers on the net, so there’s no real repercussions if something goes over poorly. But I think there are opportunities to connect with people, make new friends and colleagues, share good information, and help each other. I think is generally good and virtuous, and try to encourage it when possible.
You’re right—we’re all strangers on the net, so there’s no real repercussions if something goes over poorly.
That does not bear any resemblance to anything I have said. In fact, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that no harm is caused when you annoy or creep someone out on the internet.
I am sufficiently annoyed by this conversation that I will probably not be able to comment further in a productive fashion.
Who cares is very context-specific here. When dealing with someone you don’t naturally interact with, high variance in responses is good up to a certain point. Get a good reaction and you can make a valuable friend and ally, whereas it’s not likely anyone is going to think you were so polite they should come at you with an axe.
Good comment/question. I generally try to err on the side of being more polite and gracious unless there’s a reason not to, because I don’t see any real downside to it.
Does that mean you think the politeness—effect curve is usually much flatter on the right side of the maximum (optimal politeness) than on the left? Exaggerated politeness often seems insincere, distancing or worse so I’m skeptical of the merits of systematically overshooting like that.
Exaggerated politeness often seems insincere, distancing or worse
Upvoted for this. The ‘or worse’ also includes making people disregard the content of what you’re trying to say because you’re signalling low-status/self-effacement so hard that it’s difficult for anyone to take you seriously
I agree with you on that point, yet I’m making my own. Analytical people are usually aware of politeness but take somewhat longer to realise that advice, instruction and offers to assist can be far more of a significant social slight than merely being curt. Those who are familiar with analytical types can see that they mean well and are just making nerdy faux pas. There are some, however, who will take offence—because the exact same words could be used by less nerdy person as deliberate one upmanship.
I second wedrifid’s reaction. Trying an entire different social approach for a month is a very high cost, especially if it’s one that makes our skin crawl. Alicorn’s not alone in that, as that is exactly my instinctive reaction to hearing it. It doesn’t make sense to give that kind of slack unless the prior for it working is high.
...one part noticing how your post made my skin crawl.
A lot of that feeling is probably explained by the mere fact that we are discussing social calculations openly. Doing so almost always leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths.
That’s right, I almost forgot you had posted on the subject before, which is odd because I’ve actually used your “Considerations in favour of niceness” post to convince people to rein in their conversational aggression.
A couple of lionhearted’s sentences sounded slightly cringeworthy to me too, but many times I have been surprised at how well such things actually go over with non-analytical people. For example, my mother prefaces even the tiniest criticism with 42 caveats and compliments (which feel like mostly white noise to me), but I can’t help but notice that she also appears to be a social genius, with at least 30 genuinely close friends. (Bla bla anecdote bla bla correlation not causation).
I’m often shocked how much completely (to me) over the top super-politeness is optimal when dealing with average people, often more than enough to make me tempted to say “Get on with it!” in a British accent. In fact a good instinct for many of us when dealing with non-nerds is to use just enough politeness to actively piss ourselves off were we in the other person’s shoes.
For example, my mother prefaces even the tiniest criticism with 42 caveats and compliments (which feel like mostly white noise to me), but I can’t help but notice that she also appears to be a social genius, with at least 30 genuinely close friends.
Yep. Play to your audience. This requires you to gain genuine skill in communication and in assessing the situation, but this is really not optional if achieving your goals requires interacting with humans. Failure to communicate appropriately in a variety of situations will lead to failure.
(No-one said instrumental effectiveness was easy.)
Are you guessing, or did you test this?
Because I used to think the same way, but I now find I get better results with just a dash of politeness. I don’t think it takes very much time or is so bad for signal:noise ratio either.
Well, I think the “oh silly me” is fluffy, you could just say thanks. But offering to help in return I think is a great think. Most people won’t take you up on it, but it goes over really well.
Maybe try it for a month or two and see how it goes? I’m always really grateful when someone offers me a hand, and then I’m more likely to ask them a question or for a book recommendation or whatever. Even small things, most people won’t ask you for them if you don’t invite them to. Which is a shame, because then we miss opportunities to connect with people.
I’m not saying politeness is good because it’s good. I’m saying it’s good because it makes people more effective. I reckon that’s true in most non-emergency cases.
I strongly agree with Alicorn’s comment. When you suggested
as the appropriate way to point out a typo, I had to resist the urge to flame you. While there are people for whom such verbosity is the most effective mode of communication, I and the people I enjoy communicating with are not among them. Like Alicorn, I read that paragraph as tedious and condescending; if such a message were written to me, I would think that the author was either vacuous or thought I was an idiot.
I would find such an offer confusing at best and pretty creepy in the average case. “Politeness” is not a natural category and you should not expect an audience to consider something polite because you or another audience does.
It’s not the “right” way. Just one choice out of a thousand possible.
Here’s a sample email:
--
Subject: Typo in your article
Hi author,
I saw your article and liked it, but wanted to give you a heads up. You spelled (word) wrong. Best wishes,
Writer
--
What’s that take? 15 seconds? You’d probably have some goodwill afterwards.
Okay. And you’re highly analytical, right? Normal people don’t work well with ultra-direct communication.
So, are you surprised that it’s commonly offered advice on how to become one of the most productive and connected people in any work environment? Offer to help anyone on anything, do double duty on work, and be gracious of it?
Because that is, in fact really common advice. I’d really, really encourage you to try it. I used to believe in being a “straight shooter”, “all content no fluff”, etc, etc, etc. Seriously, try it the other way for a couple weeks. I think you’ll be amazed as what happens.
Try it! Don’t guess, try it. Seriously, it might change your life.
While there may be environments in which this is in fact spectacular advice and would be well-received, I find these paragraphs so obnoxious that they set my teeth on edge. Why should I believe advice about making people feel good which sets my teeth on edge?
Because whether it works or not is independent of whether it sets your teeth on edge. That would be a reason not to act on it, but not a reason to dismiss its validity.
I am a person. I belong to the same reference class as those who this sort of thing would be expected to work on.
I do not find this style of politeness to “work” for me.
It is, I grant, a weak reason to dismiss the claims, but it is a reason, and conjoined with other, similar replies under this post, it adds up to a more compelling reason.
My style, or Lionhearted’s? If mine, please do comment on problems in my comments. If not mine, you may be typing too fast.
Bah, sorry, Lionhearted’s, I lost track of who was saying what. Editing.
Honestly, that surprises me. I could see disagreeing for signal:noise ratio reasons, or not having time—actually, I spent time addressing those in my post since I knew they’d be common objections.
But I’m surprised it actually results in a strong negative emotion from you—“sets your teeth on edge.”
Honestly, I’m not sure why. For the record, I’d advocate you do this sincerely, and never insincerely. Me, if I don’t like anything someone is saying and all the points are dumb, I just ignore it. I’ll only venture to give feedback if I see some merit, and then I highlight that merit.
But seriously, I want to get to the bottom of this. Eliezer writes about how when he was fundraising, lots of people wrote in to criticize, but no one was comfortable publicly announcing and praising the cause and expressing their donation.
This can’t be the best way, can it? If it is, much less analytical groups that are comfortable being cohesive, complimentary, and encouraging will out-recruit us, out-perform us in charity, and cooperate more than us.
At least, that’s how I see it… anyway, I’d like to explore this more. In the comments and/or via PM’s or email, if you like. I wrote this post because I’d like to see our kind of people, groups, and areas of concern be more effective. The fact that there’s a very strong negative emotion from a prolific contributor to the community is surprising to me, and I’d like to find out why and reconcile our points of view to some extent if possible.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I think I can explain this for you.
It sets her teeth on edge because it’s condescending and dismissive. Specifically, with the line “So, are you surprised that it’s commonly offered advice” you’re adopting a professorial tone—purporting to teach Alicorn something she may find surprising about the expert consensus on the subject, with which she is presumed to be unfamiliar. So right from the beginning she’s going to react by feeling insulted, because you’re “talking down” to her.
A way of making the exact same point without adopting the condescending tone would have been simply to say, “I offered that advice because I read it in How to Win Friends and Influence People and in [a few other sources].” If you proceeded to give direct quotes, that would be even better, because then Alicorn could judge for herself whether you’re accurately representing what you judge to be expert consensus (and whether or not she accepts your sources as expert). By asserting yourself as the expert you’re making a subtle attack on Alicorn’s status, whether you mean to or not.
You compound this insult when you dismiss Alicorn’s criticism as “guessing” and when you suggest that your advice will change her life—because you’re implying that she’s struggling with social interactions now. In fact Alicorn’s writings would indicate that her experience in mastering social niceties is at least equal to yours, and you should be addressing her as a peer rather than adopting this tone of superior wisdom.
The above is much more a matter of tone rather than substance, but your reply is also annoying because you’re only re-iterating your initial claims rather than engaging with the specifics of Alicorn’s criticism. As it happens, an example of a better reply is this one, from you, which addresses what Alicorn actually said in a perfectly nice and reasonable way.
Again, I’m sorry if this seems to be just “piling on.” You expressed a confusion (that I assume to be sincere) about why your writing provoked a strong negative emotion from Alicorn, and even though I’m not Alicorn I thought I could explain it to you. I hope she’ll correct me if she disagrees with my analysis.
You did a fine job :)
I have said, and repeat the sentiment: I’m in favor of being nice and polite and kind and cooperative with each other. It’s this style, the specific sort you use in your examples, that gets the skin-crawling/teeth-on-edge/etc. reaction from me. If I had to characterize the style I’d call it something like “saccharine earnestness”.
I wonder whether that “skin-crawling/teeth-on-edge” reaction only arises when this style appears as text, or whether you get the same reaction from spoken word. Same style, but here (in this vid) it is being used to actually communicate, rather than simply to illustrate a point.
It does give me the same teeth-on-edge reaction, only stronger. But then I may be atypical. I never cared for Mr. Rogers either.
Me too. Even politicians don’t usually come across as that nice. Which I interpret as evidence that it is too extreme to be really effective.
Edit: fixed broken link.
Link didn’t come through properly, but I’m curious.
Fixed now. Sorry about that.
I find listening to the linked person only slightly grating. I can’t make out most of the words, though, so most of my reaction is “this needs subtitles”.
Alright, I think we’re on the same page. I picked very, very basic examples of the most literal interpretation of my suggestions. Even adding “Interesting point” or “That’s thought provoking” or “Cool, though I wonder...” before a criticism/concern can make things go over better.
That said, that’s a little more subtle, and I wanted extremely clear and obvious examples.
Feel free to ditch my examples if they’re not helpful for you at all, or replace with your own. I read your linked post on politeness and agree with the sentiment of it, so I think we’re mostly on the same page. Toss all my examples if you understand the underlying principles—there’s almost certainly a more subtle, elegant, less saccharine-earnest-seeming way of doing it in any given case.
Perhaps it helps if you define “impolite” as “status-grabby”. Thus when someone says “nice” things in what comes across as a condescending tone it can be recognized as impolite on that basis—regardless of their intent.
It’s a relativistic criteria though: a given statement can offend some but not others. As an example, the degree of technical explanation afforded for a complex topic. If you put in too much, the experts feel like they are being condescended to. If you put in too little, the less trained feel excluded because they cannot follow all the jargon enough to relate it to anything they know.
Perhaps the real cheat code in this case would be the skill of writing things in a manner that people can interpret into their own preferred range.
There is a wide middle ground between being uncomfortable saying out loud the good things you believe about a cause you donate to, and being unwilling to criticize something without also finding something nice to say about it.
I think you have that backwards. I assume that by ‘this’ you mean the situation that obtained while Eliezer was fundraising. I assume that if ‘this’ is the best way, then a group employing ‘this’ will have better outcomes (by definition?), but you conclude the opposite.
This far into the thread it shouldn’t surprise you. You have had the causes of the objection explained to you multiple times by multiple people from multiple perspectives. Read through this thread again with the assumption that those who are speaking to you understand the value of tact and politeness, probably better than you. They have an intuitive feel of social dynamics, what works, what is inappropriate and what is insulting. They are also analytical people—they have the ability to describe a model of social behaviour that demonstrates why ‘polite and nice’ can also be a condescending slight depending on how it is done.
siduri’s comment is a good place to start. Then you can look further and try to understand how you have managed to alienate your audience to the extent that they have completely written you off. WrongBot’s reaction is in no way bizarre or unusual. It’s what you should expect from humans if you provide the verbal stimulus like what you have provided here.
The person one is correcting is not always the intended benefactor of one’s reply.
Well, that’s just it. I’m not surprised people disagree. That’s to be expected. I’m surprised people had a significant emotional reaction to it.
Actually, there’s been overwhelmingly more appreciation of this than disagreement. It got submitted to HN and was +110 there, and 80%+ of the comments were positive. I also got a half dozen emails saying thanks.
But you know what? You’re right. I thought I would try to address everyone’s concerns, criticisms, and share my experiences. And some people are taking personal offense, on an emotional level. That’s not my intent—so yes, indeed, I’ll bow out of the discussion now. If anyone has any questions or comments, they’re welcome to email me. Really, I do think this is an area that some minor changes can produce huge dividends. Or maybe I’m mistaken—happy to discuss via email if anyone has questons or comments and wants to discuss, but I’ll move on from the comments now.
I think you should take your surprise as a sign that your model of tact is in need of updating. You were not mistaken when you claimed that following the social norms we do here would tend to serve one ill in real life, but the approach you’ve suggested substituting for it seems like a case of reversed stupidity. I think it would be a good idea for you to review the suggestions others have made in this thread so that you can apply your own advice in a more effective manner.
‘This far into the thread’ references comments not the initial post. You can get 110 upvotes on HN based purely based on having a trivially obvious premise that relates to nerds.
Others are noting that you are doing things offensive as a matter of academic interest.
Note that the ‘for now’ sounds ominous. A threat, if you will, of polluting the epistemic environment in the future. You appear to be unable or unwilling to learn or understand feedback—yet another example of what will be considered an accidental defection, here more than elsewhere.
He didn’t say ‘for now’.
Don’t you hate it when that happens? :)
Yes. Yet I’m not surprised in retrospect. Contempt is the brain killer. At least, that is the one state that I’ve learned provokes me to simple mistakes. Far more than drunkenness for example. Every time I’ve said stupid things (in my best retrospective judgement) it has been when the context has provoked me to contempt. Sometimes I remember to eject before it is too late but I evidently haven’t fully made a habit of it just yet.
Almost every time for me. I’ve managed one or two stupidities even without that preparation.
It’s just so much more embarrassing to realise that other people being foolish doesn’t preclude being stupid myself. :P
Offering to help a coworker and offering to help a stranger from an internet forum are two radically different things. The former is something I do on a regular basis; I agree that it is produces good results.
Standards of politeness are incredibly sensitive to context, and from your first line in the parent I take it you agree. Why do you believe this standard of politeness is appropriate to the contexts of both work and a semi-anonymous internet forum?
Okay, cool. You might try offering after a decent exchange—if you look at my profile or “About Me” section on any place I hang out, or any site, I encourage people to look me up for a coffee, or if they have any questions, or I can help at all. Most people don’t take me up on it, but some do—I’ve helped people with their marketing, I’ve helped people get pay raises, improve their writing and creative output, I’ve recommended books and places to stay and go in various cities… and it’s been good. I’ve made friends and colleagues like that.
I learned this because I met one of my best friends this way. When he was a stranger, he emailed me a technical question, and I went over and above the call of duty and wrote him back a 5 page reply with specs and details. He then referred me to a job because I sounded like I knew what I was talking about and invited me to stay with him if I was ever in Los Angeles. I did, and he became one of my best friends. Later, he helped me close a $60,000 deal when I bought out half of a company. We’ve been skiing together in Japan and had lots of cool memories and insights. All because I helped a random stranger, and he was really cool about it afterwards.
It might seem different, but I think most people appreciate it. A fairly prolific photographer/technical blogger emailed me a while back, and after a short exchange, he asked if there’s anything he could help me with. I asked how he made a few of the pictures that were really beautiful? And he shared some software recommendations with me. We’re now friendly acquaintances, and we’ll probably go out for food together next time I’m in San Francisco.
Some people might take it poorly. But who cares? The upside of making a new friend or colleague because you’re always happy to help anyone is huge. Someone doesn’t like it? Well, what’s the downside? Who cares? Most people are grateful anyways, actually, but if a couple people don’t like it… so what? You offer to help someone and they take it the wrong way? Well, nothing significant lost on anyone’s end. The friends and colleagues you make, and the general good you do for the world more than compensates for the (very rare, if ever) negative reaction.
Good comment/question. I generally try to err on the side of being more polite and gracious unless there’s a reason not to, because I don’t see any real downside to it. You’re right—we’re all strangers on the net, so there’s no real repercussions if something goes over poorly. But I think there are opportunities to connect with people, make new friends and colleagues, share good information, and help each other. I think is generally good and virtuous, and try to encourage it when possible.
That does not bear any resemblance to anything I have said. In fact, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that no harm is caused when you annoy or creep someone out on the internet.
I am sufficiently annoyed by this conversation that I will probably not be able to comment further in a productive fashion.
Isn’t this a rejection of the entire point of your main post?
Who cares is very context-specific here. When dealing with someone you don’t naturally interact with, high variance in responses is good up to a certain point. Get a good reaction and you can make a valuable friend and ally, whereas it’s not likely anyone is going to think you were so polite they should come at you with an axe.
Does that mean you think the politeness—effect curve is usually much flatter on the right side of the maximum (optimal politeness) than on the left?
Exaggerated politeness often seems insincere, distancing or worse so I’m skeptical of the merits of systematically overshooting like that.
Upvoted for this. The ‘or worse’ also includes making people disregard the content of what you’re trying to say because you’re signalling low-status/self-effacement so hard that it’s difficult for anyone to take you seriously
Thanks—I was looking for a good way of saying that.
This is the kind of defection by accident that analytical more often fall in to. Condescension with advice!
I’m not saying you should always be polite. Just you should be aware of the consequences and secondary effects for not being so.
I agree with you on that point, yet I’m making my own. Analytical people are usually aware of politeness but take somewhat longer to realise that advice, instruction and offers to assist can be far more of a significant social slight than merely being curt. Those who are familiar with analytical types can see that they mean well and are just making nerdy faux pas. There are some, however, who will take offence—because the exact same words could be used by less nerdy person as deliberate one upmanship.
I second wedrifid’s reaction. Trying an entire different social approach for a month is a very high cost, especially if it’s one that makes our skin crawl. Alicorn’s not alone in that, as that is exactly my instinctive reaction to hearing it. It doesn’t make sense to give that kind of slack unless the prior for it working is high.
It’s about one part historical experimentation with styles of politeness, and one part noticing how your post made my skin crawl.
I second everything WrongBot said in the sibling comment.
A lot of that feeling is probably explained by the mere fact that we are discussing social calculations openly. Doing so almost always leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths.
I don’t ordinarily feel skin-crawly when discussing social norms/calculations/scripts/etc.
That’s right, I almost forgot you had posted on the subject before, which is odd because I’ve actually used your “Considerations in favour of niceness” post to convince people to rein in their conversational aggression.
A couple of lionhearted’s sentences sounded slightly cringeworthy to me too, but many times I have been surprised at how well such things actually go over with non-analytical people. For example, my mother prefaces even the tiniest criticism with 42 caveats and compliments (which feel like mostly white noise to me), but I can’t help but notice that she also appears to be a social genius, with at least 30 genuinely close friends. (Bla bla anecdote bla bla correlation not causation).
I’m often shocked how much completely (to me) over the top super-politeness is optimal when dealing with average people, often more than enough to make me tempted to say “Get on with it!” in a British accent. In fact a good instinct for many of us when dealing with non-nerds is to use just enough politeness to actively piss ourselves off were we in the other person’s shoes.
Yep. Play to your audience. This requires you to gain genuine skill in communication and in assessing the situation, but this is really not optional if achieving your goals requires interacting with humans. Failure to communicate appropriately in a variety of situations will lead to failure.
(No-one said instrumental effectiveness was easy.)