There are certainly situations in which the pointing out of errors is not socially appropriate, and doesn’t win you any friends.
When somebody’s telling a joke or an interesting anecdote, you’ll often find that nobody cares if the premises are correct. You’ll tend to get along better if you bite your tongue—even if it is the 500th time you’ve heard that “you only use 10% of your brain” (for instance).
However… I do tend to find that getting along with people that don’t want to know the truth is more energy-draining (for me)… just as I’m sure that if I let my own natural preference for truth take over… I’d be draining for them.
I find that “getting along with non-rational/truth-preferring people” is a tough skill… and involves a lot of compromise.
I’d love to see more articles on how to do this successfully (without going insane or compromising your values).
Also I’d like to point out that there really are situations in which you really do have to point out that somebody is just plain wrong… despite how uncomfortable it makes the other person feel.
That while the article is quite right that being patronising is not beneficial… there are many situations where “being right” is not about being patronising, but about making sure all the bases are covered.
This is often where IT-people clash with people such as their managers. Because really, sometimes code just can’t do what they’re asking, no matter how much they’d like us to “put on a can-do attitude”.
Similarly, clients can give ambiguous or flat-out contradictory requirements… and these errors must be pointed out, regardless of whether the person loses face by doing so. because IT have to make a profit just as much as the client does, and these kinds of errors are where later disputes arise. Nipping it in the bud by pointing out they’re wrong is the best thing for your long-term survivability here.
Of course—there are ways and means of doing so to make sure that egos aren’t bruised int he process… but that’s another article (or two), I’m sure. :)
The article isn’t about choosing the reinterpret the other person’s statements in a more favourable light.
It’s about not sweating the small stuff and not drawing attention your way and letting somebody else have fun without ruining it with detail that, in this social situation is not actually necessary.
’Nuff said
This was put up approvingly by two people on my friendslist.
Brilliant blogpost, and quite correct.
There are certainly situations in which the pointing out of errors is not socially appropriate, and doesn’t win you any friends.
When somebody’s telling a joke or an interesting anecdote, you’ll often find that nobody cares if the premises are correct. You’ll tend to get along better if you bite your tongue—even if it is the 500th time you’ve heard that “you only use 10% of your brain” (for instance).
However… I do tend to find that getting along with people that don’t want to know the truth is more energy-draining (for me)… just as I’m sure that if I let my own natural preference for truth take over… I’d be draining for them.
I find that “getting along with non-rational/truth-preferring people” is a tough skill… and involves a lot of compromise.
I’d love to see more articles on how to do this successfully (without going insane or compromising your values).
Also I’d like to point out that there really are situations in which you really do have to point out that somebody is just plain wrong… despite how uncomfortable it makes the other person feel.
That while the article is quite right that being patronising is not beneficial… there are many situations where “being right” is not about being patronising, but about making sure all the bases are covered.
This is often where IT-people clash with people such as their managers. Because really, sometimes code just can’t do what they’re asking, no matter how much they’d like us to “put on a can-do attitude”.
Similarly, clients can give ambiguous or flat-out contradictory requirements… and these errors must be pointed out, regardless of whether the person loses face by doing so. because IT have to make a profit just as much as the client does, and these kinds of errors are where later disputes arise. Nipping it in the bud by pointing out they’re wrong is the best thing for your long-term survivability here.
Of course—there are ways and means of doing so to make sure that egos aren’t bruised int he process… but that’s another article (or two), I’m sure. :)
I think the blog post was basically speaking in favor of the charity principle.
I don’t think I agree on that one.
The article isn’t about choosing the reinterpret the other person’s statements in a more favourable light.
It’s about not sweating the small stuff and not drawing attention your way and letting somebody else have fun without ruining it with detail that, in this social situation is not actually necessary.