[uk_programmer]

I would send that person home and just accept that things will not get done as quickly or find additional resource from somewhere else. I solved the problem by accepting the facts of the matter (they are upset and are not going to be productive). I didn't need to go through all this other nonsense.

> In my experience feelings-type problems are significantly more numerous than technical problems to resolve dispassionately.

That is because people don't think about things objectively which they should be doing. But I am an objectivist so I suppose I am biased.

[SolaceQuantum]

> That is because people don't think about things objectively which they should be doing. But I am an objectivist so I suppose I am biased.

But whether or not they are thinking about things objectively has no basis on whether or not they are thinking objectively right now. Neither is whether or not you are an objectivist with your own bias (a feeling) relevant to the fact that someone has their own feelings that need to be understood during the analysis part of problem solving.

[uk_programmer]

No my own bias isn't a feeling. It is how I tend to think.

The fact of the matter that most problems need to be solved in a manner which is directed by the facts. What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant. We need to achieve <Whatever>, we need to do the following. When does feelings really come into that process? It doesn't.

I find it completely mind boggling that "root cause analysis" has something to do with someone's feelings. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[BeetleB]

> The fact of the matter that most problems need to be solved in a manner which is directed by the facts. What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant.

Let me give you a real example.

I took a two day workshop on communications at work (not NVC). They did a survey of the class: How many people think facts, and not feelings should be the focus of a discussion? And how many felt the opposite (focus should be on feelings, not facts)?

The outcome? Roughly a 50% split.

So when you say:

> What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant.

You've already alienated half of the population. Good luck at resolving a conflict with them.

I come from your perspective: Feelings exist, but they divert from the real issues. Feelings are subjective, so what's the point? Facts are indisputable. Let's focus on those.

And you know what? I like that world where facts are what matters. I like working with people who act that way. I think with enough training and discipline, anyone can get to the point where the feelings don't matter, and they focus on facts. That's what people strive for in academia[1].

But I'm crazy to think that half the population will spend the effort to get there. A big chunk of them don't view it as a desirable goal. It's a laudable aspiration for me to try to make them think that way, but unless I want to make it my life's mission, I need to focus on getting results now, and that means discussing their emotions, and realizing that in doing so I'm not going for an inferior approach.

I work in a team. I need them and they need me. If addressing their emotions helps them, then it helps me. Refusing to do so makes me the problem - not them. Insisting on facts is dogma.

Oh, and people who say feelings are irrelevant? Let me completely dismiss them in a meeting and suggest mildly that they're perspective likely is due to a lack of competence. Most of them will not perform well for the rest of the meeting. Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run - either my productivity or theirs will be suboptimal.

Hell yeah - feelings matter. And I was the problem. Not them for letting their negative feelings towards me get in the way at the workplace.

Is this an artificial example? How about a more realistic example. Same paragraph as the above, but the person merely interpreted it as me dismissing them and questioning their competence. I had no intention of doing so and those thoughts are not in my head. Yet they perceived it, and did not want to discuss the feelings they had.

The outcome is the same:

Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run - either my productivity or theirs will be suboptimal.

How often does this happen at work? I suspect at least once in every team I've been in. Someone in the team believes someone else thinks that way about them based on some offhand remark, and tells me about it, but refuses to have a discussion with the "accused".

The person is jumping to conclusions. The only fact is the person made a particular remark. The conclusion was premature. I point this out to the aggrieved every time. And every time they refuse to accept it. Is the person who is jumping to conclusions problematic? Sure. I could try ensuring such people don't join the team (or stay in it for long). But trust me, that's a difficult solution. A much easier solution is learning how to deal with his emotions effectively.

[1] And as someone who spent a decade in it, I can tell you they mostly fail - academics make plenty of decisions based on emotions.

[uk_programmer]

> I took a two day workshop on communications at work (not NVC). They did a survey of the class: How many people think facts, and not feelings should be the focus of a discussion? And how many felt the opposite (focus should be on feelings, not facts)

That is endemic with society today is that people don't seem to think facts important.

Also a two day communication workshop on how to talk to people. You have bigger problems than how to communicate at work.

> You've already alienated half of the population. Good luck at resolving a conflict with them.

And that is their problem. Why is it mine? If you are an adult you should be able to talk about things as a matter of fact. If you cannot you are not an adult. Some people don't grow up past 16 years old. That is their failing and not mine.

> But I'm crazy to think that half the population will spend the effort to get there. A big chunk of them don't view it as a desirable goal. It's a laudable aspiration for me to try to make them think that way, but unless I want to make it my life's mission, I need to focus on getting results now, and that means discussing their emotions, and realizing that in doing so I'm not going for an inferior approach.

Sure. You have a choice as to whether you want to work with those people or not. I don't like working with those people so I minimise the amount of time I spend working with them if possible.

> Oh, and people who say feelings are irrelevant? Let me completely dismiss them in a meeting and suggest mildly that they're perspective likely is due to a lack of competence. Most of them will not perform well for the rest of the meeting. Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run.

There is a difference between openly hostile (which is what your example is) and talking about things as a matter of fact.

[BeetleB]

> That is endemic with society today is that people don't seem to think facts important.

No one said facts aren't important. They said facts shouldn't be the focus.

And what's with "society today"? When was society any different?

> Also a two day communication workshop on how to talk to people. You have bigger problems than how to communicate at work.

There are worse things. People take a whole semester course on compilers and most don't use any of that knowledge. The majority of technical courses I took in undergrad were never used for anything at work. The communications workshop has been more valuable than those.

And about those bigger problems at work? Try solving them with poor communication.

> And that is their problem. Why is it mine?

Because you have to deal with these people at work. I mean, if you're a solo developer who doesn't work in a team, then your stance is fine. If people don't want to work with you on a project, it becomes your problem. The world isn't going to change to conform to how you thinks adults "should" behave.

Speaking of "should":

> If you are an adult you should be able to talk about things as a matter of fact.

This is classic way to deny yourself of agency and put the onus on others. I once told a manager of mine to stop using the word "should" - it's a way of saying "I don't want to deal with this - it is someone else's fault".

> I don't like working with those people so I minimise the amount of time I spend working with them if possible.

And you are willing to disclose this in an interview?

> There is a difference between openly hostile (which is what your example is) and talking about things as a matter of fact.

Sorry, but I was not being "openly hostile". My dismissing remark can be quite factual, as well as my imputation of incompetence,

You conveniently ignored the rest of my comment where the perception this happens is fairly common. No one is acting hostile, but the outcome is similar.

[uk_programmer]

> No one said facts aren't important. They said facts shouldn't be the focus.

Splitting hairs.

> And what's with "society today"? When was society any different?

About 20 years speech codes and communication frameworks were mocked openly and treated with scorn (as they should be). Today not so much.

> There are worse things. People take a whole semester course on compilers and most don't use any of that knowledge. The majority of technical courses I took in undergrad were never used for anything at work. The communications workshop has been more valuable than those.

This is a general misunderstanding by people such as yourself why they teach you these things. The first being "this is how this works under the hood" and the second is that many other problems might have similar patterns to them. It teaches you how to think in a particular way and break down problems. But alas this was lost on you.

> And about those bigger problems at work? Try solving them with poor communication.

1) Just speak to people. like adults. 2) Be honest. 3) If someone doesn't seems to know what they mean just say "Does that make sense?" and assume you made an error.

It is very simple.

> Because you have to deal with these people at work. I mean, if you're a solo developer who doesn't work in a team, then your stance is fine. If people don't want to work with you on a project, it becomes your problem. The world isn't going to change to conform to how you thinks adults "should" behave.

It isn't about how I think adults should behave. It how the rest of the world thinks adults should behave. You are there to do a job.

> This is classic way to deny yourself of agency and put the onus on others. I once told a manager of mine to stop using the word "should" - it's a way of saying "I don't want to deal with this - it is someone else's fault".

Not at all. I've accepted there things I can control (myself) and there are things I largely cannot control (other people). You seem to framing this like I go around being verbally abusive to my co-workers.

> And you are willing to disclose this in an interview?

I am a contractor. I am brought in to do specific jobs. I don't spend years working at the same place. If I don't like it somewhere I just don't extend the contract.

I also don't particular respect lifers and company men. But I tend to keep that to myself.

> You conveniently ignored the rest of my comment where the perception this happens is fairly common. No one is acting hostile, but the outcome is similar.

Because the premise was a nonsense.