[dondawest]

He’s using the language of self help (“clear and direct communication!”) but interpreting it in a manner reminiscent of the “truth telling sessions” enacted by Synanon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanon

> > Last night I told someone I could be interested in a variety of relationships with them. They told me they weren’t interested in romance but they were interested in friendship. We had a nice talk and teed up another talk.

He considers himself to be a “direct” communicator, when this is an example of very indirect communication. The guy wants to date and/or be intimate with someone — telling them “I could be interested in a variety of relationships with you” is so much more indirect than asking “wanna get dinner?” it’s not even funny. His barometer of “clear and direct” is totally off in this case.

This guy’s take on “clear and direct communication” is sophomoric and there’s a reason adults don’t communicate in the most direct manner at all times. Sometimes you need to give the other person plausible deniability: asking “wanna see my etchings?” is a cultural shorthand that is just a more respectful way of asking “wanna sleep together?”, but this guys interpretation of clear and direct communication doesn’t seem to have room for a question like that.

Sometimes speaking vaguely rather than directly is a way of respect to your conversational partner. This guy doesn’t get it

[skrebbel]

"This guy" openly and vulnerably writes about his struggles with something that it's not socially acceptable to be bad at. The fact that he's a minor celebrity in IT likely makes that harder to do, not easier. He posted the article to HN himself and is likely to read your comment. I think you're mostly right in your observations but maybe it'd be nice if you try to practice some of what you preach, wrt how you write it.

[dondawest]

I don’t think he writes or communicates in a vulnerable way at all.

“I could be interested in a variety of relationships with you” = not vulnerable, not a question, not direct, not clear.

Also I don’t respect this article so I don’t feel compelled to demonstrate respect — I’d rather practice what he preaches to demonstrate its fundamental rudeness than do any preaching of my own

[BeetleB]

> telling them “I could be interested in a variety of relationships with you” is so much more indirect than asking “wanna get dinner?”

While you may be correct that his statement wasn't direct, I would say your alternative would be the very definition of "indirect".

Being direct in such situations may not be the best approach, and I suspect that is what you're trying to get at. However, "wanna get dinner?" when you want something more than just dinner is almost a textbook definition of indirect.

[7532yahoogmail]

In human relations a kind of Kolmogorov complexity measure in which we communicate the most information in the least symbols or words --- well illustrated with your 'wanna get dinner' --- I think is adjacent to directness and openness. That is, why was it a guy can't spit it out? I like you and wanna get dinner with you? Fear, feeling, and self-esteem issues more likely. Now, it's probably not street smart to have that out with the potential invitee, however, being open about those feelings with a good friend in a hear-to-heart so that it enables one to move forward more directly to me seems like a win.

[dondawest]

I think it’s the most direct way to communicate because the connotations are so culturally well-understood.

“Wanna get dinner and maybe have sex?” might be more direct in a textbook way but it’s also unecessary because the second part is already implied, and unecessary words make a question less direct IMO.

I think “wanna get dinner” is the most direct way possible of stating your intentions unless you’re talking to someone who’s not familiar with, or can’t interpret, cultural shorthand.

This dude’s article could alternately be titled “my experiment with treating everyone like they have autism and seeing how that makes them feel.” Prediction: not great