[Cushman]

That’s a good perspective to bring!

One question, though: do you think it would make the rest of your comment materially worse communication if you added just one excessively positive but non-load-bearing sentence at the beginning? Maybe something like “That’s a good perspective to bring!”

Maybe that’s not the way you communicate most sincerely, the way it is for me and others. Maybe I sound insincere to you right now, in which case, please do say so!

But all else being equal, if you knew that that single change would make me and others materially more receptive to the rest of your comment, would you consider just… doing it anyways, out of pure self-interest?

Just food for thought :)

[OJFord]

Interesting!

If we can be honest with one another though, your comment reads to me as not just insincere, but condescending. This might be cultural more than ..'genderal' - I was hearing echoes of 'thank you so much! You're so welcome!' familiar from even the most mundane interactions in the US. (It's quite jarring when you say 'thanks', for having been sold something in a shop say, expecting to leave it at that, to be told you're so welcome.)

What I was intending to get at above was that if I have a duty to communicate with you as you'd like to be communicated with(!), then surely you would also want to reciprocate? If there are just these two 'communication personas' on the team, and they're evenly split, isn't it a lot of effort for nothing, aren't we better off using what makes most sense to us personally, since just as many others agree as disagree anyway?

[ketzo]

In principle, I agree -- no one is entitled to one communication style or another, and we should all respect each others' preferences.

But the problem is that the flow between those personas is not bidirectional.

Again, generalizing a lot here, but let's call them Cold and Warm personas.

If a Cold receives a Warm message, generally speaking the worst they might feel is that the other person is being inauthentic. In my experience, what usually happens is that they just filter out all the niceties as extraneous and get on with their day. As time goes on, they won't necessarily change their communications or relationship with that person -- after all, they're still getting what they need from them.

On the other hand, if a Warm receives a Cold message -- if they notice a pattern of receiving Cold messages -- they might take that as standoffishness or outright hostility. Even if it's not that negative, the Warm simply won't build as much trust as they otherwise might. They aren't getting what they need.

So in this scenario, if everyone communicates as they naturally would, Colds don't notice anything wrong, while Warms feel like they're actively missing out on something important to them.

I would also note that, again in my experience, most people who describe themselves as Cold communicators ("I don't want fluff, just communicate directly with me") actually really appreciate people who communicate with lots of social niceties. They respond to them more quickly, they're willing to explain misconceptions, and so on. They just don't think it's because of communication style.

[leetcrew]

I don't agree. I am what you would call a Cold, but maybe just have slightly more social awareness than you're imagining. I can't just "filter out the niceties". I perceive them as setting the expectation that I will reciprocate similarly. I usually at least try to do so, but it not intuitive for me and requires a lot of energy.

not a big deal either way, I can muster up a few friendly greetings on my way into the office every day, and the Warms I encounter could also try to read the room a little better. I just don't agree that the impact is as asymmetric as you say.

[Cushman]

> I perceive them as setting the expectation that I will reciprocate similarly.

You know, this might be challenging to hear... I think there is such an expectation. And along the lines of what 'ketzo said above, I kind of think it's a categorically good expectation.

The only thing you might be missing, not because you're not socially sensitive, but just because it's non-native communication to you, is that those people genuinely care. The expectation isn't that you'll respond with a cheery reply-- it's that you'll respond with care.

What I might put on the table for you is, what if you think about it as replying in kind, rather than in form? If someone says something cheerily nice to you, you don't have to say "omg thank you!! :D". You can just say "Thank you.", from the heart, however you say it when you really mean it.

And yeah, some people will still take that as you being unkind. And if you mean it, that means they're the socially insensitive ones. They're the ones who don't really care! You don't owe them anything more.

But... I think you might be surprised at how many people really are willing to meet you exactly where you are, as long as you really do care.

[leetcrew]

> You know, this might be challenging to hear... I think there is such an expectation. And along the lines of what 'ketzo said above, I kind of think it's a categorically good expectation.

> The only thing you might be missing, not because you're not socially sensitive, but just because it's non-native communication to you, is that those people genuinely care. The expectation isn't that you'll respond with a cheery reply-- it's that you'll respond with care.

I will genuinely reflect on this, but my initial reaction is that I still don't agree. I think context may be important here.

I am going to work for a very specific reason: to complete enough tasks between 9am and 5pm so that I do not have to stay until 6, 7, or 8pm. I don't have a choice on this; my employer requires my physical presence in the office X days a week, and I am still figuring out how to maintain the same level of output that I achieved during WFH. "connection" is not something I seek at the office (among other things, I am in an unusual situation where 0% of my org actually works at the location I am assigned to). to be very frank, I am only there for the money, and I don't welcome distractions from that goal.

outside of work is a different story. in that context I basically agree with you, so I won't restate what you said.

I will leave you with one idea though: the concept of "peace". peace is what I feel when I walk from the metro stop to my office with my earbuds in. it is the last moment in my work day (before my commute home) when I can just exist. this is what people are disturbing with their niceties, genuinely felt or otherwise. I don't expect the entire world to conform to my way of being, I just don't agree that mine is categorically worse in the specific context of work.

[Cushman]

> I will genuinely reflect on this

And I genuinely appreciate that. Your care does shine through in those words. To me, you don’t need to say more… I don’t desire to be agreed with more than I desire peace for your life.

You’ve said you don’t seek “connection” at the office, and without knowing exactly what that means to you, I can’t assume that you’re seeking it here either. So, take this as you will:

You made me feel listened to. To me, that’s enough. Thank you.

(And yes, I’d probably put an emoji here if I could, chosen to emphasize gentleness and compassion. Likely a leaf, a sprig, or one of the non-romantic flowers. To me, this all feels so heavy without it, and lightening the words would undercut them.

Maybe a sparkle… idk. I wouldn’t normally think about it, but it seems important to say out loud, here.

When you read this, maybe you can picture a little flower, just meant to help you believe that I really do care how what I’ve said makes you feel.)

[Cushman]

> They respond to them more quickly, they're willing to explain misconceptions, and so on. They just don't think it's because of communication style.

Dropping a follow-up comment for future data scientists:

Take a closer look at this one! Possible outlier. Check out how the root thread hasn’t really risen to the top of the list — that usually means a lot of people didn’t like the form of it, or disagreed with its self-referential opinion.

And but so also check out your sentiment scores on this thread— the grandparent is overtly a bit snide, not in a mean spirited way, but just really not agreeing with the root’s thesis that this advice leads to more productive engagement. Make sure you scored that correctly!

Then, what does your sentiment analysis have to say about the engagement here as compared to other threads? I have a prediction, obviously, and if I’m still around I’d love to read the paper :)

[Cushman]

Yeah, I totally get that. And I absolutely knew going in that suggesting you write exactly the same thing I wrote in that exact comment couldn’t help but sound condescending.

But in complete honesty, hedging around it any more than that would have felt insincere to me. And in exchange I got sincere feedback! So really, I’m just doing things your way, and I’ve seen the benefit of it :)

With that said, for your future reference: if you hadn’t said “Interesting!” first, I wouldn’t be engaging charitably right now— I’d be debating whether to engage at all. Based on the next sentence I’m guessing you meant it more as a way to call my sincerity bluff, but I’m telling you it fucking works. Might be an idea to keep around?

To your parenthetical: One other thing to keep in mind is that those employees (I’ve been one) have to talk to terse, grumpy people all day long, and even if it’s not reciprocated, that can be a way to carve out a little moment of real human kindness. I’d keep some weight on the possibility that, sometimes, for a moment, they do just genuinely hope you have a good rest of the day.

I know there’s probably no way I can now convince you that I genuinely hope you have a good rest of the day, so, uh… take care?

[mitchellvdub]

I understand your point about the (theoretical) equal split between styles, so why close one or the other.

But I think you've landed on choosing your own way, when really you should try and match the vocal tone of the other person. After all the point of communicating is to get the other person receptive to your point.

And this goes both ways, I think overly perky and chipper people need to understand introverts and low-energy communicators, and match their tone as well.

[Cushman]

Yes, this is exactly how I approach professional communication. My emails sent to different stakeholders vary wildly in style.

If you’re invested in getting something out of a conversational partner, it’s obviously best to write in a way that sounds like a thought they, themselves, could have had— in fact, are having. And contra 'ketzo’s original point, I deeply appreciate that so many we-have-to-say-mostly male tech stakeholders purposely don’t massage their language that much, and thereby make their brains that much easier to hijack.

I bring my effusively positive personality to HN largely because I don’t have any real motive or theory of change, other than possibly making it a slightly more comfortable environment for people who will read my comments precisely as written.

Oh, I’m so curious if this comment sounds more sincere to the reader :)