

Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People - rms
http://lesswrong.com/lw/372/defecting_by_accident_a_flaw_common_to_analytical/

======
plinkplonk
I am all for being in control of what exactly you are saying and being alert
to unintended slights but this example from TFA

 _"But we don't have the budget or skills to do that, how would we overcome
that?" ... makes the presenter look very bad. ... be diplomatic and tactful
...

You could phrase it as, "This seems like an amazing idea and a great
presentation. I wonder how we could secure the budgeting and get the team for
it, because it seems like it'd be a profitable if we do, and it'd be a shame
to miss this opportunity."_

I don't think the first question necessarily insults the speaker, but that
aside, does the second version even mean the same thing as the first?

The technique used seems to be an overblown [positive-(watered down)negative-
positive] sandwiching. I am not sure it is the most effective way to
communicate intent without giving offense.

If I heard something like that in a project meeting I would have to think
about what exactly was being said and mentally strip away all the bracketing
empty phrases to understand the real concern.

The first question can be modified to lose its sting (assuming a sting exists,
I am not so sure, it wold depend very much on shared history, context and
tone) by softening it up a bit without the unnecessary padding of the second
version.

 _"What are your thoughts on the budget and skillsets needed to implement this
idea?"_ or the more narrowly focused _"How could we secure the budgeting and
the team for this idea?"_ asked in a friendly tone avoids the middle manager
speak of the second version (imo).

I've been in meetings (Hello Intuit!) where everyone was constantly trying to
avoid giving even the slightest offense and every point was hedged in a lot of
positive stroking and pre-declarations of non offensive intent, with sideways
glances at the top dog in the room, to the point where no one could make out
wtf was actually being said or who had what concerns.

Another example, the second response to his blog post didn't seem to be
offensive to me, unless you are predisposed to see offense in any feedback
that didn't use the sandwiching technique - positive stroke-mildly negative
feedback with more hedging about ultimate altruistic purpose etc-then another
positive statement about your intent/the speaker etc.

How much of this is a predisposition of the author vs sound advice that should
be followed to get specific effects? Just something to think about.

By all means, be aware of how your speech/writing etc could give offense and
avoid such instances where possible. Be careful in your phrasing, tone etc. Be
socially aware.

That doesn't mean you have to be longwinded or speak in sandwiched Middle
Manager-ese all the time. I think the central point of the article is valid
and worth thinking about but the examples aren't very convincing. The article
would be stronger with better crafted examples, considering the target
audience.

PS: just saying: my only "strategic intent" (heh) with this comment is to
provide a bit of a counterpoint here on HN, not to provide acritique feedback
to the author etc, which means I don't have to follow the sandwich strategy or
pad up my comment with superficial stroking to make him more amenable to my
suggestions and so on and so forth.

~~~
igravious
You know plinkplonk, you make some fine points there†. What would you feel
about the following - how about stating upfront your lack of intention to
insult?

"I'm not criticizing you personally but, yada yada yada"

†this being and polite malarky is a cinch, wish I'd known sooner

~~~
thalur
You have to be careful that what follows the "but" is not a personal
criticisim. For example:

    
    
      "I don't mean to be rude, but you're an idiot"
    

is no less rude as a result of claiming not to be rude (though they /may/ not
notice this and it might work).

------
dkarl
This is great and all, but there's a bigger skill to learn: how to react
appropriately in context. People who are tactful in meetings can also be
overly tactful in casual conversations, to the point of giving offense.

Check out a few of his examples:

 _#1 is kind of clever pointing out a spelling error. But you have to realize,
in normal society that's going to upset and make hostile the person you're
addressing. Whether you mean to or not, it comes across as, "I'm demonstrating
that I'm more clever than you."

There's a few ways it could be done differently. For instance, an email that
says, "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."_

If somebody posted a comment like that aimed at me, I'd think, "Wow, why is
this guy working so hard to maintain distance? Is he afraid I'll think we're
best friends or something? Or do I really seem so fragile he needs to soften
the blow?"

In a meeting at work, I appreciate more tact, but I still don't like being
treated like I'm fragile. Treating someone with inappropriate sensitivity is
actually a great passive-aggressive way to make them feel like shit. You
should only do that on purpose, never accidentally ;-)

 _Let's look at point #2. "FWIW, I think posts like this are more valuable the
more they include real-world examples; it's kind of odd to read a post which
says I had theory A of the world but now I hold theory B, without reading
about the actual observations."

This is something which makes people trying to help or create shake their
head. See, it's potentially a good point. But after someone takes some time to
create something and give it away for free, then hearing, "Your work would be
more valuable if you did (xyz) instead. Your way is kind of odd."_

Didn't he just do the same thing? He got free feedback on something he wrote,
and here he is criticizing it without first thanking the guy profusely. Irony
upon irony, this is shortly followed by a list of guidelines for social self-
awareness.

Context is everything! I appreciate tact at the right times and in the right
doses, but misspelling a word is exactly the kind of small error that can be
treated lightly, and excessive formality destroys any feeling of frankness or
openness. Criticism is always hard to take; excessive solicitude for a
person's feelings just adds an implicit criticism of, well, their ability to
take criticism. To some extent, this varies by situation. Anything that
aggravates the inherent anxiety of the situation -- a superior criticizing a
subordinate, or criticism of a sensitive personal characteristic, for example
-- indicates more sensitivity.

But there are many situations where directness and informality is better.
Actually, I'd rather somebody posted, "Hey, it's 'wised up,' not 'wizened up,'
you pompous dickhead," than for them to act like they're afraid my ego will be
crushed by having a spelling mistake pointed out. At least I can assume
they're kidding about calling me a dickhead.

------
ZeroGravitas
Bad explanations of the prisoners dilemma are a constant fascination to me.
They pop-up in so many otherwise excellent bits of writing, imho, because the
standard mental image of two prisoners being interrogated is such a mismatch
for the actual dilemma.

For example, in this case he's talking about "defecting by accident", yet two
paragraphs before he's just outlined the fact that "the best solution
individually is to defect".

So you're "accidentally" following the optimal strategy, which is the same one
you'd pick if you had perfect information about the situation. I fail to see
how that's a problem.

The key to the prisoner's dilemma is to avoid being in that situation. Once
you're in that situation, a situation that is fascinating precisely because
you are so totally screwed once in it, the "game" is over. You (and your
partner) only have one rational choice and it leads to a poor outcome.

Change the game when and if you can, that's the lesson of the prisoners
dilemma (also, if you can't change the game then defect because the other guy
should logically defect too leaving you high and dry if you try to cooperate
and if for whatever irrational reason he doesn't defect then you get the best
possible outcome by defecting when he doesn't).

To be extra clear, "defecting" will always gain you something in the standard
Prisoner's Dilemma. That's kind of the whole point. In an iterated prisoners
dilemma, where the guy you betrayed previously gets a chance to get even it's
not so simple and gets more confusing if people hold irrational grudges.
Interaction with colleagues obviously fits that kind of iterated version
better as does pissing off your partner in crime who'll have you shanked in
the prison showers as revenge for betraying him.

For a discussion about nerds needing to communicate better, leading off with a
false technical analogy seems like a perfect way to piss the techies off and
make them ignore the rest of your message, which all seems reasonable enough
in itself and doesn't really need the reference to the PD and talk of
defecting to jazz it up.

~~~
freeflygeek
I love this comment, because it is such a brilliant demonstration of the blog
author's points -- let's focus on what I can do to show that I am smarter than
you!

~~~
iansimon
To be fair (but really to sound smart (possibly unsuccessfully)), your comment
is also an example of this.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
This matches my experience exactly. So many times people, especially technical
people, have something to say, some information to convey, and almost
arbitrarily many ways to say it. They then, from among those arbitrarily many
ways, fail to exercise any judgement as to which is going to achieve secondary
goals of improving working relationships, making people feel good, getting
people on-side, and generally improving the working atmosphere. Often they
think that the information is enough, and how you say it is irrelevant.

Or perhaps, more accurately, they simply don't realise that there really is a
choice to make, and it's an important one. How you say something can make the
message more impactful, more effective, and additionally, get people working
_with_ you to make things better, instead of resenting you and potentially
sabotaging your work.

<http://www.penzba.co.uk/SoothSayer.html>

~~~
wladimir
Pretty moot argument. If technical people spent a significant part of their
time on how to bring a message instead of the content of the message, they
would hardly be technical people. You need smart minds to be doing what they
are good at.

It's pretty obvious why different people have different tasks, you wouldn't
let a person from PR do a technical design, and you wouldn't let someone from
technical design do the PR. Both would probably have ackward results...

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
And I wouldn't let someone be a manager or technical people unless they also
had some technical skills, and technical people without the ability to work
well with other people usually don't get very far. There are honorable
exceptions, but I've learned never to rely on being one of the exceptional
cases.

By all means, concentrate on your technical skills and your technical skills
alone, but understand the decision you're making. I've found that a small
amount of time understanding business, negotiation, psychology and personal
interaction has been enormously beneficial. If you choose not to learn from my
experience, that's your choice.

~~~
wladimir
Don't get me wrong -- I do see the importance of those things. But I also
recognize they are a science in themselves. To get involved with that too much
is a kind of slippery slope, which detracts from the main focus.

A lot of people make a living of being obsessed about how things look and
sound, the outward appearance. I choose to not be one of those people.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Much can be gained from a very small amount of effort. Like learning to say
"Hello", "Goodbye", "Please" and "Thank you" in the language of the country
you visit, the returns are disproportionate to the effort. It's not about
being obsessed by how things look and sound, it's about realising there's a
choice, and making the choice that makes it easy for the other person to join
your side.

There are a few small and simple "tricks" and techniques that can make a world
of difference. "Not bothering" is also a choice. I just don't think it's a
good one. Investing a small amount of time is better.

Find a good balance.

------
arethuza
I've always suspect that the almost ritualistic indulgence in self deprecating
humor common in many places I've worked is pretty much the antidote to the
"over direct" form of communication that technical types are so prone to.

This is probably related to the suspicion that people aren't completely
comfortable working together unless you have all got very drunk at some
point.... but perhaps that's because I am Scottish.

[NB I did find that British self deprecating humor does _NOT_ work with
corporate attack lawyers belonging to a certain extremely large semiconductor
manufacturer]

~~~
TheSOB88
This sounds like a good idea. The examples in TFA are bit too far to the
managerspeak side for me.

Can you give some examples, though? I can't really see how you could turn,
say, the "budget" issue from TFA into a self-deprecating thing.

But that is because I suck dicks.

(Am I doing it right?)

~~~
arethuza
To be honest asking "But we don't have the budget or skills to do that, how
would we overcome that?" doesn't sound that bad to me - at least it is
suggesting that there could be a solution.

We Scots call the technique of appearing ignorant the "daft laddie" approach -
something I like to employ a lot (probably because I'm half daft myself). Ask
the questions, imply that _you_ are the stupid one for not understanding
stuff.... Of course, this is a lot easier if you are in a relatively senior
position and suspected of not actually being completely daft - but it's a lot
better than being an insufferable know it all.

~~~
alex_c
What you call the "daft laddie" approach would be how I would handle it,
rather than piling on enough sugar to give everyone in the room a toothache.

"What are the budget and staffing constraints for this project?" I KNOW the
project is doomed, but I don't need to be the one to point that out - let the
presenter handle it, if they haven't thought about it they can give a vague
answer now and figure it out later, or maybe they have thought about it and
have a solution I don't suspect. Either way, the focus shifts from "you
haven't thought about X" to "what about X?"

------
Sukotto
Speaking of rhetoric, I loved the essay "How to Teach a Child to Argue" by Jay
Heinrichs <http://www.figarospeech.com/teach-a-kid-to-argue/>

I also found his book "Thank you for arguing" really interesting and
informative.

His essay is a delightful read. His book, unfortunately, somewhat more heavy
handed... but still worth your consideration in my opinion.

~~~
xiongchiamiov
From what I've seen, arguing comes naturally to children.

------
binarymax
I switched my strategy as soon as I got out of high school.

I used to defect all the time. Then I shut my mouth. I was initially surprised
at how much information I could get if I didn't say anything, forcing the hand
of others. over 10 years later and I've gotten pretty good at social and
professional politics.

The trick is this (Socrates thought of it first). Ask questions. Still havent
won? Ask some more. Only answer when you absolutely have to. Information is
critical. Don't let it slip.

------
loup-vaillant
Oh my.

My _mom_ often insisted on the importance of criticising with care, to avoid
making the other feel bad. Yet I needed this article, written in a foreign
language by a complete stranger, before I realized on a gut level that she's
right.

And it's not the first time. So, note to self: Mom is right until proven
wrong.

------
wallflower
You never really win an argument.

Is it that important to be correct? Just go with the flow, it's social
lubrication. Try to just go with it, vibe! [1]

> GOOD VIBING:

GUY: You’ll never guess how much I got this coat for.

FRIEND: Wow.. Umm, 200$.

GUY: No man. 45$

FRIEND: Wow.. Nice man.

BAD VIBING:

GUY: You’ll never guess how much I got this coat for.

FRIEND: Oh you got a deal. I guess 30$ then.

GUY: Umm, actually 45$

FRIEND: Oh.. well that’s not bad.

I've gotten better as I've gotten older, and I remember times where I've
literally butted horns with my dad - over such things as silly as how far into
the intersection should you go when making a left turn. I didn't want to get
caught in the intersection so I always waited until the last moment to spurt
forward and make the turn quickly as the light turned yellow. My dad on the
other hand - believed it should be halfway or whatever in the intersection -
and even Google'd up a DOT/Driver's Manual to prove his point - and CC'd all
our other family members who had no interest/idea we were so fired up about
our respective viewpoints.

[1] "Social Vibing"

[http://www.bristollair.com/2008/outer-game/pua-
skills/social...](http://www.bristollair.com/2008/outer-game/pua-
skills/social-vibing/)

~~~
jodrellblank
If your comment said "this link will teach you to ease your social
interactions by guiding you through aligning your natural vibrations" you'd be
downvoted for woo.

------
narag
I remember clearly that I already had understood this when I was 12 and
corrected some of the teacher's assertions (such as people not having weight
in the Moon because of _lack of air_ ). Classmates used to laud my soft and
well-mannered way to tell the teacher he was wrong, without saying it
explicitely, and leaving him a graceful retreat path.

So either I'm not a proper geek/nerd or the generalization is a bit
overextending.

My impression is that most persons do understand that vocal negative critics
are a fact of life (and specially online forums) so don't worry too much about
them. They're just too visible, but the same happens with ads.

Once I've cleared the constructive comment stuff, I feel the urge to write
some snarky comment on how the author's understanding of HTML tags made his
cursive text appear without spaces around :-)

~~~
dkarl
I had the same experience with teachers, and there's definitely two sides to
the failure to communicate, and there's a cultural aspect as well as a
"skills" aspect. I was taught that every reasonable person is open to
correction and should strive to appreciate it. I got on fine with teachers who
felt the same way. Teachers who had weird ideas about authority and tried to
pretend omniscience, I didn't get along with, but I didn't really care. At
least not until I started worrying about my GPA, and then I just kept my mouth
shut and let them make fools of themselves and mark the occasional right
answer wrong. As I saw it and had been taught, if a person didn't respond well
to disagreement, then I didn't owe them the favor. From a purely practical
perspective, I would have been better off using them as an opportunity to
practice tact, but sometimes practicality conflicts with self-respect.

------
duck
_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._

I see where he is going and agree, but if it takes someone a whole paragraph
to tell me I misspelled a single word I am _not_ going to be as joyful as he
makes it sound like.

------
timelinex
hmm... I think many rationals problem is that they don't interact enough and
then use their positive social interactions to social proof their bad ones.

Consider his first scenario where the person puts up his hand and says that
they don't have the budget to do that. The speaker might indeed be mad and
likewise some others in the room. Invariably there would be someone there that
likes your outspoken or directness[just by the share number of people in the
room, probability dictates it].

Now, if our rational guy stands there by himself and refuses to interact with
others, the speaker and his allies will brand him as rude. Every move he
makes, no matter how trivial would only be seen in this light.

If he had started interacting until he found someone who likes his
disposition, he is then social proof by that person. Then he begins to climb a
ladder of social proof. He would meet someone else who because that one person
liked him they would like him too, and you can see how this spreads
exponentially. Now, it would be just the speaker left hating him; well no
actually, the speaker will now think his evaluation of the situation was
previously wrong and that the guy is alright.[Appropriate reading:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments>]

And if our rationalist is lucky he can turn his new found social proof into
Authority by running for some prestigious position such as president. At which
point, people will like him cause he is in that given position.

Being nice has it's only problems also. For instance, people would assume you
want something from them if you start acting nice the first time you meet
them.

Again, social proof can over come this problem of being suspecting of wanting
something.

Social proofing can lead to what I call, the lovable Jerk. People who act in a
way that undermines others but the general populous loves them so they are
forgiven time and time again.

With that said let, me sum up my points. Being social proof will lead to
people liking you but as a rational you only have a few people who naturally
like you but you need to build from those few.[Appropriate viewing: Derek
Sivers - How to start a movement <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V74AxCqOTvg>
]

------
Udo
Defecting by default is actually a pretty stupid and inconsiderate move. There
are many variations of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but commonly the options are
weighted such that the least punishment (or greatest reward) is gained
_overall_ when people cooperate. Defection has a certain chance of bringing a
locally maximized outcome to one individual, but that chance is relatively
small considering the risk, and even if the gamble succeeds the global rewards
from cooperation would have been higher. I believe this basic scenario also
applies to many if not most real-world settings. Defecting is a stupid and
risky, a gambler's choice in pursuit of a questionable (and often time
elusive) outcome.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
You've confused me. The article isn't about people defecting by default
because they've chosen to defect by default. It's about people not really
realising that there is a choice to be made, doing something, and that
something is defection, even though they never realised it and never thought
about it.

Your comment reads as if you haven't read the article at all, which I'm sure
can't be true. Perhaps you could explain the apparent discrepency.

Thanks.

~~~
swombat
I think that might be some deliberate (if softened up) defection right here
:-)

------
noglorp
I believe it may be due in part to valuing the channels of communication. A
lot of social politics / etc. muddy the waters, because being to the point is
socially disadvantageous so often.

