
When empathy becomes insulting - mh_
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3513-when-empathy-becomes-insulting
======
JangoSteve
The worst part is when this fake sincerity with no interest in actually
helping creeps its way into smaller companies and startups.

For example, I'd been using Wunderlist for a long time and was a very happy
user. They don't charge money, but I would have gladly paid whatever they
asked. Then one day I woke up and found all my tasks were gone! Well that's
what I thought at first. I soon realized they weren't gone, they had just all
been removed from their respective categorized lists. I filed a ticket [1],
and then emailed them when I received no response.

After several back-and-forth exchanges with their support, the answer I
received was, sorry, we cannot restore your lists to any previous state and we
don't know why it happened, all you can do is manually move them all back to
their lists. All 1022 tasks. By hand. With no explanation or guarantee that it
won't just randomly happen again at any point in time. And then they tack on
their "apologies for the trouble". Absolutely astounding.

Not to mention, their response that they "can't move tasks from one list to
another", or that it's not possible for them to restore my data to a previous
state, is either a lie and a complacency, or it's extremely concerning in that
they don't apparently have backups of data.

So yeah, my point is, when large companies do it, I somewhat expect it as part
of their economies of scale; at least it's not personal (which could be a good
and bad thing). When a small company does it, it feels almost like a betrayal.

EDIT: Got so caught up I forgot to mention my actual point.

[1]
[http://support.wunderlist.com/customer/en/portal/questions/9...](http://support.wunderlist.com/customer/en/portal/questions/989352-all-
tasks-for-a-list-got-moved-to-inbox-including-completed-?new=989352)

~~~
dasil003
Having backups and being economically able to restore an arbitrary chunk of
them for a single customer are not necessarily the same thing.

~~~
pekk
Whose responsibility was it that it needed to be done at all?

~~~
dasil003
Insufficient information to answer that question.

~~~
dasil003
Nice driveby down vote but I stand by my point. It's not always the company's
fault when data is "lost".

------
tomku
I experienced this recently when I was trying to dispute a declined RMA claim
for a motherboard. The support person said over and over how sorry she was
that I was having trouble, and how much she wanted to help, and how she really
hopes that I can get my problem solved, while simultaneously completely
denying any possibility of doing anything at all to address my issue. It was
incredibly frustrating, and left me with the feeling that I was being told
very politely to go fuck myself.

Incidentally, that intensely negative experience was the first time in a long
while that I didn't get asked to fill out a "brief survey" regarding my
experience with support. I can't imagine why...

~~~
joonix
I've noticed this recent trend as well. The fake over-politeness with
excessive variation in tone and pitch is really patronizing and uncomfortable.
Not only are you wasting my time with this, you're not accomplishing what
matters. I don't get mad at the actual agent, they're just doing their job,
but at the idiot who came up with this script.

~~~
wpietri
I too have stopped getting angry with agents; there's no payoff in being a
jerk. But I have also stopped pretending like they are powerless victims.
E.g., "That's a shame that they won't let you really help anybody. Have you
thought about finding a job working for better people?"

Propping up a bad system means you are complicit. Especially when part of the
way you prop up the system is by keeping people being harmed away from the
people ordering the harm.

~~~
princess3000
"Have you thought about getting a job working for better people" is incredibly
patronizing, akin to asking a fast food worker why they're not working at a
real restaurant or someone at a huge, bulky conglomerate why they're not
working for Google. The rep knows that their script isn't designed to help
you, just like someone working at McDonald's knows that their burgers aren't
the best in town, but they also have to pay rent at the end of the month so
they're going to stick to it.

Being nice to customer service reps is the best thing you can do and is the
easiest way to get them to go out of their way to help you. Chances are the
caller before you was kind of a jerk, and the caller after you will probably
be kind of a jerk, so if you approach the call in a nice manner and are polite
and patient you'll stick out in a good way and the agent will be more inspired
to assist you. It's possible or probable that they'll still be hamstrung by
corporate regulations but like they say, you'll catch more flies with honey
than vinegar (or however the saying goes).

~~~
wpietri
Depends on how you say it. If you say it as a way to browbeat them, sure. But
if you have arrived at a point in the conversation where it is obvious the job
they have chosen is one that a) cannot help you, and b) makes sure the person
who has chosen not to help you cannot hear about it, then it is pretty obvious
they have a shitty job.

You can either acknowledge that or sweep it under the rug. I'd rather just
acknowledge it. So I think it's possible to say with sympathy something like,
"Man your bosses have put you in a terrible situation. You have to take the
heat, but you can't help anybody. I'd bet you can find something better than
that."

Sure, that's how they're paying this month's rent, and I don't begrudge them
that. But them making a career out of that isn't good for anybody, them
included.

------
MattRogish
Given all the fees airlines are happy to take for checked bags, you'd think
they would at least give a check at the baggage claim exit that the bag you
picked up is, indeed, your bag.

Every now and then at LGA I'll get someone at the exit of the baggage carousel
ask me to cross-check my claim ticket with the one on the bag, but it's very
rare.

Given how the airlines have gotten the TSA to check ID on tickets to verify
that there aren't people using other folks' tickets, how expensive would it be
to get someone to consistently check bags on the way out?

I know, I know - preaching to the choir and all that - but it's still
frustrating that this is a solvable problem.

~~~
larrys
You'd have to believe that this is not a problem _for them_ or they would do
that. By _for them_ I mean the amount of issues with people taking the wrong
baggage and even having to compensate the owners of the baggage does not
outweigh the cost and inconvenience to all the others having a ticket checked.

Similarly it is fairly easy to walk into a dry cleaner without a ticket and
pick up something that someone else owns that could be valuable. As long as
you look and quack like a duck.

------
DanielBMarkham
It continues to amaze me that companies even use people -- many of them so
tightly constrain what the people say, you might as well be talking to robots.

Not only is this terrible service, this is terribly dehumanizing to everybody
involved. It tells me that the company could care less about its people -- and
the people could care less about me. You'd be better off just insulting
people. At least it'd be more honest.

~~~
larrys
"you might as well be talking to robots."

Well that might be part of the plan. If someone sounds intelligent people are
more likely to smell that if they push an issue they have someone on the phone
that can do something. If you're talking to an idiot you are stopped dead in
your tracks.

Along those lines sometimes I have to answer the phones with customer service
calls. What I've found is that if I sound like a robot (very staccato) people
are way less likely to bother me with other issues. If I sound intelligent and
knowledgeable they are very likely to pepper me with extra questions that fall
out of the realm of what we actually do. And waste more time. (Not discussing
the merits of whether it pays to go "the extra mile" or not. Just highlighting
people's behavior.)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"What I've found is that if I sound like a robot (very staccato) people are
way less likely to bother me with other issues."

I think the key question here is whether or not your job is just to provide
simple data, such as answering routine questions or some such, or developing a
relationship with somebody. Many companies get so enamored with systematizing
their process that they lose track of the big picture (in my opinion)

I was reading somewhere that when you call the guys at Zappos, they're there
for as long as you want to talk to them. They'll even go online with you
searching competitor's websites if they don't have what you need.

I like the robot idea, though. Need to try that one out!

~~~
larrys
Another one is putting someone on hold when you already know the answer as if
you need to check with someone else to get approval. That tends to put some
friction that prevents to much time from being wasted. Another use is if
someone wants a discount. If you agree to quickly they can think it was to
easy and might wonder if there is money on the table.

Do this many times in negotiation as well typically. Even if you know you will
sell (or buy) at a certain price you can't agree to quickly.

(Once again all this depends on your product, who you are selling to and what
you are trying to achieve.)

~~~
gehar
I learned recently that some companies will offer to waive accrued finance
charges to get you off the phone, as part of the robo-system before the human
agents answer.

I assume that in this case, they can afford to do so because the finance
charges were fraudulent in the first place (Hello, GAP)

------
draugadrotten
Same idea:

 _"Service is not something that happens according to a script. It is an
intuitive interaction between a rep and a customer that has a different
outcome every time. A company that encourages its reps to handle the situation
the way the rep would want to have it handled if he were a customer is the
company that wins repeat business--in spite of the problem that required the
service in the first place."_ [http://www.inc.com/vanessa-merit-nornberg/how-
to-empower-you...](http://www.inc.com/vanessa-merit-nornberg/how-to-empower-
your-customer-service-reps.html)

 _As far as the customer is concerned, the employee represents the whole
company. That employee is a fractal of the CEO. They have the authority, the
autonomy, the trust and the expectation that when they talk to the customer,
they’re going to solve the customer’s problem._
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/oreillymedia/2012/09/12/connecte...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/oreillymedia/2012/09/12/connected-
company/2/)

------
michaelbuckbee
This attitude is a side effect of having stovepiped bureaucratic thinking, you
find it whereever Support, Marketing and Customer Service are three different
divisions with different bottom line responsibilities.

What I think is surprising is that this doesn't always happen in large
corporations either.

I managed a local pizza shop as a very green manager and the owner called me
to task for worrying about 'wasting' toppings by putting too many on a pizza.
His thought was that what I thought of as 'waste' was actually 'cheap
marketing'.

------
umsm
In my opinion, when a company does this to you, you should leave. Immediately.

This is a problem and we need to look for solutions. Why should I continue to
support a company that doesn't care? Wouldn't you rather pay a little more and
have decent customer service? Usually this means you support local merchants.

Recently I purchased a plasma TV locally, and paid tax! Crazy, I know! But
when it's time for service, I know the company will stand behind it. We need
to stand behind these companies.

EDIT: Free plug to the retailer: Abt Electronics :)

------
bdunbar
"What’s so sad too is how little it would often take to resolve the
situations. You bend a policy here, you expedite an order there, you bubble an
issue up to a manager."

This might be harder than it looks. A lot of customer care is outsourced. The
vendor's employees aren't in a great position to bend, or bubble, or expedite
much, if anything.

Calls come in, data goes out, but .. who do you bubble a problem to when 'the
company' is far away and you only deal with them within the confines of a
system?

------
jeffasinger
I had a phone support rep yesterday admit that she did nothing to help my
problem, and then in the same breath asked if I was satisfied with her help
during the call - clearly for some sort of performance metric.

That's infuriating bureaucracy at it's finest.

~~~
smacktoward
Not just infuriating for you, either. She's being evaluated on how well she
did something that was most likely effectively beyond her control -- it's
doubtful that they give her the tools and the authority you'd need to really
solve customers' problems. So she doesn't, because she can't, and the
customers (quite naturally) complain, and she gets punished.

The whole system is infuriating.

~~~
derefr
"None of the power, all of the responsibility."

------
larrys
"You bend a policy here, you expedite an order there, you bubble an issue up
to a manager. A natural, caring organization designed to create passionate
customers stretches and bends."

While it is possible it is also extremely difficult when you have a large
legacy workforce.

For whatever reason the people who work in those jobs are cut from a
particular bolt of cloth.

Changing that is extremely difficult and assuming they have the requisite
intelligence and skills to operate differently is a stretch. Examples that you
could point to that have successfully done this are most likely limited to a)
companies formed from the start with a certain attitude (say zappos) or b)
companies who have enough profit margin in their products to pay and motivate
people better and take the hit for wrong decisions (say Neiman Marcus, Coach
or name your luxury brand).

~~~
wpietri
I don't believe those people have been cut from any particular bolt of cloth.
I think those people all started out as cute babies and lively children. I
think they all had hopes and dreams. I think they have been trained to not
give a shit. Often, for years.

What people learn can be un-learned. Saying that "changing it is extremely
difficult" is exactly how companies get into that situation. Gosh, it's
difficult to give good service, and we can get away with giving people the
brush-off, so we'll just give people a script to read.

The solution to laziness in the organization's past isn't to renew the
organization's commitment to not doing hard work.

------
ssharp
I had a billing issue with Time Warner Cable where I had fees that were not
being paid. My service is through an agreement with my employer and TWC and my
service is discounted and paid for directly out of my paycheck. So one day, my
internet was shut off. I called and found out I had a past due balance of
around $30 because I had been being charged "modem lease" fees for the past
few months, never received a bill, and for whatever reason, the fee wasn't
deducted from my pay automatically like the other fees are.

I tried really hard to explain the situation - that I don't get bills, wasn't
notified of the charge or change in policy, and wanted to see what could be
done. Well, customer support couldn't do anything other than take payment. I
even asked to speak to a supervisor, only to receive the same story. Since my
internet connection was being held hostage (I forgot to mention that this
happened at like 4:30pm on a Friday), I reluctantly handed over my credit card
info.

On Monday afternoon, I called them back threatening to cancel. When asked why,
I relayed my story back to them. Lo and behold, they gave me my money back.

Not that I had any respect for TWC's customer service to begin with (I've had
some interesting situations with them in the past), but this one really struck
me as insulting. My situation didn't matter to them at all until I was ready
to cancel my service. As soon as that was a possibility, they gave me my money
back as soon as they could.

------
danso
In journalism school, one of the first lessons our indepth journalism
professor taught us was to never say "I understand" as a reaction to an
interview subject telling you about something tragic...because you _dont_.
What you're supposed to say in response to a lament...either there isn't a
uniform response or I don't remember, but just getting to the point and asking
questions seemed to work...people don't need to be insulted or patronized when
they're feeing grief.

~~~
gehar
"Oh.", with appropriate tone of voice. Works in a wide variety of
circumstances.

------
michaelfeathers
The thing no one mentions is that this is an inevitable side-effect of scale.
It's hard enough to do good customer service in small brick and mortar stores
where your ratio of employees to customers is high. When you scale up a
business to the size of an airline, good customer service is a glaring cost
and an easy thing to ditch in competition.

Economies of scale give us better prices but it happens are the expense of
customer service. We learn to lower our expectations.

------
nathantotten
I actually think that software plays a huge role in causing this horrible
customer service from airlines as well. I am a frequent flyer on American
(125k miles last year) and have had numerous experiences that led to this
conclusion. One experience in particular happened on a recent trip to Europe.

On this particular trip I was flying on a code-share BA flight (this means a
flight I bought as AA, but flew on a BA plane). Normally with my flyer status
I can upgrade to a good seat without issue. I was however booked in a terrible
middle seat on my return flight. I called AA and they couldn't figure out how
to upgrade me. I called BA, same thing. I called American Express Travel, they
couldn't figure it out either. The response I got from everybody was very
helpful (I get better customer service than most people, due to my flyer
status), but they simply couldn't figure out how to actually make the change
in their system. When I got to Heathrow, I asked a BA agent at the counter if
she could change my seat. She couldn't figure it out so she called another
person over who was more experienced. This lady then 'hacked' away on her
terminal for literally 10 minutes. She was giving me updates the entire time
on what she was doing. She tried a variety of different options to change my
ticket until she found one that worked.

While there certainly is a human aspect and a policy aspect to bad customer
service with Airlines, I believe that some of the problem is the result of the
customer service representatives having to deal with really really bad
software. Most of them simply don't actually know how to make the changes that
customers want so they just tell them it isn't possible. My guess is that if
the airline industry was able to massively upgrade their software you would
see a huge improvement in customer service simply because the representatives
would actually be able to accomplish the requested tasks.

------
georgemcbay
Whenever a customer service drone starts off their end with:

"I'm so sorry to hear that you're having $PROBLEM_DESC. That must be so
frustrating for you."

I really have to hold back the urge to scream. At least fiddle around with the
fucking words a bit, don't use exactly the same template as everyone else who
has trained their drones to respond in exactly the same way.

I'm getting angry just thinking about this.

~~~
jspiral
I respond to this with: "No, i'm not frustrated because I know you're going to
make things right!" in a cheerful voice. Makes me feel better anyway...

------
aashaykumar92
This is exactly why customer service in startups far exceeds that of large
businesses. But it also makes sense. In a startup with <50 employees, it's
pretty easy to reach one another so if there is a true customer issue, it can
be taken to the founders if necessary. But once a company gets big, there is a
communication barrier and hierarchy exists--so a customer service rep cannot
contact somebody internally to help as easily, hence the cliche, “'we
apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced'”.

Furthermore, the company cannot just allow customer reps to 'bend a policy
here, [...] expedite an order there, [...] bubble an issue up to a manager'.
If you give them the freedom to bend policies, they can choose to draw their
own lines and that can result in adverse effects for the company overall.
Bending of rules is too risky for a large company to allow their customer reps
to take. It's a slippery slope, but honestly one that doesn't seem to have
much of a solution.

~~~
quanticle

        Furthermore, the company cannot just allow customer reps to 'bend a policy here,
        [...] expedite an order there, [...] bubble an issue up to a manager'. If you
        give them the freedom to bend policies, they can choose to draw their own lines
        and that can result in adverse effects for the company overall. Bending of rules
        is too risky for a large company to allow their customer reps to take. It's a
        slippery slope, but honestly one that doesn't seem to have much of a solution.
    

That's not true. Zappos, for example, is famous for its excellent customer
service. They can, and do give their CS reps a significant amount of autonomy
(within guidelines, of course) and allow reps to make on-the-spot calls about
sending replacement items or handling refunds. It's a matter of trust and
customer focus. Is the company willing to trust the CS rep to make the right
call? Is the company focused on doing what's right for the customer and
keeping customer loyalty in the long term even when it creates costs in the
short term? Both of those things are true for Zappos. I'd suspect that neither
of those things are true for American Airlines.

So, why is that? It's not because Zappos is a small company nor is it because
American Airlines is a huge one. It has to do with markets. Zappos is in a
highly competitive market. Not only are they competing with other online
retailers, but they're competing with brick-and-mortar stores as well. In
order to sell shoes online, they know that they have to not only match the
offline shopping experience, but _exceed_ it, in order to make up for the
inherent risk premium assigned to novel types of shopping. They edge they've
chosen is customer service. Zappos has the generous return policy that it has
because they know that you're already sacrificing some convenience in shopping
with them. They know that it's easier to buy (and return) shoes at a brick-
and-mortar store, so they want to remove as many other obstacles as they can.

American Airlines, on the other hand, is not in a competitive market. They've
split the market with Delta, United, and Continental. They don't have to care
about the customer. They know that as long as they're not significantly more
or less terrible than the other three carriers, the average consumer isn't
going to stick to his or her principles at the cost of a less convenient or
more expensive flight. In addition, the airline business has sufficiently high
barriers to entry that they don't have to worry about a competitor springing
up and devouring their business overnight. That's the real reason American
Airlines doesn't care about its customers. It's also the same reason that,
e.g. Comcast and Verizon don't have great customer service either. Simply put,
they're not forced to, so they don't.

~~~
gehar
Sorry, that's completely backwards.

Zappos can do it because they have HUGE profit margins on luxury/unique
products, and those margins pay for customer service.

Whereas AA can't because they have _negligible_ profit margins on a completely
price-sensitive hightly competitive landscape

~~~
quanticle
Amazon also gives its CS reps pretty significant leeway, and they have razor
thin profit margins.

------
dominic_cocch
Customer server is important, but in order to build and maintain a truly good
CS team you need to treat them like a good CS team.

This post mentions following rules too strictly as a big part of the problem.
However, the bigger part of the problem is treating your employees, even your
customer server employees, like hard working, creative, valuable people and
not 10/hr calling center pawns. That means pay them a living wage, give them
benefits, ask for their input, include them in the process and allow them to
have a personality.

I've worked in CS for a large social networking site (about 11-12 million
users), and even at those numbers the amount of anger and hatred poured at you
day in and day out is hard to handle while remaining 'empathetic'. Luckily, we
were allowed to be creative, to break rules and we got paid pretty well. Had
it not been that way, I can guarantee you that on angry, idiot call/email
number 49 for the day I wouldn't give a shit about you or your problems.

------
TheCapn
Its a mixed bag here. People wanted faster/cheaper product they got it in
terms of cost cutting measures to the bottom line. Customer Service isn't
something a profit driven company _wants_ to do, its something they _have_ to
do to retain users. The idea of talking to a person seems enough for some
people as they can vent their frustration at a CSR but I never felt that was
good enough; when I did it it felt criminal.

But then you have companies that go out of their way to help you. They have
the power to bend the rules and when its in your favor it can be an extremely
rewarding experience as a customer. I'll always toot Valve's horn because of
this. I placed an order and paid extra not to have DHL shipping to Canada
(I've had too many bad experiences to count). Valve shipped it DHL anyway so I
emailed customer service explaining my displeasure. They asked that I refuse
the package when it arrives and they'll have the order correctly shipped with
UPS as I instructed.

Not only did they ship my UPS order _before_ the DHL had arrived and been
subsequently rejected, they refunded my entire purchase. I'm a sworn customer
now and more likely to overlook problems with Steam or busy season mishaps
because they do things that keep their customers. Pleasant side effects for
them? I'm on HN shooting free advertising (as if they need it here).

I'm always willing to pay more or deal with longer delays for local product
now. My friends still scour the web to try and find the cheapest deal on the
car stereo equipment or PC part but I keep it local. Sure I spent $40 more but
I didn't deal with a kicked in box and the returns department. I didn't deal
with foreign timezones and odd business hours to get a return receipt. Sure it
was cheaper cash wise but my secure sound of mind is worth more than a few
pennies. Always go with the underdog if they're capable of the services you
are after. They _need_ to please the customer to stay afloat unlike big box
chains who don't have any obligation to you because there's someone standing
behind you to buy the item you'll pass up if you don't follow their rules.

~~~
umsm
Agreed. You can be penny-wise but dollar-stupid.

Many times, these "bargains" you scour the internet for usually cost more in
the end. For the few times it doesn't, oh well.

------
suweid
I was in a call with microsoft support once. The azure management portal was
giving me a 500 error, and I had to get an alternate login or something to
take some servers down and to put some up. Anyway, the conversation consisted
of some Indian guy dispassionately reading and re-reading the same monologue
about how sorry they were, and that my business is so important to them.
Finally I snapped and told him that I'm not interested in apologies just give
me a new account, get rid of the 500 error or do my bidding manually. That did
a fat load of good, as he redoubled his efforts and reread everything again.
With more dispassion and more emphasis on words, as if I was hard of hearing.
The rage I was feeling at the time, can not be described with any words of
man.

------
jonmc12
This is nothing more than having to put up with a system that is tested and
optimized for the average reaction from consumers who use these services. Most
people don't "realize that their only job is to get you off the line". They
walk away happy.

I think solution might come in following forms: 1) staggered levels of
customer service, 2) gradual education of consumers on how to protect their
rights and deal with larger services, 3) regulation that corrects for the
imbalance of info between businesses and consumers.

------
cateye
At the other hand, people don't want to pay for decent service. Yes, training
and accommodating support staff is costly and it is almost never on the list
with criteria before someone makes a purchase decision.

The cost of the product is certainly always a major criteria.

As a result, service is being cut in order to have a lower product price. Win-
win on the short term. On the long term, the consumer punishes himself with
this behaviour.

------
DanBC
This approach seems to work. When 'work' means 'customer doesn't make an
attack page'.

I don't read many pages from people were something went wrong, they called the
company, and were politely fobbed off.

These interactions are frustrating, but not infuriating, and it is the
infuriation that causes rage and causes someone to create an attack site.

------
kevinburke
Hypothesis: In some industries, good/profitable companies and good customer
service don't go hand in hand. That is to say, the "end game", once all the
companies in the industry "figure it out", is not one company with good
customer service and slightly lower margins crushing its competitors.

------
dionidium
Assuming that most transactions "just work", then these interactions are by
definition at the margin, which means that fixing them probably isn't very
profitable. I guess it's OK to complain about it -- I think it sucks, too --
but these companies are probably acting rationally.

------
lettergram
I couldn't agree more. I would almost rather have Google's policy of
essentially no support, at least they are clear about and do not add a false
sense of help.

------
dustingetz
scaling customer service is hard; customer service is a cost center at scale;
leadership wants to reduce costs. DHH cites telecoms and airlines as examples;
Telecoms enjoy natural monopolies, so competition and the free market can't
fix it; airlines compete solely on price, so it would be silly to invest in
good customer service.

------
lhnz
Empathy becomes insulting when it's not empathy.

Empathy becomes positively rewarding when it's sincere.

What a terrible, link-bait title. 37signals preaches honesty and hits me with
that?

Edit: Real empathy is never insulting.

~~~
benatkin
The humans that they hire for the most part have empathy for other human
beings. It's a part of their personality. It shows up consistently in what
they do. Since they talk to people at their jobs, there's going to be empathy.

~~~
lhnz
I disagree with you.

Sit in a call centre with no ability to fix people's problems and you'll
realise that people are angry with you and that some are rude to you. Do this
for long enough and you'll stop empathising with them back. You will just be
going through the motions.

~~~
benatkin
I doubt it, I think they just get really good at rationalizing it, but their
personality traits persist. If peoples' personality traits could spin on a
dime in the direction of evil, psychologists would probably have an easier
time making evil people be good.

Empathy is a huge issue, lack of empathy is a factor in most violent crimes
that get committed. If I thought DHH were misusing the concept I would have
reacted negatively, but I think he was spot on. These people still have
empathy, it just winds up feeling forced because they lack the ability to act
upon their feelings.

------
logn
This should not be a front page article. I'm going to start flagging all 37
signals posts since they spam us with low content and brief posts I believe
are only designed to feed traffic to their domain.

------
sauravc
"There’s simply nothing worse than someone telling you how sorry they are when
you can hear they don’t give a damn."

\-- actually there is... they could easily be a jackass about it and tell you
to screw off. First World Problems... smh

~~~
gehar
No, honest rudeness is better than dishonest politeness. It wastes less time,
for one, and sends a clear message that you will be happier elsewhere.

