This is what happens when children are raised in frictionless environments. The real world doesn't care about your feelings.
(Can't wait for the downvotes)
This is not the problem; while we can't measure emotional or psychic distress directly we can infer the severity of it by observing the instance of suicide, which is motivated by emotional rather than physical pain. Rather the problem is that reminders of emotional trauma are often carelessly equated with the initial imposition of trauma. It is of course absurd for students in a class about sexual assault and the law to object to the very existence of the subject matter; on the other hand, to dismiss emotional injuries as immaterial is equivalent to saying that it's OK to terrorize someone as long as you don't harm them physically. If someone broke into your bedroom tonight and hold a knife to your throat but them left without any further assault, you woouldn't have suffered any material injury but I am pretty sure you'd have trouble sleeping.
This is what happens when children are raised in frictionless environments. The real world doesn't care about your feelings.
I hear this sort of thing a lot from people who have been through a little bit of friction and now think they're immunized against it. Having grown up in a very high friction environment, I find your argument weak.
(Can't wait for the downvotes)
Don't do this, it's only a step away from trolling and debases the discussion by unilaterally putting it on a confrontational footing.
The problem is that assholes will use it to justify being a dick, just as they used office politics and Ayn Rand.
Well, it's not like Ayn Rand can be used any other way.
Speaking with candor != being a dick. People can supply direct and honest feedback without making it personal. Someone can criticize someone else's code until the cows come home, while also being excellent friends with them outside the workplace.
The idea that people will use trend de jure to justify whatever bad behaviors they already exhibit while not putting any actual effort into self-improvement is, I feel, fairly uncontroversial.
It's a fascinating read
http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...
The other interesting aspect is that Dalio is an adherent of Transcendental Meditation and IIRC the principles really sprang his study of TM and Buddhism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/meditation-creativi...
Meditation has also transformed the corporate culture at Bridgewater. Dalio pays for half of the fees for any employee who's interested in learning TM, and the office features meditation rooms and group sessions. The company is also known for its "brutally honest" meetings, and Dalio says meditation helps his employees to adopt an attitude of calm equanimity that helps them to engage in a productive dialogue without reacting emotionally.
By the way I say this fully aware that I am privileged to not suffer from, well, whatever triggers actually do to people... ("Feel bad" is all I can figure)
In practice they're used far too often and at unsuitable times, and are used to avoid all discussion of difficult topics, so yes, they've now become a bit daft.
That's a shame, because it means that people who need them don't get them (and are mocked for asking for them); people who don't need them ask for them all the time on anything; and a bunch of vile hateful idiots spew their ignorant bile any time trigger warnings are mentioned.
I don't think so. I don't think people are asking for all possible triggering scenarios to be covered. They're asking for people to take some time and consider how others (less privilege || victims of abuse ||etc.) might be affected. A trigger warning is essentially a heads up.
I've watched my Dad do it and it also tends to shock the recipient when they expect some anger, etc.
----
Gene Consbruck:
You had better not front-stab your boss.
Mike Tian:
"niceness", "politeness", or "etiquette" were invented to allow strangers to co-exist with less friction. They are a code of conduct to prevent violence when people lived in clans and tribes. It was a good invention.
Within a trusted circle, you can strip away some of these things and be "brutally honest", and not rupture your relationship.
But in a larger organization, where people are not necessarily your most trusted confidants, such a strategy is likely to massively backfire.
You cannot have "brutal honesty" (e.g. strip away all the social lubricants of politeness) without a deep and abiding trust. Doing so will result in warfare, either open or subtle.
Something my current employer does, which with hindsight is incredibly obvious, is to separate the roles of leader and manager. Leaders guide the day-to-day work, managers guide the careers of employees. I'm the leader of a development team, and while i do spend a lot of time guiding my team as to what to do and how to do it, i don't carry the can for their happiness, professional development, etc. Rather, that's in the hands of various other people in the company [1], who have monthly one-to-ones, collect feedback, give performance reviews, etc.
As a result, one of the people on my team could absolutely front-stab me without fear of the consequences. They could simply say to their manager that i was a shitty team lead. It would then be up to the manager to act on that information, by giving me or my manager that feedback. That's not hypothetical; it's happened (i actually am a shitty team lead).
[1] That's not to say i don't contribute towards that; if the manager of one of the people on my team comes and tells me that that person is keen to learn more about some topic, i'll try to carve out work related to that topic and let that person work on it. But i'm not the prime mover.
A key point in the article, radical candor feedback may be blunt but should also be well intentioned, not merely derogatory.
It's that many people lack the skills necessary to deal with assholes.
I don't think trying to create conflict-free workplaces (as opposed to personal environments) is a good answer.
[1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...
Also consider paying for high quality journalism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Absolutely! However in the case of the WSJ it is cancelled out by my desire not to give Rupert Murdoch any money.
