undefined | Better HN

0 pointsLewton13y ago0 comments

I found both types of examples you gave insulting.

Obviously being called dumb is insulting, but being treated like a baby is too.

What's so wrong with just saying

"This should be changed because ___"

"You should avoid doing something like this because __" ?

0 comments

I always advise my staff to simply stick to the facts. Anything that can be disputed will be. This results in statements like:

"I'd like this changed because I believe it's a mistake to use globals in this context"

rather than

"You're/It's wrong to put a global here"

The difference is subtle, but important. It allows personal opinion to be used without the debate being personal.

gingerlime13y ago

That seems to be the direction I was looking for. It is subtle, but I see the difference. What I noticed in your example is two things:

1. The statement is framed as a personal viewpoint, rather than absolute truth/fact. 2. You not only state the problem, but also the intent or direction for a fix.

I'll try to see if I can adopt something along those lines. Thanks.

zwischenzug13y ago

It's important to acknowledge personal differences while trying to see them as separate from the people themselves. It's when the two are confused that problems arise.

If you ignore personal differences, or don't understand that they're opinions (albeit based on experience) you will fail.

That's therapy training for you :)

zeidrich13y ago

I prefer a little explanation here.

"I've just had to track down bugs due to globals defined in this context when they don't need to be. If you use this approach it will save everyone a lot of time in the future."

Not confrontational, it's educational, and you're saying why it's wrong. Just saying "it's wrong" doesn't help if the original author didn't realize it was wrong at the time. If they did realize it was wrong and did it anyways, giving the full description just reminds them why they should go and do it the long way.

obstacle113y ago

I prefer the ways you've verbalized it. Facts are good.

Just pointing out the opposite of being "not nice", and that it is still possible to be productive while being so.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

zwischenzug13y ago

I always advise my staff to simply stick to the facts. Anything that can be disputed will be. This results in statements like:

"I'd like this changed because I believe it's a mistake to use globals in this context"

rather than

"You're/It's wrong to put a global here"

The difference is subtle, but important. It allows personal opinion to be used without the debate being personal.

gingerlime13y ago

That seems to be the direction I was looking for. It is subtle, but I see the difference. What I noticed in your example is two things:

1. The statement is framed as a personal viewpoint, rather than absolute truth/fact. 2. You not only state the problem, but also the intent or direction for a fix.

I'll try to see if I can adopt something along those lines. Thanks.

zwischenzug13y ago

It's important to acknowledge personal differences while trying to see them as separate from the people themselves. It's when the two are confused that problems arise.

If you ignore personal differences, or don't understand that they're opinions (albeit based on experience) you will fail.

That's therapy training for you :)

zeidrich13y ago

I prefer a little explanation here.

"I've just had to track down bugs due to globals defined in this context when they don't need to be. If you use this approach it will save everyone a lot of time in the future."

obstacle113y ago

I prefer the ways you've verbalized it. Facts are good.

Just pointing out the opposite of being "not nice", and that it is still possible to be productive while being so.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse