Passionate generalist conquering the web one project at a time. Whether authoring libraries for node, JS, PHP, or Rust, I am always on the lookout for better solutions to common problems.
Location
USA
Work
Lead Developer & Co-founder at corpscrypt, CTO at REtech
That might be a generational issue as well. I noticed that the use of smilies and emojis help putting the right tone into written communication. But I seem to be too old to get the hang of it yet too young to not being expected to "read" it.
As for triggered: I feel like the final word on that isn't out yet. There is always a "point of no return" when certain words or expressions tip over and cannot be used anymore without being understood in a certain way. I am not declaring the fight for the term "triggered" as over, yet. I started to be used in a psychological realm to prevent exactly that: to carry blame. "I am triggered by..." does not mean "It is your fault that I feel...". It simply declared the emotional effect something had on a particular individual. And it was a suitable use. Then one side added the connotation if blame and the other side made fun of the use in general. And all of a sudden that makes it derogatory in all contexts? Let's hope that's a fluke.
As for communication in general: I actually do invest some time in the topic and agree everyone should. But as you noticed, not only is language a living, constantly changing beast, we also live in a world where most of the people we communicate with use English, but didn't grow up with it (me included). This causes many local differences in forms of expression, between-the-lines interpretations and tone. It's something I always try to take into account, and therefore cannot go with you regarding your standard of "writing so everyone understands what you mean". At the end of the day, you have to aim for a percentage. If 60% get what you mean, there is room for improvement. But even if 99% of the readers put things together how you intended them to be understood, you will still "fail" to get your point across towards some.
And the feedback always feels distorted. If your book (congrats, BTW) gets sold 1 00 000 times and only 1% feel misrepresented/misunderstood, you will hear from that 1%. You won't get feedback from the ones nodding it off, and you probably won't get much feedback from the ones who loved it. But that 1%. These 1000 individuals will way more likely get vocal.
As for communication in general: I actually do invest some time in the topic and agree everyone should. But as you noticed, not only is language a living, constantly changing beast, we also live in a world where most of the people we communicate with use English, but didn't grow up with it (me included).
Well, and that's just it. Communication emphasizes paralinguistics — aspects of communication beyond written/spoken language — so heavily, it really helps deobfuscate some of the weirder things about language, such as connotation. Intercultural communication, in particular, focuses heavily on differences in cultural and societal norms and expectations, where those come from, and how those influence communication.
It's something I always try to take into account, and therefore cannot go with you regarding your standard of "writing so everyone understands what you mean". At the end of the day, you have to aim for a percentage. If 60% get what you mean, there is room for improvement. But even if 99% of the readers put things together how you intended them to be understood, you will still "fail" to get your point across towards some.
Yes, you'll always lose someone, no doubt. The trouble comes in recognizing when we wrote something that's at a notable risk of being misunderstood. Wit, humor, and sarcasm are especially high risk in this regard, such that many authors will call out sections of satire outright. In other cases, you can "cushion the blow" to reduce the risk, especially if the context is missed.
(Thanks for the edit, by the way!)
If I were to take a shot at writing those two paragraphs we've been debating about, it would probably look something like the following. (You do NOT have to rewrite it; your edit is just peachy! This is just my demonstrating what I mean.)
After experiencing assessments ranging from 5 minute multiple choice quizzes to 2.5 hour coding interviews, it seems to me that the commitment expected from a candidate keeps growing and growing.
And we should think about that for a second:
How much value are you really getting out of piling on pre-interview expectations: a half an hour for a phone interview, 2.5 hours for a coding challenge, 1 hour for psychological online tests, ignoring the additional hour the candidate presumably put into writing a cover letter and learning about the position/company.
If most of that is doing little to effectively screen the candidate, isn't there an underlying impertinence in saying: before I risk investing one single hour for a face-2-face interview, I expect you to risk investing about 15% of a work week, most of which won't really tell me anything useful about you? And never mind the fact that it could potentially be the candidate who decides not to go forward after finally seeing the company from the inside. I mean, somebody must have understood the psychological principle of reciprocity.
See what I mean? Most of it is untouched, but a few words add clarity: your issue is the usefulness and return on those practices, not the practices in and of themselves. You're not dismissing phone interviews and coding challenges, but rather, you're challenging how they're done!
Anyhow, moving on...
And the feedback always feels distorted. ... But that 1%. These 1000 individuals will way more likely get vocal.
Definitely true. Usually you only get 2% of your audience giving feedback: the people who either love it so much they'd keep a copy under their pillow, or hate it and wish you'd go jump in a lake. ;) I'm exaggerating, obviously, but yes, there's a bias.
To that aim, however, one has to remember that for every person who WILL speak up about their dislike, there are probably a dozen or more who didn't say anything and just moved on. That's why I try to take feedback seriously (although not necessarily to heart): the one superfan speaks for a horde of moderate fans, the one harsh critic speaks for the horde of moderate critics.
There is a point where you have to ignore any particular critic, but only once you've seriously evaluated whether there's anything of merit in their criticism. Being a professional author really helps you develop a tough skin.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
That might be a generational issue as well. I noticed that the use of smilies and emojis help putting the right tone into written communication. But I seem to be too old to get the hang of it yet too young to not being expected to "read" it.
As for triggered: I feel like the final word on that isn't out yet. There is always a "point of no return" when certain words or expressions tip over and cannot be used anymore without being understood in a certain way. I am not declaring the fight for the term "triggered" as over, yet. I started to be used in a psychological realm to prevent exactly that: to carry blame. "I am triggered by..." does not mean "It is your fault that I feel...". It simply declared the emotional effect something had on a particular individual. And it was a suitable use. Then one side added the connotation if blame and the other side made fun of the use in general. And all of a sudden that makes it derogatory in all contexts? Let's hope that's a fluke.
As for communication in general: I actually do invest some time in the topic and agree everyone should. But as you noticed, not only is language a living, constantly changing beast, we also live in a world where most of the people we communicate with use English, but didn't grow up with it (me included). This causes many local differences in forms of expression, between-the-lines interpretations and tone. It's something I always try to take into account, and therefore cannot go with you regarding your standard of "writing so everyone understands what you mean". At the end of the day, you have to aim for a percentage. If 60% get what you mean, there is room for improvement. But even if 99% of the readers put things together how you intended them to be understood, you will still "fail" to get your point across towards some.
And the feedback always feels distorted. If your book (congrats, BTW) gets sold 1 00 000 times and only 1% feel misrepresented/misunderstood, you will hear from that 1%. You won't get feedback from the ones nodding it off, and you probably won't get much feedback from the ones who loved it. But that 1%. These 1000 individuals will way more likely get vocal.
Well, and that's just it. Communication emphasizes paralinguistics — aspects of communication beyond written/spoken language — so heavily, it really helps deobfuscate some of the weirder things about language, such as connotation. Intercultural communication, in particular, focuses heavily on differences in cultural and societal norms and expectations, where those come from, and how those influence communication.
Yes, you'll always lose someone, no doubt. The trouble comes in recognizing when we wrote something that's at a notable risk of being misunderstood. Wit, humor, and sarcasm are especially high risk in this regard, such that many authors will call out sections of satire outright. In other cases, you can "cushion the blow" to reduce the risk, especially if the context is missed.
(Thanks for the edit, by the way!)
If I were to take a shot at writing those two paragraphs we've been debating about, it would probably look something like the following. (You do NOT have to rewrite it; your edit is just peachy! This is just my demonstrating what I mean.)
See what I mean? Most of it is untouched, but a few words add clarity: your issue is the usefulness and return on those practices, not the practices in and of themselves. You're not dismissing phone interviews and coding challenges, but rather, you're challenging how they're done!
Anyhow, moving on...
Definitely true. Usually you only get 2% of your audience giving feedback: the people who either love it so much they'd keep a copy under their pillow, or hate it and wish you'd go jump in a lake. ;) I'm exaggerating, obviously, but yes, there's a bias.
To that aim, however, one has to remember that for every person who WILL speak up about their dislike, there are probably a dozen or more who didn't say anything and just moved on. That's why I try to take feedback seriously (although not necessarily to heart): the one superfan speaks for a horde of moderate fans, the one harsh critic speaks for the horde of moderate critics.
There is a point where you have to ignore any particular critic, but only once you've seriously evaluated whether there's anything of merit in their criticism. Being a professional author really helps you develop a tough skin.