> Going into an Apple store and asking for (and buying) the computer that comes in the smallest box, which I had a good reason to want at the time
> The person who helped me, despite being very polite, also clearly thought I was a bozo and kept explaining things like "the size of the box and the size of the computer aren't the same". Of course I knew that, but I didn't want to say something like "I design CPUs. I understand the difference between the size of the box the computer comes and in the size of the computer and I really want the one that comes in the smallest box", but just saying the last bit without establishing any kind of authority didn't convince the person
> I eventually asked them to humor me and just bring out the boxes for the various laptop models so I could see the boxes, which they did, despite clearly thinking that my decision making process made no sense
Oh c'mon, that's not fair. You have to tell us what the goal was. :) I'm super curious what a CPU designer wanted with the "laptop that came in the smallest box."
Perhaps smallest box = smallest laptop = they wanted to study the form factor. But does the smallest laptop really come in the smallest box? And did the results of this experiment influence your future CPU design decisions? I feel like this arc deserves its own page.
If someone gives me a weird, unusual input that is often wrong, they know is often wrong, I know is often wrong and they don't even try to explain why on this case the input is valid, I'll definitely roll with "they're a moron".
Not explaining is just playing games at that point... Like morons do.
Maybe. But now I can't get it out of my head -- is it true that the smallest box contains the smallest laptops in general?
It raises even more (admittedly pointless) questions, like "Is that true for Apple laptops, or all laptops? I bet Dell packs their tiny laptops with a bunch of peripherals or padding. A larger box might get sold more frequently."
And even for Apple, are the boxes physically smaller between different models? I unpacked an M1 MBP the other day and was surprised how large the box was compared to the laptop. I think there's a 13 inch and a 15 inch, and it almost seemed like the box was designed for the 15 inch.
Hmm... This calls for an empirical study. Too bad I don't live across the street from an Apple store anymore, or I'd just go look.
But "How could any of this possibly matter to a CPU designer?" won't be so easily resolved. E.g. even if it's true that the smallest laptop comes in the smallest box, why didn't they ask for the smallest laptop? The salesperson would've been like "Of course, it's right over here." It sounds like he compared the actual sizes of boxes, which is fascinating.
It's clear OP _wants_ to illicit this feeling of superiority from others, as even after the fact - and with unlimited time and space - they do not state the actual reason.
Hypothetical time:
Let's say we have some reason to want to buy the laptop with the smallest box. We'll say it's some reason so incredibly intellectual we could never explain it to anyone else because everyone else is so much dumber than we are.
So, the best we can do while remaining perfectly honest is simply state we have this desire. Actually explaining it will either not work or cause the apple employee to turn in to a black hole.
So, we stand around asking them like an idiot for the laptop with the smallest box, which we know is easily misinterpreted, but for no reason at all we feel like we must remain perfectly honest. This creates a back and forth as the employee - predictably (especially so to someone of our amazing intellect) - tries desperately to help us see our error in thinking.
The whole process takes much longer and has been unpleasant for all involved.
But hey... at least we got to feel really smart?
Rubbish. The actually smart thing to do is to come up with a plausible reason for the stupid request. It's not even hard.
"This is a vanity gift for my rich employers spoiled kid, to unwrap in some stupid status showcase. None of them understand computers. I know the request is stupid, but let's just get it over with. Can you show me the smallest packaged laptops please?"
There. Nobody's time is wasted.
There is a difference between a willingness to look stupid in order to achieve your goal, and a desire to look stupid while enjoying being a conceited "smart" person at the expense of achieving your goal.
I think the sales person was causing the trouble tbh, if a customer knows what they want take the sale don't waste their time with 20 questions at the end of the day we both know the sales person was just trying to upsell the customer something they clearly didn't want. Its the sales persons job to take the hint and just make the sale tbh.
There is no indication at all that the clerk was causing any trouble, and Apple retail employees never try to upsell, whatever else you could accuse them of.
It's my understanding that when a customer appears this confused, they'll come back with loud complaints and bad reviews if you just sell them what they asked for. And the Apple Store doesn't want to look like they do bad service, regardless of what happened.
Thats fair enough if its a wee old granny trying to buy a laptop box I would question it, but if I work at a computer store and some one comes in and asks me for a specific one of the computers we sell I would just sell them that computer.
I work at an advertising agency if we buy something for a giveaway we care a lot about the box it comes in, not whats inside it as we will never open it. The person buying the laptop is probably a currier that knows nothing more than to buy a laptop. If the currier is getting interrogated by a 16 year old sales clerk thats costing us money and more importantly time.
I get they are just trying to be helpfull maybe even trying to save us money, but we only ever use retail because shipping takes to long. For example we have 20 laptops being shipped but need to take a picture of the box for promo material, we will happily pay for a new laptop and curriers simply so we can get a box in front of a camera so we can meet our dead lines.
If we spend £2k on a new laptop and curriers just for a picture thats money well spent if we meet our dead lines. If we miss our dead lines because some kid was trying to save us £100 its going to cost us a fortune / client.
I'm having a hard time believing that you have a history in retail computer sales AND thought the Apple sales rep was the trouble maker in this scenario.
Seems pretty obvious to me that the job of the sales person is to make sales not talk people out of sales because the company is worried about returns.
We never worried about returns, if some one buys something they don't want we checked the recipt and checked for rocks in the box then just sold them something else, because you know sales?
The only reason I can think of a sales person being worried about returns is if a customer walks in asking for X and the sales person talks them into Y. Customer will be back fuming if it doesn't do X and you won't sell them anything else.
1) Apple is pretty well known for NOT up-selling and for right sizing customers, so you could actually get reprimanded at an Apple store if the sale was something as egregious as "gave customer laptop in smallest box".
2) The example we are talking about is a perfect setup for a "fuming customer"; smallest box laptop was "wrong laptop".
3) Apple depends on repeat sales and eco-system lock-in. The customer who returns the laptop may not upgrade their iPhone.
4) The request was ludicrous ... the Apple sales associate is not in the wrong for not simply going with it.
1) Have you compared their price of ram to competitors? You clearly have never bought anything apple.
2) They got what they asked for I know customers get upset easily but there is no easier customer to handle than one that got exactly what they asked for.
3) They won't upgrade their iPhone? I thought apple didn't push that sort of thing? Anyway they are coming back in store to exchange you can easily make another sale there.
4) The request was simple, the apple sales associate is in the wrong for not helping the customer.
There are dozens of configuration options for Macbooks that all come in the same size box. The size of the box is not enough information to select a laptop. The author was being intentionally difficult under the guise of superiority, and the Apple store employee was just doing their job.
TSA might not ask you to turn on an unopened laptop, perhaps; but it had to do with the CPU above all else, I don't understand it but I don't understand half the stuff on that website. Still like reading it, though.
We keep coming back around to why didn't the author say:
"I want the one in the smallest box for <reason>"
Instead of providing no reason and being smug in their assumption that they are both very clever and the barely over minimum wage employee assumes they are "stupid".
It's also funny that he didn't even put it in the post. I'm not sure it's because of length restrictions, since the post is 4,495 words long. Maybe he wanted to keep under 4,500.
Also perplexing: footnote 2 mentions the car tire paradox. (Traction is determined by weight and coefficient of traction, and those two things only. So why do high performance cars have wider tires, which shouldn't make a difference? Because softer and stickier tires are mechanically weaker and tolerate heat less well, so you need to spread the force out over a larger area.) But it doesn't actually mention the answer besides noting many other people are wrong, and also is separately incorrect and says contact area doesn't change based on tire width?
Like, there's no clever counterintuitive Boyle's law/hydraulics effect where at the same air pressure a tire twice as big deforms half as much or whatever. Just the very obvious intuitive case that wider tires have bigger contact patches, which you can calculate yourself by plugging numbers into this tire calculator: http://bndtechsource.ucoz.com/index/tire_data_calculator/0-2... and the BMW i3 electric car has a crazy thin tire to have a smaller contact patch and less rolling resistance: https://www.bmwblog.com/2015/04/24/bmw-i3s-tires-more-import...
And the css thing... notoriously, everything on danluu.com has been completely unstyled for years. So every time one of his posts is on HN, someone comments about the unreadably wide lines, which could be fixed with a single `body{max-width:600px}` CSS rule.
But the reason everything is unstyled is because Dan installed octopress seven years ago, which had a braindead default theme that used custom fonts for everything, causing a glacial 15 second time to first paint: https://danluu.com/octopress-speedup/ Irritated, Dan ripped out all the CSS entirely, and the site loads in a flash. But now he has a trapped prior,[1] and any time someone says "CSS" to him he thinks, "ugh, that awful garbage which ruined my site" and refuses to touch it.
> now he has a trapped prior,[1] and any time someone says "CSS" to him he thinks, "ugh, that awful garbage which ruined my site" and refuses to touch it.
Do you know that's true? Are you extrapolating his mental activity from a limited set of facts?
I wondered about that story and concluded that the author knew which computer they wanted. They also knew that this computer came in the smallest box. So they only had to give that second bit of information to get what they wanted.
It is a bit condescending in my view to withhold that information from the clerk. But then again, I'm only making assumptions. Also, I've done similar things where I refused to let on my internal reasoning for various reasons. Sometimes just to mess with people. And clearly, many people thought me a fool for it. If I'd actually told them my reasoning? In many instances that would not have improved their opinion of me. So no loss.
There are also many instances where I could have benefited immensely from sharing my reasoning, because people could have corrected my mistaken assumptions. Can't say I've got it figured out when to keep shut and when to share.
If it happened, he purposefully chose a request that he knew would generate confusion and discomfort in a situation with someone he has power over. It reminds me of the high school bully who fake-punches you, knowing you'll react, and then punishing you for how you react.
At best he purposefully made things more difficult than they had to be. She was absolutely right to think that he was a "bozo." I generally strive to make things as easy and painless as possible for service workers I deal with, because I've been a service worker. It wouldn't surprise me if he has never spent a day in his adult life working a service job.
Regarding whether this actually happened or not: did any notice that "small box" item is one of the few he doesn't actually explain and he's withholding information from us just like he did from the salesperson? It feels like a "look at me, I'm so very smart, watch me manipulate my audience" move.
His disdain for his readers is pretty obvious from the fact that he puts zero effort into readability; there isn't an drop of formatting, it's just a massive wall of text from edge to edge of the browser window.
I don’t share your assumption that he purposefully made things more difficult.
My assumption is that he really didn’t know which computer came in the smaller box (since, computer size, which is the public info about the product, doesn’t exactly correlate with the box size).
My guess is that he wanted to know which, if any, impact a small box would potentially have on computer components (like different impact absorption on transportation) that would require some CPU design adaptation. Like (speculation here, as I am nowhere near a CPU specialist): is a second memory clip more susceptible to be affected by transportation impact? So the box size is correlated with cheaper computers. Which tend to be larger computers, but can come in a smaller box because they don’t have that second memory clip?
Idk, but I am assuming good intent and reasoning behind the anecdote.
"Hi, I'm doing research on $WHATEVER_IT_WAS, could you show me the computer you sell in the smallest boxes?" would prevent the confusion and awkwardness. It seems he gets out of his way to encounter these situations which is kinda rude.
I still liked the article, I certainly have a problem with trying to avoid looking stupid too hard, at least in certain contexts.
Yeah, exactly. I build weird machines, and I need parts that aren't designed for the weird machines (because nobody has built them before), so I usually go to unrelated shops.
Last time this happened, I needed steel wire, and I went to a guitar shop to buy guitar strings. I told the employee "this is going to be a bit weird but I want a string that is 0.3mm in diameter for a machine I'm building, do you have any?" instead of letting him be puzzled why I would want a "0.3mm string" rather than a "C string".
Usually people even ask and talk about about what I'm building, which is nice, but if it will take a long time to explain I say something like "it's not very easy to explain what it does because it's for a specialized purpose, but essentially it does <whatever general thing>".
I've never had anyone think I'm stupid, but not for lack of asking stupid questions, I think. I just take a little more care to spend two seconds explaining why I'm asking the thing.
There is nothing like the joy that lights up the face of a bored Home Depot employee when you say "looking for <weird thing>; it's for a kids costume". You can get several of them happily brainstorming alternatives and running around the store
> His disdain for his readers is pretty obvious from the fact that he puts zero effort into readability; there isn't an drop of formatting, it's just a massive wall of text from edge to edge of the browser window.
You can see this as disdain, or as respect: I'm free to bring my own CSS to this page, and have things look exactly how I want them too.
I notice he doesn't afford his victim any generous assumptions.
He's like; fuck you for thinking the guy basing his $2000 computer purchase on cardboard is an idiot - I'm actually a secret genius CPU designer don't you know??
Well yeah like, maybe she's got a Master's degree in Packaging Design and knows that the smallest box, in fact, has weak cornering or cannot be reclosed because it has to be ripped open or something.
Is his request even well defined? There might be different, shortest, thinnest, shallowest boxes. Does it need to fit through a letterbox? Oh, ok, you don't care about depth then...
Not to mention the double meaning that "box" has in computing...
I noped out of the article at that point which is a shame because I do agree with the general idea.
Yeah, I went buy a tablet and I wanted a specific form factor. So when the retail worker asked me what I wanted, I told them the specific product. They mentioned other models that were newer, faster, better, etc. And I simply told them that I was looking for one I could fit in my hand by basically palming it. (Being in person, I could just hold up my hand and say "hold it like this").
Once I explained that, I was able to get what I wanted with no more questions. Now that they knew why I wanted what I wanted, they also knew what information was relevant to me. And I had already chosen the best model they had in that form factor.
Communication should be simple, direct, and complete. That's where I don't care if I "look stupid". I'll go over basics if there's a chance someone doesn't know the basics. Because you can say, "Oh I'm aware of X", but if you aren't and I assume you are, you may be too embarrassed to bring that up because you're afraid I think you're stupid if you don't know it.
I agree it's condescending, especially as the clerk obviously wanted to find out why he wants the smallest box to better help him. If your experience from working at a computer store is that 50% of the customers ask for thing A but really want thing B because they have little knowledge about computers, it's correct to assume that the customer that wants the machine in the smallest box also has a weird idea of what that means, and probably really needs a different selection criterion.
Saying "It's a gift so I don't care about the model but it needs to fit in my carry-on bag" (or whatever the reason) would have explained it, and nobody would have thought the other was stupid. So in this case he's actively inviting that judgement.
I think that this is unfair to the poor Apple Store employee. There is no reason to not state the motivation, why you ask for the smallest box.
Other than that, I also try to employ the naive question and to some people these might sound stupid. But they are really useful because they can clear up lots of implicit implications and misunderstandings.
Did the Apple store employee ask why he wanted a computer that comes in the smallest box, or did he just assume the customer is stupid or ignorant? He doesn’t say either way, but most people will make an assumption instead of asking. The downside to this approach in retail is that it invites a long story…
I expect Apple store employees to deal with both "I want the 15 inch MacBook Pro in Gun Metal Gray with 16GB ram and 1TB drive" and "I'm looking for a good laptop for my daughter for university but I don't know anything about computers"
Making any kind of judgments about their reaction to "I want the one that comes in the smallest box" is ludicrous; the behaviour itself is mildly sociopathic.
When you work with the general public long enough, you kind of learn to spot when people are fucking with you and to just leave them be. This is especially true when working with technical stuff like computers.
Good customer service is all about figuring out what people mean when they say ask for things. Sometimes they need genuine assistance, sometimes they just want to prove they are smart than you.
If one was truly not afraid to ask stupid questions, they would have humored the sales person. Just recently I got a discount on some laptop parts, entirely because I asked the sales guy questions about upgrading ram in a laptop I was buying, even though I already knew the answers, I just wanted someone to double check my assumption. So I asked if he could help me pick it out.
Turns out, he remembered that someone ordered, then cancelled the exact ram I was looking for, so he went to the upgrade center and got me a brand new stick of memory for the price of an "open box return."
Be nice to sales people, even if you build the things they are selling.
I have to say this part (and quite a few other parts of the post) come across as quite arrogant. I mean if he really wants the computer with the smallest box, why can't he explain why.
I agree with the general gist of the post: don't be afraid to ask stupid questions. However, the post has an underlying "feeling" of "my questions are not really stupid, I'm just so smart that others don't realise". I know that I ask plenty of stupid questions when I ask questions, I often realise how stupid they were just after the answer.
I think it is measure of time, for author it looks simple to put everything in few words instead of having long explanation, I find this typical in IT, where my coworkers all the time trying to compress explanation in fewest words possible. Maybe laziness or type of optimization, but usually back fires as other people ask you multiple questions, arising from their own point of view.
I try to give short simple examples because when I try to tell people the truth their eyes glaze over and their brain turns off while the nerd talks his techno jumble.
Non technical people only have the patience to learn / listen to very basic concepts.
> but usually back fires as other people ask you multiple questions, arising from their own point of view.
I don't think this is back firing its just giving the non technical person the time to take in whats been said and then they ask follow up questions to confirm their understanding. I have had people get frustrated that I was talking down to them, when that happens I stop and talk to them as if they have my knowledge and they immediately regret that and ask me to go back to explaining like they are a child. Its not me trying to fluff my ego by talking down, I just legitimately know more about the topic than them, thats why they are paying me, I guess some times they just need reminded of that.
Our genuine joy and excitement about the minute details of subnetting or data compression or whatever; during those explanations often doesn't help either.
I scare people when im enthused about something. Its a bitch.
> Non technical people only have the patience to learn / listen to very basic concepts.
I know many people who would consider themselves non-technical, yet who certainly take the time to learn complex concepts. Some of those are indeed technological concepts.
> I try to give short simple examples because when I try to tell people the truth their eyes glaze over and their brain turns off while the nerd talks his techno jumble.
The short simple examples you give are also truthful, correct?
Perhaps the additional information you'd like to explain simply isn't needed for the other person's goal.
A great way to have both technical and non-technical people's eyes glaze over is detailing all kinds of minute details before describing some of the high-level goals or giving context as to why you're getting so deep into the details. As you mention, simple examples can get a lot across, and can be a springboard to more questions being asked, to allow the other person to decide what depth of knowledge they would like to know.
The non-technical person you're talking to may very well have the patience to learn the deep technical truth you'd like to explain, but they may have no reason to know it. In the scenario you're thinking of, you're doing the technical work, not them, correct? So why would they need to know deep technical details? A basic outline, with some corner cases pointed out, is likely all they need. Not because they don't have patience to learn what you're explaining, but because they have other things that are more important to their or your organization's success.
Yeah but we generally don't work with philosophers, we work with sales people and marketers. I respect their skill but they generally aren't the types to be interested in learning new things
That doesn't sound like backfiring to me. The hardest part of explaining something complex is matching it to the recipient's existing frame of reference. Letting them lead the explanation by asking questions can be an effective way for them to fit the new information into their current understanding.
> The hardest part of explaining something complex is matching it to the recipient's existing frame of reference.
Nicely said, I was trying to say that significant number of us is quite bad at it. And on the other hand, if frames are completely different, first compressed explanation looks like "noise noise word noise noise ...". On the other hand, often I see people struggling to start explaining as they know they will loose 30 min of time just to get to basics, so saying "I need computer in smallest box" - can be translated to
"I want you to trust me and not bore me with you daily sale's pitch script you have learned by cart, I do not have time explain, I just need what I want not what you want to recommend me, unlike other customers I do not need your assistance I just need you to give me what I want. If customer is always right, just give me what I want, and I will make a purchase and you can move to the next customer."
Sometimes I think that this inpatient arose from search engines, where you type at most 3 words and you get your 10 results you were searching for. So, I assume it is reflected how we communicate with other fellow humans, demanding immediate results instead of 2 way communication.
We can argue it is rude, but for person who built his strong will over years in a hard way, attempt of manipulation and selling is also rude and intruding.
I do not have you ever been to Turkey or Greece where you have these shop owners who are literally trying to drag you in to the shop so you can buy something. For them it is like a ritual or the game, but if you do not want to be part of that theater show, you will find it very annoying.
In many Balkan countries they will ask you multiple times to eat or drink, and polite answer is "I cannot" but if you give that answer it is basically conversation starter for "Why? Are you ok? Is there something wrong...", it is part of social game to continue conversation. If you answer "I don't want to" although it is technically most correct, you will be showered with responses as "that is rude", "we will not poison you", "why is something wrong with my food", "why are you angry at me" ... and all you wanted to say is "I do not need any food or drink at this time as my body does not needed it, and I am perfectly content with my energy and liquid levels" :)
So, for many technical persons, who live most of their live in their own head, trying to juggle multiple ideas and resolve who knows what, small talk can be a major annoyance.
And I do not want to start with "this is secret project idea I am working on, I should not share it with anyone, someone may steal my idea ..." and everything along those lines...
I think this interaction is an example of what "the customer is always right" is supposed to mean. Sure, the salesperson should verify that the person isn't using mistaken terminology, but past that, why not just help them? Or why didn't the salesperson take the initiative to ask them for the reason, instead of continuing to insist they were mistaken?
But they did help him. I don't see this as a huge indictment on the rep here — they _do_ deal with people who are very ignorant of tech everyday. Maybe it took a while to convince them, but I think that's just as likely a failing of communication.
> I eventually asked them to humor me and just bring out the boxes for the various laptop models so I could see the boxes, which they did, despite clearly thinking that my decision making process made no sense
I frankly had the same impression. It felt it was less about the willingness to look to stupid, but rather the stupidity of people who surrounded him and their inability to see this individual's brilliance.
Perhaps this is an unkind reading, but particularly the laptop scenario felt telling that this person might feel above explaining why they might prefer a laptop which comes in a smaller box.
On the surface that is very much a ridiculous request, regardless of how sensible it might actually be. Surely that shouldn't stop you from making the request, but you must understand that someone is merely doing their job to make sure that you understand what you're asking for.
If I go to a tuba shop and ask how many litres of ranch dressing it holds, I'm not going to scoff when the salesperson reminds me that it isn't a fancy brass bowl.
Yeah, this looks like a typical case of the "XY problem" where it's really hard to tell if the person making the request is framing that request wrongly/with unnecessary constraints to satisfy what they actually want.
This is why I look for sales training in my hires. Its clear that the Apple rep was asking probing questions trying to wrestle him into a decision funnel. I've sold laptops to a bunch of grandmas who've given me questions like that, and never to a "CPU designer".
...come to think of it, maybe one of the grandmas was a CPU designer all a long!!
On the other hand, if I was in a situation where I wanted the computer with the smallest box for whatever reason, I would find it really difficult to ask for that because I would be embarrassed by how it doesn't fit the expected pattern of what I should be looking for. I will often wimp out and not be clear about my preferences in situations like these because I'm afraid of awkwardness. So I do admire the willingness to speak up about unusual preferences.
>"my questions are not really stupid, I'm just so smart that others don't realise"
Sounds like this was the point of the blog post. He also drops that he was "very good" at Overwatch and "#1 in the world". Usually the people who want to tell others about this in public are not very good.
The ones who are very good are the ones who only tell you after you've tried teaching them. Since bad players in games often can't tell what good players look like, or how they play.
>The funny thing is that "I design CPUs" has nothing to do with being able to pick the best possible laptop for one's needs
No, but it heavily points to that you know basic things, like box-size != laptop size, or what CPUs do, and how to compare them, which is all the author claims.
I have to say, this example did make me switch my view of the author from some one who wasn't afraid to ask the "stupid" questions to being either a deliberately "just asking questions" asshole who likes to fuck with people or, to be more charitable, someone with a bit of a spectrum disorder.
I think it's better to be a bit more charitable here indeed.
I also found it striking how the post is emphasizing how important transparency in asking questions is which might or might not reveal the intelectual qualities of the person asking, but then failing to be that transparent towards both the clerk and the reader of the blog post about the internal thought process.
If one would like people to learn, enlighten them. :-)
I have encountered both, I'm sort of leaning towards being charitable since the "just asking questions" crowd tends not to write articles about their behaviour!
That lack of transparency seems to be a theme. I have difficulty with blood draws as well and I have never encountered a health care professional that didn't immediately switch to "ok, which arm is usually best" mode.
I've seen people getting a blood draw that the nurse wasn't willing to listen to. They'd tell them what usually happens, and how it goes best, and the nurse would ignore them.
In the end, every single one of the patients was correct. Anyone who typically had problems with blood draws knew their problems well.
Yes, most nurses listen. But there are enough out there that don't that I've seen it multiple times.
I've said nurses, but I don't actually know their professions.
> I've seen people getting a blood draw that the nurse wasn't willing to listen to. They'd tell them what usually happens, and how it goes best, and the nurse would ignore them.
Fair, it could just be my experience as a middle aged, white male coming into play here.
I'm surprised I had to scroll this far to see someone suggesting this, since it seems extremely obvious to me that this is part of the case. It's becoming fairly well-documented that one of the primary differences in people on the spectrum is a difference in communication style, which anecdotally seems to be more direct and less apologetic or prone to "superfluous" verbal (/nonverbal) contextualizing.
With the prevalence of people on the spectrum in STEM, it's no surprise that you'd see it here, and indeed looking at the comments you can see quite a few people talking past each other about what OP "should" say with what is clearly a mismatch in communication style.
> I'm surprised I had to scroll this far to see someone suggesting this, since it seems extremely obvious to me that this is part of the case.
The whole thread has currently 1471 points and 681 comments. I seem the be the 4th person realising, that the whole discussion is about "communication advices given by someone fighting the spectrum disorder". I don't know wat to say.
I think the problem is that there are really three people this behaviour would apply to:
1. Someone with a spectrum disorder.
2. Someone who enjoys dicking around with people.
3. Someone with a spectrum disorder who enjoys dicking around with people.
I'm trying to figure out if the person is in group 1 or 3. If you encounter a few people in Group 3, it's then harder to see people in Group 2 in a good light.
It's amusing how many people are literally offended that they didn't explain why. But the answer we have is: because they wanted the smaller box. They are paying for it, no further explanation is required to the employee or anyone else. The employee should get the smallest box as requested and then they can try something like "may I know why you want the smallest box? I might be able to provide better help".
I'll try my best to alleviate you bewilderment. I think people are offended because there is a certain "contract" to social interactions that people are expected to comply with, and this behavior broke that unwritten contract. Furthermore, it's not apparent to readers what could be gained from breaking the contract like that, so it seems like breaking the contract for no reason.
It sounds like they politely tried to clarify. Dan was amused that they thought he might be stupid. But asking for a laptop based on such bizarre criteria without attempting to set any context for the human person who deals with not CPU designers 99.9999% of the time, and then smugly calling out said human person for not immediately giving him the benefit of the doubt, then blogging about the exchange in a self-glorifying post… I mean, I’m not personally offended, but I can see why people would be bothered.
You can also take out all the awkwardness with a disclaimer: "This may sound stupid, but I really care just about the packaging here: Would it be possible to show me... "
Only half plausible reason I can think of is for a 'Pass The Parcel' prize.
Anything else, surly the smallest laptop would be preferable and you could repackage it.
I'm thinking the reason why people think the author is "stupid" is because each is working with a different set of base assumptions. The worker can't imagine a case where the box dimensions would be material as that box is likely to be in the trash can in n minutes. The author wouldn't hit so many cases of being looked at crossly if they worked to bridge understanding with the other person. All of the cases presented suggest to me person may have some emotional intelligence to develop.
I'll venture a guess why they asked for the computer that comes in the smallest box. They were buying a computer as a present, and they needed to pack it for travel before unboxing.
Here’s a hypothesis: Dan needed to transport the laptop before opening it. It could have been a gift and the goal was for it to fit, wrapped, in a small suitcase. Or for some reason he needed a shrink-wrapped unopened laptop somewhere (as evidence that it hadn’t been tampered with) and the quality of the laptop made no difference whatsoever.
Even if this is wrong, I bet telling the salesperson that it was a gift and he wanted the smallest package would have avoided funny looks.
Or at least, if you don’t want to say why, it could be smoothed over with “I know this is going to sound like a bizarre request, but I want the one that comes in the smallest box. I have my reasons.”
Acknowledging that you know your request is unusual makes it sound a lot less stupid.
I felt too insecure to ask (stupid) questions previously because, well, people around you are always confident. But with time I saw there's often not a lot behind this confidence, that someone who has a high opinion of himself is capable of really failing in a very basic way, and that most people are more or less the same. So I talk more freely now, and yes, some people are quick to judge. But whatever.
(OT, but nice username. "I hate when I get locallost on the way to localhost's LAN party...")
The judgmental people tend not to matter in the long run, by the way.
Sort of. There are two types of judgmental people. One, the people building a team, or making a bet. Two, the people looking to talk about others.
The latter don't matter. The former are quick to judge because they have to be. If they're wrong about their bets, it'll soon become obvious. Which means the optimal strategy is to make many bets, or to interview as many devs as possible, and then cull most of the candidates.
Right, I don't care. It's my opinion now that I have to be open about what I think or feel because it's just how I am. So if I don't find a common language with someone, then so be it. There are 7 billion other people on the planet.
By the way, consider throwing some contact info in your profile. It sounds like you have a lot of interesting ideas, and I've gotten a lot of random emails from HN people in the past.
(I reached for your profile to email you the "nice username" thing, but there wasn't any way.)
In my experience, there is a slight nuance in the frame here. It isn't just that Mr. Luu is "willing to look stupid", it is that he has confidence that his decision making process will on average turn out better decisions than the go-to default strategy that most people employ ("copy the crowd").
Most people, if they rely on their own research and decision making, will do poorly. And even moderately clever people generally do better by copying the rare stray geniuses that float around in polite society. This manifests as an "unwillingness" to "look stupid". It is important to ask "what does stupid mean" and "how do I measure 'looking something'" when this sort of topic is bought up.
I am - and I don't think this is that unusual - willing to go about a decade ignoring the opinions of others if I'm really confident that I have an objectively good idea. It is a high-risk high-reward strategy and not for everyone.
"Looking stupid" is an assessment of what other people think. Eg, asking for the smallest box isn't stupid - Apple expects all the boxes to be good products. Even picking a product randomly isn't stupid and therefore shouldn't look it. The looking stupid part is an assessment of what the store clerk is thinking.
That is a very subtle, fraught and complicated assessment. There is a lot going on to do with the audience, context, risk and the truth. There is a lot going on behind the term "looking stupid" and it undersells the complexity of the social interaction. There are two parties, multiple issues and a lot to think about.
Yes, but in general it's pretty noticeable when someone thinks you're stupid, because when people find a reason to place you "below" so to speak, all kinds of behaviour quickly come out.
People are, generally, thinking about you a lot less than you perceive them to be thinking about you.
So in general it may seem pretty noticeable, but in reality it's rarely so.
> In particular, it's often the case that there's a seemingly obvious but actually incorrect reason something is true, a slightly less obvious reason the thing seems untrue, and then a subtle and complex reason that the thing is actually true.
This is a good example of what's in the submission! It's "seemingly obvious" that people are judging you all the time, and slightly less obvious that people aren't actually thinking about you nearly as often as you think, but the few who are thinking about you might be indeed judging you to look stupid for asking "basic" questions.
I think this is a good observation about the impact that confidence can have on some (mine included) peoples ability to learn.
In this way, low confidence can have both the direct effect of denying you access to information that would allow you to improve, but also more sinister, it can deny you the mental ability to actually learn something, even if the information was available to you, since the learning itself will mean that there's things you don't know. Being aware that you don't know or can't do something can feel very bad if you lack the confidence in your ability to get to know or do it, and we tend to avoid feeling bad, and so may abandon the endeavor.
This is true when it comes to actual decision making, but what about asking questions? Isn't being willing to look stupid clearly important here regardless of how smart you are? Even if you actually are stupid, you'll end up knowing more if you ask stupid questions, then you would have if you tried to hide your stupidity.
Have you never seen a restaurant location that is always changing owners, names, etc? Or downtowns of smaller cities where there's tons of empty shops? Cheesegraters.com ?
People are hilariously bad at induction, deduction, and making decisions based on their own research.
We're biased because we're already on the internet, on this site, and nothing is on fire in our vicinity.
Asking "stupid questions" frees you from the trap of assumption. This is why people who are good at solving (or helping others solve) problems ask "stupid questions".
I suppose "rubber duck debugging" is a form of this.
Some years ago, I learned that I'm better at finding things when high. For context, my GF misplace things a few times a week, and I like finding them before she can. I realized pretty quickly that I did better under the influence, because I didn't rule out places the things might be. When sober, I wouldn't check certain places, because, That'd be a ridiculous place to leave that.
Sounds kinda dumb, but it was an ah-ha realization that extended beyond finding misplaced items.
i struggle with adhd and have both the same problem (frequently misplacing things) and a similar solution (checking everywhere, twice, even if im "sure" it wont be there)
More often than not when I ask a "stupid" question it turns out that the answer isn't known (to the people I'm asking). So I try to do so more often. I've noticed that it also makes others feel empowered to ask "dumb" questions too (which usually aren't), so it's a good policy for the team as well as the individual.
I'd imagine that it's not so viable in more aggressive/competitive/toxic environments though? But I've been lucky avoiding those.
Edit: Oh and sometimes my questions do turn out to be ... a bit dim. Most recent case that springs to mind was asking the local equivalent of "what does SSN stand for?" in a context where I really should have known. But the average outcome is good.
I find such willingness very helpful in many meetings with difficult vocabulary. Instead of nodding to sentences which make no sense to me I like to take the risk and admit that I have no clue what is going on. More often than not I'm not the only person who got lost so it ends up beneficial to the meeting as a whole.
Yeah. Its weird but I find doing this makes people respect you more.
If you ask dumb questions, the person speaking (if they’re any good) will start looking to you to figure out if they’re pitching their language correctly. The other people in the room who didn’t understand will be relieved and quietly thankful of you because they didn’t have to be the ones to ask. And people who understood already are usually way more chill about this sort of thing than you would expect. Especially if you give them the opportunity to explain something in front of everyone. And then thank them for doing so.
I don’t think I fully understand why, but asking dumb questions is often a subtle act of leadership.
> I don’t think I fully understand why, but asking dumb questions is often a subtle act of leadership.
Very much so. It helps establishing an environment with less ego, more helpful people, and people who aren't afraid to learn. It also diminishes feelings of imposter syndrome in other people, by showing that not everyone knows everything.
All of those are things leaders should incentivize.
> Covid: I took this seriously relatively early on and bought a half mask respirator on 2020-01-26 and was using N95s I'd already had on hand for the week before (IMO, the case that covid was airborne and that air filtration would help was very strong based on the existing literature on SARS contact tracing, filtration of viruses from air filters, and viral load)
I think this is remarkable, how common people with some level of scientific literacy were able to get this correct much better than the whole medical establishment.
> I think this is remarkable, how common people with some level of scientific literacy were able to get this correct much better than the whole medical establishment.
I don't think it's remarkable at all. Common people with some level of scientific literacy took basically all kind of stances about masks. Some of them had to be right in the end.
'The medical establishment' otoh had to come to one single common recommendation and as it's only one there's a chance of failure (there were, ofc. individual medical professional and scientists who got it right as well).
Yes, and because `the medical establishment` cannot risk that failure, they have to be much surer.
And they have to be able to communicate it in an effective way such that people believe it... AND can act on it. AND can act on it in a way that doesn't trigger panic or totally mess with supply chains needed to get proper equipment to front-line responders.
like Lawrence from azangru's quote above, the medical establishment needs to consider many more factors than 'common people' before making a public statement.
The medical establishment knew N95s were critical from SARS and, at least in, North America had plenty of circumstantial evidence that COVID was, at least, somewhat reduced by masks; as did the author
Further, my former co-workers from my stint in HIV testing were ALL saying wear masks and don't count on a vaccine being available until 2021 at the very earliest. They all started self isolating very early.
The whole "medical establishment" DID know this.
This was a failure of leadership of the medical establishment to either listen to the rest of the medical establishment or to effectively push back on the political leadership.
Another note to the same quote: for me it looks like classic half mask respirator is not that "good" against COVID, as it only filters on the intake, not the way, out. At least my cheap one does. Therefor, while it prevents you from getting it, it does not stop you from spreading it. Right?
Sure, that might very well be what you aim for, but from my understanding, FFP2 should prevent both, at least theoretically, since wearing them correctly is another point of failure.
I'm not sure if this is the same thing but insecure people like me find the lack of affirmation of others troubling sometimes. How many of us get upset/offended if what we think is a high-quality comment on HN gets voted down by a load of people?
We should be confident enough that we stand by comments even if we expect some of them to be misunderstood/unpopular. There are always people who will agree and always some who will agree. Once we can judge ourselves fairly, we won't care what other people think - we can be judged by our outcomes.
In my experience this is what humility is; not making yourself out to be more than you are, as well as not putting yourself down (deprecating humour aside - which is more about connection).
"You don't need more control over everything, you need more courage". In a lot of ways that dovetails with Dan's comments.
No question that most of us needs to have the ego take a backseat more often.
But I cannot help but compare this to negotiation. It is a lot easier when you negotiate from a place of abundance. Negotiating salary is easier when you do not need the job. Negotiating a house is easier when you do not need to buy that house.
I feel like the same applies here. Willingness to look stupid is a lot easier in situations where you have confidence and nothing to lose.
> No question that most of us needs to have the ego take a backseat more often.
Nothing says ego in the backseat like an iamsosmart blog post. Bonus points if the website looks like it's from 2005 and if you write it in a tone as if you just invented penicillin.
There's a bit of a disconnect between the the purported theme of this article, being okay looking stupid, and the actual contents, which is just a catalogue of times other people were stupid, posted on the internet so everyone knows the author is clever.
Being willing to look stupid involves actually being able to deal with mistakes and failure, with actually _feeling_ stupid sometimes. Just listing a bunch of great decisions you made that other people thought were stupid seems less life-changing to me.
That feels unfair. Part of the point of the article is that though looking stupid has a cost, it's sometimes worth it, for example, to ask an important question or to share an interesting idea, but maybe not just to prove that you're okay with looking stupid.
The title is about looking stupid, but that's not what the author is communicating, to me or many others in the comments here. At no point did the author ever risk any ego, because they knew they were right every time, and no morons were going to convince them otherwise. Willingness to look stupid isn't just about ignoring other people's opinions, it's about actually being willing to find out you _are_ stupid sometimes. Nobody can avoid being stupid their whole lives, whatever cherry picked lists we might publish on our blogs. You are either willing to suffer the risk of people seeing that, and learning something, or you can hide from that risk. The author clearly has a good track record of hiding from that risk, because everything they've ever done has turned out to be correct. But that seems deeply uninteresting as a life lesson. Much more important is what happens when you try something, and the people telling you you're stupid are _right_. How you and your ego handle that is an important part of your character.
Maybe that's a subtle distinction, but I think it's important.
> Friends have been chiding about this for years and strangers, dates, and acquaintances, will sometimes tell me, with varying levels of bluntness, that I'm being paranoid and stupid
There is way to much of this bullshit all over the place (e.g. PPE use) and I'm quick to judge people who do it, because I find it a truly moronic attitude.
I have also heard this. Even the other day I asked my own sister about data about her own profession. She genuinely thinks I am asking too much/bothering her so she just replies "just let it go" or "you think too much".
Well, if I think too much, probably I think more than you about your own profession, so, I do not want to say this, but you are not the best possible professional, because sometimes I had the feeling that she just follows the trend instead of getting genuine opinions about some of the topics in the discipline.
Honesty and transparency aren't the same thing. Dan Luu has a non-transparent process, but that doesn't mean he wishes to deceive you. Most people aren't transparent.
I guess the "stupid question" I'd ask of this article is: why don't you reveal your goals or thought process when challenged after asking a question that might be perceived as stupid? Take the Apple Store example: why not explain the reason why you were asking for a product by the size of its box when they responded by saying that size of the box does not map to size of the product? Being open about your goal would've probably made it easier and less antagonistic as a process, right?
But Dan Luu isn't obviously motivated by a desire to antagonize the Apple employee, and neither is he socially or morally obligated in the slightest to explain his consumer intentions during a purchase at the Apple store.
And was the encounter really antagonistic? Dan Luu is the one who left looking stupid.
Consider that the shop is unlikely to have the laptops stored or annotated by box size.
Dan was asking the employee to expend considerable additional effort to find the smallest laptop box when he potentially knew the model number, or least had a reason that would justify the extra work. I would have just said "I'm really tight on carry-on space", not to avoid looking stupid, but to assure the employee I wasn't breaking their balls for no reason.
He touches on this later in the article after comparing thoughts to another person (who is block quoted) who seems to wonder the same things as a lot of commenters here...
I would have synthesised a brief approximation of the real reason. Transport being one real possibility.
The point is that this is a two way transaction with a real person, who has their own hidden state, goals and limits that are not always apparent to a consumer.
E.g. company policy on deducing what the customer really needs.
How was the employee to know Dan was the one person who actually knew what they needed, out of 100 over confident buffoon's that came to the shop that week.
This is why I don't hassle the support person fixing my internet when they run through support script.
I don't say "skip this, I have an honours degree blah blah", cause they have enough constraints to deal with as is... And once in a 100 times, I will learn something I didn't know...
IMO, falsehoods do not constitute dishonesty anymore than truths constitute honesty. Honesty is about the sharing of clarity, and sometimes teachers Lie To Children¹ and other times people confuse or obscure with facts. What matters is a sensitive understanding of what clarity means to others.
Anyways, if you tell a store person "oh, I'm getting this for my husband" when it's a gift for yourself, that's more honesty than dishonesty, because to the store person, "clarity" with a customer is very goal oriented. Dan Luu wasn't trying to screw with the store person, and in the end they all got what they wanted, even if Dan Luu walked away "looking stupid".
I disagree. He might not be morally obligated, but his is certainly socially obligated. Customers ask for the wrong thing all the time. A problem solver, as any good retail sales person should be, will ask questions to help the customer understand their own needs and the available solutions. That story just shows that Dan Luu doesn't understand the social process that happens in the retail environment.
That he doesn't care if he looks stupid is besides the point here. He looked stupid to the retail worker not because he didn't explain his underlying reasons for wanting a small box. He looked stupid because he didn't understand the retail sales process. That is to say, he was stupid, about that one thing, and that is why he looked stupid.
But why can't you just ask for what you want without people automatically assuming you're stupid? If you care that strangers think you're dumb you have to adjust your behavior a lot and some people would rather just be genuine. Besides, the easiest way to not look stupid is to make up a reason that sounds reasonable (i.e. lying) to get what you want. This is what many (most?) people do. If they want the Apple computer that comes in the smallest package they'll make up a BS reason (i.e. flight luggage restrictions) in order to seem reasonable to the stranger who works at Apple.
The question is really what kind of person do you want to be? Do you want a person who habitually lies about unimportant stuff in order to accomplish goals? Do you want to be a person who is genuine but gets unfairly judged by strangers? Or do you want to be a person who justifies themselves to strangers in order to avoid getting judged?
If you think lying is wrong and seeking the approval of strangers is a bad habit only one option remains.
The writer conflates "the person at the Apple Store was trying to be helpful" with "the person at the Apple Store thought I was stupid".
Part of the job of someone working in a customer-facing, sales job is to understand what the customer wants. A sales associate at an Apple Store probably has dozens of interactions every day where they're able to help people understand the products better and enable them to make a more informed decision. That is their job.
Saying "I just want the one that's in the smallest box" makes you look like a customer that's in need of guidance and help, and someone who's probably going to have a bad experience with the product if they don't get it.
Getting irritated by a response that is trying to help just shows a lack of empathy. People are not robots and there is a really good reason that the "white lie" is a thing.
Yeah, the "smallest box" story comes to me very wrong. It basically shows him as really stupid -- as he is simply failing the "describe the goal, not the step" rule in most "how to ask questions" guides -- e.g., http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#goal .
Not only that, but he is also implying that people "who design processors" must also know our way around shopping for computers. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
So this story does not come off as an example of "I don't mind being seen as stupid", it comes off as a very strong example of "I'm holier than you"-attitude which is the entire opposite than the article author's is trying to make.
>So this story does not come off as an example of "I don't mind being seen as stupid", it comes off as a very strong example of "I'm holier than you"-attitude which is the entire opposite than the article author's is trying to make.
Exactly my thoughts.
Even the way the story is told to the reader with: "which I had a good reason to want at the time", has the same sentiment towards us.
"My reasoning is even above explaining to you, my reader."
It was antagonistic and condescending. But it's being framed in an /r/iamverysmart "ironic" way.
Extrapolating from this article, this individual is likely a nightmare to work with due to their closed nature and unwillingness to share thoughts or decision making points.
I particularly liked the juxtaposition of their behaviour in the Apple situation with their later comment ...
> I try to be careful to avoid this failure mode when onboarding interns and junior folks and have generally been sucessful, but it's taken me up to six weeks to convince people that it's ok for them to ask questions
I kind of get the impression that asking the author questions is actually a very painful process.
You can always explain in a few words why, even without stating your actual underlying reasons. The clerk doesn't need all the details. This person clearly struggled more than he had to if he would have just provided a reason the clerk could understand. I bet his lack of social skills and perceived "stubbornness" were a much higher contribution factor to the clerk being puzzled and may be even thinking he was being stupid.
I truly do not understand this attitude and I can only guess comes from repeated exposure to an unfriendly environment. We're not talking here about exposing your soul to the world, a few words to explain why you want the smaller box would actually save a bunch of time and misunderstandings. Given how society works today, it's just easier.
Agree. To put it in the context of the article, if the author looked at getting desired outcomes as a video game, then this article is just a rant, and time would have been better spent analyzing the situations for how to improve. The recurring failure mode is ineffective communication.
My variation on this is based on years of management. My quip:
+ I only hire people who are smarter than I am.
+ I am the dumbest bloke in the business. Everyone is smarter than I am.
Like "Willingness ..." it's a tool to remove your ego from and look-for/work-with 'talent' thru a (slightly more) objective lens.
As an individual contributor, it opens you to alternative ideas (learning from others). As a manager, it allows your team to build confidence and be open with you about problems and potentially radical alternatives.
A variation on this idea:
+ the only things I know I learned from other folks.
>The benefit from asking a stupid sounding question is small in most particular instances, but the compounding benefit over time is quite large and I've observed that people who are willing to ask dumb questions and think "stupid thoughts" end up understanding things much more deeply over time. Conversely, when I look at people who have a very deep understanding of topics, many of them frequently ask naive sounding questions and continue to apply one of the techniques that got them a deep understanding in the first place.
>Learning a sport or video game: I try things out to understand what happens when you do them, which often results in other people thinking that I'm a complete idiot when the thing is looks stupid, but being willing to look stupid helps me improve relatively quickly
Overall author came up with this concept of "looks stupid", yet it does already exist as "failure teaches more" or just "curiosity" in my opinion.
> For example, if a date thinks I'm stupid because I ask them what a word means, so much so that they show it in their facial expression and/or tone of voice, I think it's pretty unlikely that we're compatible, so I view finding that out sooner rather than later as upside and not downside.
After a terrible breakup years ago I took a trapeze class. Before we got up on the trapeze bar, I spent most of the class telling everyone how bad I was going to be at it. When I got home I lay in bed confused. Why did I do that? This article is spot on. I was afraid of being seen to be bad at something.
Have you noticed? We spend almost our entire adult lives doing things we’re good at. Anything we do that we’re bad at, we either stop doing or we get good at it. So all roads lead us away from the experience of being a beginner. For me, it had been too long. And I’d accidentally forgotten how to do it.
So I took up dancing (which I’m bad at). That was really terrifying. And trampolining. And more recently improv. At the moment I’m learning to draw - which I spent most of my life wanting to do. But I never stuck with it because I hate drawing badly. But that’s just what it feels like to be a beginner. The trick is letting that go, because it doesn’t matter. You don’t get to be good at anything without first being bad at it. And being comfortably, visibly bad at something gives everyone else permission to play.
Exactly! We should practice being a beginner for our entire lives. It's a constant reminder to have that beginner mindset even where you think you are an expert.
I took up Jiu-Jitsu at age 40. Talk about humbling. I also catch myself occasionally doing what you did and mention how terrible I am/will be as a defensive mechanism.
But, the more comfortable I got at being a beginner led to even faster learning. This attitude has spread through other parts of my life, even areas where I'm not a beginner, and has led to improvement across the board.
> But, the more comfortable I got at being a beginner led to even faster learning. This attitude has spread through other parts of my life, even areas where I'm not a beginner, and has led to improvement across the board.
I think there's a ton of wisdom in this. You learn to learn by, surprise surprise, being a beginner at something. Exposing yourself to broad areas in which you're a total newb can teach patience (I've yet to learn basic carpentry because I am one of those people who hasn't got the patience to measure twice), too.
This is really insightful: being a beginner is going to teach you how to learn things, and that's a hugely transferable skill. (Besides, it's also really enjoyable.)
Martial arts are a hobby where I think this happens often. You could practice your whole life, but then you change disciplines or face a new teacher and suddenly you're doing everything wrong.
There is a pretty well known speaker who wrote about his first public speech. He was to record himself, and it would listened to by some 5,000 people. He spent hours and hours re-recording himself, until a older friend stopped by and laughed at him, as follows:
"You are being nervous because you think that you might not be perfect, and doubt creates a feeling of nervousness and unsurety.
Well, I can dispel the doubt. You won't be perfect. In fact, you will be pretty lousy, because it is your first time, and it it is in front of a relatively large crowd.
So two pieces of good news. You needn't be nervous. And its not so bad that it will go lousy. Because everyone knows it is your first time, anyway, and they are expecting you to mess up. And this way, in the future, you will actually be great!"
I have a 5 year old and a 2.5 year old, and hang out with lots of small children. Fear of looking stupid as a beginner is something that most people have right from the start: I have watched kids be afraid of incompetence (to the point of not wanting to try) at riding a bike, running, swinging across monkey bars, drawing, singing, reading, learning a new language, ...
Similar situation here. One of the things I found useful for skill-based activities is to take video. I took my kid's swim lesson from 3-6, the improvement is obviously drastic. Now, my oldest is starting to understand that while she's not good at something right now, she just need more practice. It's a huge mental change for her.
This might be culturally dependent, as in some cultures there is much more emphesize on competition than in others. Have you reflected on your behaviour towards your children with respect to this?
I think there is a significant (inherent or deeply ingrained) personality component to people’s initial outlook. E.g. there was a pair of fraternal twins who we used to play with at the playground, and one of the pair was much more willing to try things while the other was much more afraid of being judged. More generally I have regularly seen substantial differences between siblings despite a lack of obvious differential treatment from their parents or any change of cultural values/norms.
Kids of 2–4 years old seem to have similar range of behaviors across substantially different cultural groups, e.g. comparing kids raised by tolerant non-confrontational hippies vs. strict immigrant professionals.
I imagine that learning to be comfortable as a beginner is something that can be trained / practiced. Some people certainly improve at it as they get older.
> Fear of looking stupid as a beginner is something that most people have right from the start
I'm a parent of a 5yo and surprised this is your experience. If anything, I'd say child behavior is the perfect anti-example of fear of trying new things.
Take one of the examples you provide: language. Young children ages don't care about using incorrect grammar or using the wrong words. This is why they're so good at progressing so quickly. Kids are way less afraid of failure than adults.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there's a significant environmental impact to children's behavior as well; in most ways, they're blank canvases when it comes to skill-based behavior. Personality...not so much.
Kids don’t mind listening to someone speaking a new language or reading them a story they can’t understand, and they don’t mind trying to communicate, but if you put them on the spot by asking them to do some kind of formal lesson, they freak out just like anyone else.
The most important thing I have found when trying to teach kids [and probably most other people too] is (1) break tasks into very small steps, (2) make the lesson as low-pressure and fun as possible.
I view performance anxiety and fear of looking stupid as a beginner as completely separate things.
When you put the average adult learning a new language in a foreign country, they'll pause before new words, think before conjugating a verb, etc. Kids don't do that; they just talk. They don't worry about making a mistake, but adults (on average!) do.
> performance anxiety and fear of looking stupid as a beginner as completely separate things
The same kid will happily try riding a bike if you just leave one sitting around where they can find it, but will balk if you ask them to try in front of their friends who already know how. I think a huge part (the majority) of people’s fear of learning new skills is a kind of performance anxiety. Both fear of looking bad in front of others, and to some extent fear of looking bad to themselves. The other significant problem is an inability to break the new skill down into small enough pieces to manageably tackle independently.
Speaking a language is always and inevitably a performance. But kids are typically given much more time and space to just listen without trying to speak, and are judged less when they do try. Some kids who move to a new country will just quietly listen for months before ever trying to say something in the new language; adults rarely have that luxury.
But in any event, there are plenty of adults who are willing to try speaking foreign languages imperfectly, and studies have shown children and adults have comparable ability to learn a second language (indeed adults often improve faster at the start).
Actually data shows that adults are way better at learning languages than children. Children just have 100s of hours of doing nothing besides learning languages so they succeed faster in calendar time. If you spent all day every day learning a language you’d be way faster at it than your kids.
I don't know, I generally like being bad at things. Not because of the state of being bad itself, but because if I'm not doing something new, it's boring, and to be doing something new is to be doing something you're bad at. So I'm basically trying stuff and asking everyone for help all the time. I don't care what others think of me, I like learning.
I don't even think they think I'm stupid, I'm sure they appreciate the fact that I've made every mistake before when they come to me for help later. I enjoy doing stuff more than I enjoy looking like an expert.
I learnt a long time ago by a director (CEO) of a large UK company on how to assess people, their technical abilities and personality
and that is to act stupid/ daft - not just one question, but for periods of time. and see how they respond to you
a very effective technique when dealing or interacting with so called Subject Matter Experts. If they're an expert they should be able to explain complex stuff at a High/ medium/ low levels or just say they do not know.
If they're not really an expert then they cover up their lack of knowledge
If they're not really an expert then they cover up their lack of knowledge and then get promoted into a management position telling the actual subject matter experts how to do their jobs.
There's a beautiful illustration from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon on this topic:
===
They gave him an intelligence test. The first question on the math part had to do with boats on a river: Port Smith is 100 miles upstream of Port Jones. The river flows at 5 miles per hour. The boat goes through water at 10 miles per hour. How long does it take to go from Port Smith to Port Jones? How long to come back?
Lawrence immediately saw that it was a trick question. You would have to be some kind of idiot to make the facile assumption that the current would add or subtract 5 miles per hour to or from the speed of the boat. Clearly, 5 miles per hour was nothing more than the average speed. The current would be faster in the middle of the river and slower at the banks. More complicated variations could be expected at bends in the river. Basically it was a question of hydrodynamics, which could be tackled using certain well-known systems of differential equations. Lawrence dove into the problem, rapidly (or so he thought) covering both sides of ten sheets of paper with calculations. Along the way, he realized that one of his assumptions, in combination with the simplified Navier Stokes equations, had led him into an exploration of a particularly interesting family of partial differential equations. Before he knew it, he had proved a new theorem. If that didn’t prove his intelligence, what would?
Then the time bell rang and the papers were collected. Lawrence managed to hang onto his scratch paper. He took it back to his dorm, typed it up, and mailed it to one of the more approachable math professors at Princeton, who promptly arranged for it to be published in a Parisian mathematics journal.
Lawrence received two free, freshly printed copies of the journal a few months later, in San Diego, California, during mail call on board a large ship called the U.S.S. Nevada. The ship had a band, and the Navy had given Lawrence the job of playing the glockenspiel in it, because their testing procedures had proven that he was not intelligent enough to do anything else.
From the wording, it sounds like he only answered the one question. Since he kept his work, all they know is that he answered at most[0] one question correctly.
[0] It's possible he gave an answer that wasn't what they expected and it was "incorrect".
This post seems like some sort of humble-brag about not really being stupid, but being "willing to look stupid" to people who are actually stupid.
To be honest, this entire post make him look stupid, but we all know now that he doesn't care what we think. I'm probably stupid for falling for another one of his clever schemes where he's just pretending to be stupid.
Exactly. E.g. this:
"Although there are some downsides to people thinking that I'm stupid, e.g., failing interviews where the interviewer very clearly thought I was stupid"
This isn't just looking stupid, this is being stupid. Why in Heaven's name wouldn't you at least adjust your behavior when you're in an interview?
Acting stupid can be a convenient way to hold up your belief that you're smarter than the rest. Nobody will ever challenge your belief because hey, if they think you are stupid, it's because you made them believe that, which means that they are actually the stupid ones!
I don't change anything about myself when I interview for jobs. I can't even fathom why I would, in this industry (or really any not customer-facing industry, really).
They saw my weird resume - it always gets a comment. It was revised and edited under direction from a retired entrepreneur and CEO who explained how employee employer and employee/employer/HR/hiring managers interactions work "in real life".
They did a phone interview. They called me in. The only times I get the "thanks for interviewing, but" calls is when the recruiter or headhunter obfuscated the job description to prevent poaching and/or losing their commission/bonus and I had literally no idea about any of their stack/business/whatever.
I could just be lucky, I guess, not having to lie or embellish or present a facade.
The fact that the author withheld information from the Apple clerk suggests to me that the author thought the Apple clerk would not understand the “real” reason why he wanted the smallest box.
I believe the author thought the clerk was too stupid to understand the real reason and it would be a waste of time to explain to the clerk why.
When I was younger, I often met people who seemed kind of dim to me, at first, and later found the majority of them to be orders of magnitude brighter than me.
It was not hard to connect the dots, the reason they were so much brighter was (in part) exactly because of what made them initially seem dim.. They asked questions, honestly. Not the showoff kind of question you ask to show how much you know, but real, honest questions that not only showed how little they knew, but importantly, allowed them to actually learn and understand, rather than just nod and not get it.
My intuition has changed from this, I find it that most times, when someone shows genuine interest and asks honest, revealing questions about some new topic, they often excel at many other things (and will likely on the new topic as well).
I'm adapting this myself, being honest, asking honestly, and sometimes looking really stupid (because, in that context, I am!), and I appreciate greatly both the wealth of information that allows me to access, and that almost anybody worth their salt recognizes this trait as well.
Failing an interview due to looking stupid is probably a blessing in disguise, you don't want to be hired by people who can't see this, and you don't want to work next to people who's just pretending to understand, not learning because they can't afford to look stupid when they are (and thus stay stupid, and be much more inclined to try to pass blame to someone else, like you, who look stupid).
This reminds me of the simple brilliance of Socrates. He began from the premise that he knew nothing, and would ask all manner of simple questions building on top of the previous answers. It wasn't long before he uncovered how little everyone else actually knew, but what separated Socrates was his honesty: he knew nothing and admitted it.
Naturally, the established powers and polite society didn't find this to their liking. We all know how his story ended.
> Naturally, the established powers and polite society didn't find this to their liking. We all know how his story ended.
Socrates was sentenced to death not for exposing how little everyone else knew. The esteemed philosopher was sentenced to death because he was deliberately annoying people - like a fly - with badgering questions that would force the questionee into a corner.
Today we call this method of exposing contradictions in one's mindset the Socratic Method.
Ah, didn't expect the venerable Meletus to show up in the conversation today. How's the weather in Athens?
> sentenced to death because he was deliberately annoying people
I see you're still certain of Socrates' motives.
When you claimed he was 'corrupting the minds of the youth' and 'denying the gods of the city' you were simply repeating the charges laid at any philosopher who threatens the powers that be.
If anyone asks too many uncomfortable but honest questions these days, in some societies you will still be met with death, though here we have a milder but still harsh punishment known as 'deplatforming'.
But more to the point, if you are so certain of what you know, you could explain it and wouldn't find questions 'annoying'. Frustration justifies the case, because it means you really do know nothing but simply aren't honest enough to admit it.
I’m not sure what this has to do with an ancient Athenian philosopher being stoned to death for saying things other people didn’t want to hear, such as “I can’t possibly be both an atheist and worship false gods”.
Maybe not, but opinions about how we should conduct our societies depend on feelings, and things that appear true but are subtly wrong can cause great harm.
Hi, Minneapolitan here. I try not to wade into these sorts of discussions because it is usually unproductive or even counterproductive, but since you have expressed a sincere interest in talking about the facts of the situation, here’s what they actually are here.
The police budget for MPD in 2014 was $145.6M for 850 officers. In 2020, the year you suggest they were defunded, the budget was $181.9M for 770 officers—a 38% increase per officer from 2014 (28.7% after adjusting for inflation)[0]. In fact, that department is ending the current fiscal year $5M under budget[1], and the current mayor has proposed an additional 17% expenditure increase for 2022.[2]
The police in Minneapolis were never defunded. They have more money than ever. Efforts to introduce meaningful reforms (inaccurately called “defunding the police” by some) have also not been abandoned by the city council. We are currently voting on a charter amendment that would replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new Department of Public Safety. The new department would still include police officers but would be coequal with all other departments in the city (it currently has a unique status where it is controlled exclusively by the mayor), and its focus would be on preventing crime instead of policing people.
On the other hand, other parts of the city budget are underwater due to hundreds of former officers quitting and claiming PTSD[3], and the officers who remain are engaged in an intentional work slowdown[4] while blaming others[5] for what is a largely self-inflicted wound.
What I think the other participant in this discussion was suggesting—and something that I would echo—is that your sources for news don’t seem to be giving you accurate information and you may want to reconsider using them as primary sources, at least on this topic.
No, it's not. It's a fact. Seeing as how you have the means to comment on Hacker News, you can easily fact-check this for yourself if you're concerned about its validity.
one example: vaccines are the status quo, I presume you agree on that. Most platforms are removing content that cause "vaccine hesitancy". YouTube has even expanded their this to apply to all vaccines [1]. Furthermore, it seems relevant to point out that dictionaries have updated their definitions of "anti-vaxxer" to include anyone questioning even the government mandates themselves [2], which has opened the door to many cases where people have supported the vaccine, but opposed the mandates, yet still been deplatformed labeled as anti-vaxxer.
Actually, I haven't been to Athens since summer 2019. Lovely place, so long as you avoid the touristy places.
Though I do like your form of expressing your frustration about the trial and sentencing of Socrates at myself as though I were his prosecutor, I assure you that I'm an under-50 mortal not born of gods and not atanatos.
> you could explain it and wouldn't find questions 'annoying'.
A question would not be annoying. Badgering, accusations, and pestering would be. And quite frankly, as we both know, every single one of us has contradictions in their beliefs and their actions. I'm not going to defend mine in public to a beggar following me around with the explicit intention of exposing my contradictions to my peers as a way to demonstrate that I (and for that matter, anybody) am not fit for the office I hold.
No. That is a legend promoted by Plato. He was not making the "youth" (in general) distrust authority, he was going around telling the sons of nobility and highest ranking officials that democracy was a stupid idea and that they would be better off seizing power for themselves.
Going by Wikipedia, it's not agreed why exactly he was executed, but you don't execute someone for being annoying. The official charges were impiety and "corrupting the youth". Probably some political groups felt threatened by the idea of lots of people turning to a different set of ethics or starting to distrust authority.
His students and friends took power once before and instituted dictatorship with help of Sparta (enemy city). Killed and tortured opposition, then were taken down in contra revolution.
So yeah, "different set of ethics or starting to distrust authority" but no necessary in a nice way.
> but you don't execute someone for being annoying
Of course you do, you just wait until you have a more ethically "usable" argument than that, you build a solid case, then you have a mock trial and a fully expected conviction.
> The esteemed philosopher was sentenced to death because he was deliberately annoying people - like a fly - with badgering questions that would force the questionee into a corner.
It had more to do with revolutions in city just before, when two his students and friends worked with enemy to make dictatorship out of Athens. They killed and tortured quite a lot of people. Then it reversed. Now, he did not participated actively and citizens behavior during above was supposed to be forgiven anyway. It was miscarriage of justice.
But, these events in combination with what his ideas actually were were closer to why they wanted him killed then general "asked too many questions". As far as they were concerned, he was actually dangerous.
The yet other official reason was impiety, which despite sounding ridiculous to us, to them was important too.
The Little Schemer is a wonderful book that teaches functional programming and Scheme by just asking the reader questions (aka the Socratic Method). Off putting to me initially, but now I'd love it if more books were like this!
<<It wasn't long before he uncovered how little everyone else actually knew, but what separated Socrates was his honesty
<<The esteemed philosopher was sentenced to death because he was deliberately annoying people - like a fly - with badgering questions that would force the questionee into a corner.
> The esteemed philosopher was sentenced to death because he was deliberately annoying people
No. Socrates was executed because he was associated with the worst rulers that the city of Athens had ever known, all former students of his, who notably went on to kill thousands of Athenian citizens (not enemies, strangers, or slaves), following the defeat in the Peloponnesian War.
After the tyrants were killed and democracy was restored, general amnesty law was granted to anyone involved except the Thirty Tyrants themselves and their direct aides. However resentment, understandably, remained.
> There was a lot of bad blood between the people of Athens and Socrates’ followers. That wouldn’t have been enough by itself. But the murder of between 5% and 15% of the citizen population in 404 must have pushed things over the edge. Imagine if Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, and Saddam Hussein had all had the same person as their ethics teacher: would you be very surprised if that person got harsh treatment from a jury? And would you then call that person a martyr?
Well, he was executed because when asked what punishment seemed just to Socrates, he said he should be given free meals (like the Olympic champions), rather than suggesting a fine of 50 minas. So Hemlock it was.
Yeah, there's some people that when faced to what they believe is an injustice go all in and decide the world is entirely unjust and there's no point on defending from anything, because the result is already set. See Galileo for another example.
I guess there's some platonic happiness in thinking you have it all figured out.
When trying to approach sacrosanct 'truths' from a clean slate, I've met torrents of emotional resistance. Yes, from others. But also inside myself. It is quite something.
I wish I could spend my days wandering the marketplaces asking sincere and pointed questions, but I have to get back to work.
Strictly speaking yes, but I think it is a poetic way of saying that Socrates was better attuned to the limitations of his knowledge, as opposed to most people, who believe they know things they actually don't know (what is the good, etc). As a result, Socrates is actually wiser than most.
Socrates was deeply ironic, and usually only played the fool. In very few (maybe all but one) of his dialogues is he actually less informed than the people that he’s talking to.
Anytime I learn anything new, I imitate until I can’t anymore, then I meditate to understand why I think I can’t imitate anymore, then I experience my meditation, then I go back to mediating based on that experience.
Repeat until you can’t OODA loop effectively anymore.
I think people who are afraid to ask questions are conditioned to be that way. It is just easy to keep quiet in a team meeting than risk asking/saying something that might expose one's lack of knowledge on the topic being discussed. People also secretly hope that someone else might ask the same question that they are thinking about, so the other person can take that risk.
The environment largely shapes people's behavior. Of course, we can argue that we should work towards changing the environment for the better, but practically, how much influence does a person (who is not in a position of authority) have? In the end, people simply take the easy way out, which is keep quiet and only speak when they're absolutely sure that whatever they're about to say/ask is fully accurate.
So, there's that saying, "stay quiet and be thought a fool; open your mouth and remove all doubt." In a team meeting, it's easy to feel like you'll not only look foolish because you asked a question that everyone else knows the answer to, but you're also wasting everyone's time.
I certainly remember feeling that way when I was a junior engineer. It was kind of a shock to me when I realized how many others generally had the same questions I did.
this^. it took a lot of intentional practice for me to shake the fear of looking dumb when in front of peers. however, i've since realized that pretty consistently the people who share this willingness to come off as uninformed are the best people to work with -- they openly admit gaps in their knowledge and are eager to close them.
conversely, when interviewing or evaluating people, if i observe someone pretend s/he knows something, that's often a really bad sign…
You've mistaken "wanting to be right" with wanting to "be correct".
I've never inferred stupidity or lack of intelligence with asking questions. The only thing I've inferred was lack of knowledge. And the best way to get knowledge is to ask. People who ask want to know. They want the information to get to correct.
People who don't ask questions eventually make assumptions that are wrong. Because they're so wrapped up in "looking smart" and they think being "smart" means having all the knowledge. They "want to be right" so they don't look information because looking would expose they don't already have it.
Smart people seek information so they can apply it. Genuinely intelligent people just have faster processors.
There are questions and there are questions. Some questions in meetings are 'smart questions' intended to show you off and boost your stock a little, or move conversation to an area beneficial to you. Some questions are just ridiculous time wasters asked to show that you are there. There is a slim minority that asks questions to actually learn something and from experience I learned that those questions are best asked after the meeting directly to the person.
This article speaks to my soul. All my life I've been told how intelligent I am. It's been such a massive driver for my own insecurities and fear around anything I do, since my identity is tied up so much in being right and not being wrong, in continuing to present this image of infallible intelligence. It's likely also fed into my issues with depression I've had all my life. I can consistently get people to see how intelligent I might be, but it's always such a struggle. It's like walking a tightrope. I hate it.
What helps me is to view intelligence as strictly a matter of brain power. I can use my intelligence to do things that are stupid, unwise, misinformed, harmful, etc.
What I take from the article is that saying stupid things is the best way to avoid doing stupid things.
Whenever I ask questions, I tend to go to the very bottom of it. And I am not satisfied as long as I get a very intuitive and fundamental understanding of the topic. I have seen, however, that this can be tiring. Unless you are having the conversation with someone who has the time, willingness, and the knowledge to satisfy my curiosity, it is pointless to keep probing. People would often be exasperated or would be unable to provide me the intuition.
Therefore, these days, I pretty much probe very little and if it seems that my questions won't really be answered, I leave it at that, mentally noting to do some independent research on the internet.
This is especially tough because of how much skill it takes for you the questioner to not make the other person feel stupid when they realize they can't answer your questions.
Yeah, I think the other thing that's made me shy away from it more as I've gotten older is asking the "stupid" question, getting a jargon-laden response, and realizing: this person isn't equipped to communicate the concept. It can be pretty exhausting to be the questioner in that case.
Seth Godin has a whole schtick on the high value of what he calls “intentional serial incompetence”. Basically, if you’re unwilling to be seen as incompetent, you can’t deal with change. Good summary here - https://www.fastcompany.com/38442/change-agent-issue-31
My own experience has been that if you’re pretty sure you’re one of the smartest people in the room, you have an obligation to ask the “stupid” questions, because the rest of the room will be too afraid to look stupid.
> ...you have an obligation to ask the “stupid” questions...
I really agree with that but it's all about being willing to take a risk.
Many settings, especially in corporate environments, are intrinsically hostile to inquiry. These are places where meetings are run with semi-parliamentary rules-- just pro-forma affairs to mark project transitions.
In such situations, it may be that the others know better than you do and thus STFU or else be silently, immediately, and permanently dismissed for future consideration by those who call the shots.
810 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 397 ms ] thread> The person who helped me, despite being very polite, also clearly thought I was a bozo and kept explaining things like "the size of the box and the size of the computer aren't the same". Of course I knew that, but I didn't want to say something like "I design CPUs. I understand the difference between the size of the box the computer comes and in the size of the computer and I really want the one that comes in the smallest box", but just saying the last bit without establishing any kind of authority didn't convince the person
> I eventually asked them to humor me and just bring out the boxes for the various laptop models so I could see the boxes, which they did, despite clearly thinking that my decision making process made no sense
Oh c'mon, that's not fair. You have to tell us what the goal was. :) I'm super curious what a CPU designer wanted with the "laptop that came in the smallest box."
Perhaps smallest box = smallest laptop = they wanted to study the form factor. But does the smallest laptop really come in the smallest box? And did the results of this experiment influence your future CPU design decisions? I feel like this arc deserves its own page.
Without any kind of prior on this person's intelligence, I too would, in the position of the Apple employees, gravitate towards the "moron" theory.
Not explaining is just playing games at that point... Like morons do.
It raises even more (admittedly pointless) questions, like "Is that true for Apple laptops, or all laptops? I bet Dell packs their tiny laptops with a bunch of peripherals or padding. A larger box might get sold more frequently."
And even for Apple, are the boxes physically smaller between different models? I unpacked an M1 MBP the other day and was surprised how large the box was compared to the laptop. I think there's a 13 inch and a 15 inch, and it almost seemed like the box was designed for the 15 inch.
Hmm... This calls for an empirical study. Too bad I don't live across the street from an Apple store anymore, or I'd just go look.
But "How could any of this possibly matter to a CPU designer?" won't be so easily resolved. E.g. even if it's true that the smallest laptop comes in the smallest box, why didn't they ask for the smallest laptop? The salesperson would've been like "Of course, it's right over here." It sounds like he compared the actual sizes of boxes, which is fascinating.
It's clear OP _wants_ to illicit this feeling of superiority from others, as even after the fact - and with unlimited time and space - they do not state the actual reason.
Hypothetical time:
Let's say we have some reason to want to buy the laptop with the smallest box. We'll say it's some reason so incredibly intellectual we could never explain it to anyone else because everyone else is so much dumber than we are.
So, the best we can do while remaining perfectly honest is simply state we have this desire. Actually explaining it will either not work or cause the apple employee to turn in to a black hole.
So, we stand around asking them like an idiot for the laptop with the smallest box, which we know is easily misinterpreted, but for no reason at all we feel like we must remain perfectly honest. This creates a back and forth as the employee - predictably (especially so to someone of our amazing intellect) - tries desperately to help us see our error in thinking.
The whole process takes much longer and has been unpleasant for all involved.
But hey... at least we got to feel really smart?
Rubbish. The actually smart thing to do is to come up with a plausible reason for the stupid request. It's not even hard.
"This is a vanity gift for my rich employers spoiled kid, to unwrap in some stupid status showcase. None of them understand computers. I know the request is stupid, but let's just get it over with. Can you show me the smallest packaged laptops please?"
There. Nobody's time is wasted.
There is a difference between a willingness to look stupid in order to achieve your goal, and a desire to look stupid while enjoying being a conceited "smart" person at the expense of achieving your goal.
I work at an advertising agency if we buy something for a giveaway we care a lot about the box it comes in, not whats inside it as we will never open it. The person buying the laptop is probably a currier that knows nothing more than to buy a laptop. If the currier is getting interrogated by a 16 year old sales clerk thats costing us money and more importantly time.
I get they are just trying to be helpfull maybe even trying to save us money, but we only ever use retail because shipping takes to long. For example we have 20 laptops being shipped but need to take a picture of the box for promo material, we will happily pay for a new laptop and curriers simply so we can get a box in front of a camera so we can meet our dead lines.
If we spend £2k on a new laptop and curriers just for a picture thats money well spent if we meet our dead lines. If we miss our dead lines because some kid was trying to save us £100 its going to cost us a fortune / client.
"The customer asked for the smallest box so I assumed they knew what they were doing and sold them that."
"No, I didn't ask any further questions, I wouldn't want to assume they were stupid. That would be wrong in this narrative."
"No, I don't know how exactly how much $$ Apple is going to lose on this return."
Boss: did you make a sale?
Me: Yes
Boss: good job
Im sorry but if you work in sales and your boss gets upset at returns your boss is new to sales.
Seems pretty obvious to me that the job of the sales person is to make sales not talk people out of sales because the company is worried about returns.
We never worried about returns, if some one buys something they don't want we checked the recipt and checked for rocks in the box then just sold them something else, because you know sales?
The only reason I can think of a sales person being worried about returns is if a customer walks in asking for X and the sales person talks them into Y. Customer will be back fuming if it doesn't do X and you won't sell them anything else.
1) Apple is pretty well known for NOT up-selling and for right sizing customers, so you could actually get reprimanded at an Apple store if the sale was something as egregious as "gave customer laptop in smallest box".
2) The example we are talking about is a perfect setup for a "fuming customer"; smallest box laptop was "wrong laptop".
3) Apple depends on repeat sales and eco-system lock-in. The customer who returns the laptop may not upgrade their iPhone.
4) The request was ludicrous ... the Apple sales associate is not in the wrong for not simply going with it.
2) They got what they asked for I know customers get upset easily but there is no easier customer to handle than one that got exactly what they asked for.
3) They won't upgrade their iPhone? I thought apple didn't push that sort of thing? Anyway they are coming back in store to exchange you can easily make another sale there.
4) The request was simple, the apple sales associate is in the wrong for not helping the customer.
"I want the one in the smallest box for <reason>"
Instead of providing no reason and being smug in their assumption that they are both very clever and the barely over minimum wage employee assumes they are "stupid".
Also perplexing: footnote 2 mentions the car tire paradox. (Traction is determined by weight and coefficient of traction, and those two things only. So why do high performance cars have wider tires, which shouldn't make a difference? Because softer and stickier tires are mechanically weaker and tolerate heat less well, so you need to spread the force out over a larger area.) But it doesn't actually mention the answer besides noting many other people are wrong, and also is separately incorrect and says contact area doesn't change based on tire width?
Like, there's no clever counterintuitive Boyle's law/hydraulics effect where at the same air pressure a tire twice as big deforms half as much or whatever. Just the very obvious intuitive case that wider tires have bigger contact patches, which you can calculate yourself by plugging numbers into this tire calculator: http://bndtechsource.ucoz.com/index/tire_data_calculator/0-2... and the BMW i3 electric car has a crazy thin tire to have a smaller contact patch and less rolling resistance: https://www.bmwblog.com/2015/04/24/bmw-i3s-tires-more-import...
And the css thing... notoriously, everything on danluu.com has been completely unstyled for years. So every time one of his posts is on HN, someone comments about the unreadably wide lines, which could be fixed with a single `body{max-width:600px}` CSS rule.
But the reason everything is unstyled is because Dan installed octopress seven years ago, which had a braindead default theme that used custom fonts for everything, causing a glacial 15 second time to first paint: https://danluu.com/octopress-speedup/ Irritated, Dan ripped out all the CSS entirely, and the site loads in a flash. But now he has a trapped prior,[1] and any time someone says "CSS" to him he thinks, "ugh, that awful garbage which ruined my site" and refuses to touch it.
1: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-ba...
Do you know that's true? Are you extrapolating his mental activity from a limited set of facts?
It is a bit condescending in my view to withhold that information from the clerk. But then again, I'm only making assumptions. Also, I've done similar things where I refused to let on my internal reasoning for various reasons. Sometimes just to mess with people. And clearly, many people thought me a fool for it. If I'd actually told them my reasoning? In many instances that would not have improved their opinion of me. So no loss.
There are also many instances where I could have benefited immensely from sharing my reasoning, because people could have corrected my mistaken assumptions. Can't say I've got it figured out when to keep shut and when to share.
At best he purposefully made things more difficult than they had to be. She was absolutely right to think that he was a "bozo." I generally strive to make things as easy and painless as possible for service workers I deal with, because I've been a service worker. It wouldn't surprise me if he has never spent a day in his adult life working a service job.
Regarding whether this actually happened or not: did any notice that "small box" item is one of the few he doesn't actually explain and he's withholding information from us just like he did from the salesperson? It feels like a "look at me, I'm so very smart, watch me manipulate my audience" move.
His disdain for his readers is pretty obvious from the fact that he puts zero effort into readability; there isn't an drop of formatting, it's just a massive wall of text from edge to edge of the browser window.
My assumption is that he really didn’t know which computer came in the smaller box (since, computer size, which is the public info about the product, doesn’t exactly correlate with the box size).
My guess is that he wanted to know which, if any, impact a small box would potentially have on computer components (like different impact absorption on transportation) that would require some CPU design adaptation. Like (speculation here, as I am nowhere near a CPU specialist): is a second memory clip more susceptible to be affected by transportation impact? So the box size is correlated with cheaper computers. Which tend to be larger computers, but can come in a smaller box because they don’t have that second memory clip?
Idk, but I am assuming good intent and reasoning behind the anecdote.
I still liked the article, I certainly have a problem with trying to avoid looking stupid too hard, at least in certain contexts.
Last time this happened, I needed steel wire, and I went to a guitar shop to buy guitar strings. I told the employee "this is going to be a bit weird but I want a string that is 0.3mm in diameter for a machine I'm building, do you have any?" instead of letting him be puzzled why I would want a "0.3mm string" rather than a "C string".
Usually people even ask and talk about about what I'm building, which is nice, but if it will take a long time to explain I say something like "it's not very easy to explain what it does because it's for a specialized purpose, but essentially it does <whatever general thing>".
I've never had anyone think I'm stupid, but not for lack of asking stupid questions, I think. I just take a little more care to spend two seconds explaining why I'm asking the thing.
You can see this as disdain, or as respect: I'm free to bring my own CSS to this page, and have things look exactly how I want them too.
He's like; fuck you for thinking the guy basing his $2000 computer purchase on cardboard is an idiot - I'm actually a secret genius CPU designer don't you know??
Well yeah like, maybe she's got a Master's degree in Packaging Design and knows that the smallest box, in fact, has weak cornering or cannot be reclosed because it has to be ripped open or something.
Is his request even well defined? There might be different, shortest, thinnest, shallowest boxes. Does it need to fit through a letterbox? Oh, ok, you don't care about depth then...
Not to mention the double meaning that "box" has in computing...
I noped out of the article at that point which is a shame because I do agree with the general idea.
Once I explained that, I was able to get what I wanted with no more questions. Now that they knew why I wanted what I wanted, they also knew what information was relevant to me. And I had already chosen the best model they had in that form factor.
Communication should be simple, direct, and complete. That's where I don't care if I "look stupid". I'll go over basics if there's a chance someone doesn't know the basics. Because you can say, "Oh I'm aware of X", but if you aren't and I assume you are, you may be too embarrassed to bring that up because you're afraid I think you're stupid if you don't know it.
Saying "It's a gift so I don't care about the model but it needs to fit in my carry-on bag" (or whatever the reason) would have explained it, and nobody would have thought the other was stupid. So in this case he's actively inviting that judgement.
Other than that, I also try to employ the naive question and to some people these might sound stupid. But they are really useful because they can clear up lots of implicit implications and misunderstandings.
Making any kind of judgments about their reaction to "I want the one that comes in the smallest box" is ludicrous; the behaviour itself is mildly sociopathic.
Good customer service is all about figuring out what people mean when they say ask for things. Sometimes they need genuine assistance, sometimes they just want to prove they are smart than you.
If one was truly not afraid to ask stupid questions, they would have humored the sales person. Just recently I got a discount on some laptop parts, entirely because I asked the sales guy questions about upgrading ram in a laptop I was buying, even though I already knew the answers, I just wanted someone to double check my assumption. So I asked if he could help me pick it out.
Turns out, he remembered that someone ordered, then cancelled the exact ram I was looking for, so he went to the upgrade center and got me a brand new stick of memory for the price of an "open box return."
Be nice to sales people, even if you build the things they are selling.
I agree with the general gist of the post: don't be afraid to ask stupid questions. However, the post has an underlying "feeling" of "my questions are not really stupid, I'm just so smart that others don't realise". I know that I ask plenty of stupid questions when I ask questions, I often realise how stupid they were just after the answer.
Non technical people only have the patience to learn / listen to very basic concepts.
> but usually back fires as other people ask you multiple questions, arising from their own point of view.
I don't think this is back firing its just giving the non technical person the time to take in whats been said and then they ask follow up questions to confirm their understanding. I have had people get frustrated that I was talking down to them, when that happens I stop and talk to them as if they have my knowledge and they immediately regret that and ask me to go back to explaining like they are a child. Its not me trying to fluff my ego by talking down, I just legitimately know more about the topic than them, thats why they are paying me, I guess some times they just need reminded of that.
I scare people when im enthused about something. Its a bitch.
I know many people who would consider themselves non-technical, yet who certainly take the time to learn complex concepts. Some of those are indeed technological concepts.
> I try to give short simple examples because when I try to tell people the truth their eyes glaze over and their brain turns off while the nerd talks his techno jumble.
The short simple examples you give are also truthful, correct?
Perhaps the additional information you'd like to explain simply isn't needed for the other person's goal.
A great way to have both technical and non-technical people's eyes glaze over is detailing all kinds of minute details before describing some of the high-level goals or giving context as to why you're getting so deep into the details. As you mention, simple examples can get a lot across, and can be a springboard to more questions being asked, to allow the other person to decide what depth of knowledge they would like to know.
The non-technical person you're talking to may very well have the patience to learn the deep technical truth you'd like to explain, but they may have no reason to know it. In the scenario you're thinking of, you're doing the technical work, not them, correct? So why would they need to know deep technical details? A basic outline, with some corner cases pointed out, is likely all they need. Not because they don't have patience to learn what you're explaining, but because they have other things that are more important to their or your organization's success.
What a stupidly arrogant comment. Have you not heard of philosophy, for example?
Nicely said, I was trying to say that significant number of us is quite bad at it. And on the other hand, if frames are completely different, first compressed explanation looks like "noise noise word noise noise ...". On the other hand, often I see people struggling to start explaining as they know they will loose 30 min of time just to get to basics, so saying "I need computer in smallest box" - can be translated to "I want you to trust me and not bore me with you daily sale's pitch script you have learned by cart, I do not have time explain, I just need what I want not what you want to recommend me, unlike other customers I do not need your assistance I just need you to give me what I want. If customer is always right, just give me what I want, and I will make a purchase and you can move to the next customer."
Sometimes I think that this inpatient arose from search engines, where you type at most 3 words and you get your 10 results you were searching for. So, I assume it is reflected how we communicate with other fellow humans, demanding immediate results instead of 2 way communication.
We can argue it is rude, but for person who built his strong will over years in a hard way, attempt of manipulation and selling is also rude and intruding.
I do not have you ever been to Turkey or Greece where you have these shop owners who are literally trying to drag you in to the shop so you can buy something. For them it is like a ritual or the game, but if you do not want to be part of that theater show, you will find it very annoying.
In many Balkan countries they will ask you multiple times to eat or drink, and polite answer is "I cannot" but if you give that answer it is basically conversation starter for "Why? Are you ok? Is there something wrong...", it is part of social game to continue conversation. If you answer "I don't want to" although it is technically most correct, you will be showered with responses as "that is rude", "we will not poison you", "why is something wrong with my food", "why are you angry at me" ... and all you wanted to say is "I do not need any food or drink at this time as my body does not needed it, and I am perfectly content with my energy and liquid levels" :)
So, for many technical persons, who live most of their live in their own head, trying to juggle multiple ideas and resolve who knows what, small talk can be a major annoyance.
And I do not want to start with "this is secret project idea I am working on, I should not share it with anyone, someone may steal my idea ..." and everything along those lines...
> I eventually asked them to humor me and just bring out the boxes for the various laptop models so I could see the boxes, which they did, despite clearly thinking that my decision making process made no sense
Perhaps this is an unkind reading, but particularly the laptop scenario felt telling that this person might feel above explaining why they might prefer a laptop which comes in a smaller box.
On the surface that is very much a ridiculous request, regardless of how sensible it might actually be. Surely that shouldn't stop you from making the request, but you must understand that someone is merely doing their job to make sure that you understand what you're asking for.
If I go to a tuba shop and ask how many litres of ranch dressing it holds, I'm not going to scoff when the salesperson reminds me that it isn't a fancy brass bowl.
...come to think of it, maybe one of the grandmas was a CPU designer all a long!!
Sounds like this was the point of the blog post. He also drops that he was "very good" at Overwatch and "#1 in the world". Usually the people who want to tell others about this in public are not very good.
The ones who are very good are the ones who only tell you after you've tried teaching them. Since bad players in games often can't tell what good players look like, or how they play.
It's like saying "I know exactly which car I would like to drive every day because I designed the engine of a Ferrari".
No, but it heavily points to that you know basic things, like box-size != laptop size, or what CPUs do, and how to compare them, which is all the author claims.
I also found it striking how the post is emphasizing how important transparency in asking questions is which might or might not reveal the intelectual qualities of the person asking, but then failing to be that transparent towards both the clerk and the reader of the blog post about the internal thought process.
If one would like people to learn, enlighten them. :-)
That lack of transparency seems to be a theme. I have difficulty with blood draws as well and I have never encountered a health care professional that didn't immediately switch to "ok, which arm is usually best" mode.
In the end, every single one of the patients was correct. Anyone who typically had problems with blood draws knew their problems well.
Yes, most nurses listen. But there are enough out there that don't that I've seen it multiple times.
I've said nurses, but I don't actually know their professions.
Fair, it could just be my experience as a middle aged, white male coming into play here.
I ended up with hundreds of parking tickets, for all different makes and models of cars.
I quickly learned you get nowhere telling someone over the phone the ticket isn't yours because it's for a completely different make and model.
I simply asked questions.
What is the make and model on the ticket?
What is the make and model of my registered car?
Oh, they are different, why do you think that is?
Questions are sneaky.
I'm surprised I had to scroll this far to see someone suggesting this, since it seems extremely obvious to me that this is part of the case. It's becoming fairly well-documented that one of the primary differences in people on the spectrum is a difference in communication style, which anecdotally seems to be more direct and less apologetic or prone to "superfluous" verbal (/nonverbal) contextualizing.
With the prevalence of people on the spectrum in STEM, it's no surprise that you'd see it here, and indeed looking at the comments you can see quite a few people talking past each other about what OP "should" say with what is clearly a mismatch in communication style.
> I'm surprised I had to scroll this far to see someone suggesting this, since it seems extremely obvious to me that this is part of the case.
The whole thread has currently 1471 points and 681 comments. I seem the be the 4th person realising, that the whole discussion is about "communication advices given by someone fighting the spectrum disorder". I don't know wat to say.
1. Someone with a spectrum disorder.
2. Someone who enjoys dicking around with people.
3. Someone with a spectrum disorder who enjoys dicking around with people.
I'm trying to figure out if the person is in group 1 or 3. If you encounter a few people in Group 3, it's then harder to see people in Group 2 in a good light.
Even if this is wrong, I bet telling the salesperson that it was a gift and he wanted the smallest package would have avoided funny looks.
Acknowledging that you know your request is unusual makes it sound a lot less stupid.
The judgmental people tend not to matter in the long run, by the way.
Sort of. There are two types of judgmental people. One, the people building a team, or making a bet. Two, the people looking to talk about others.
The latter don't matter. The former are quick to judge because they have to be. If they're wrong about their bets, it'll soon become obvious. Which means the optimal strategy is to make many bets, or to interview as many devs as possible, and then cull most of the candidates.
It's not personal. http://www.paulgraham.com/judgement.html helped me care way less about rejection, which seems to decrease the odds of getting rejected.
(I reached for your profile to email you the "nice username" thing, but there wasn't any way.)
Most people, if they rely on their own research and decision making, will do poorly. And even moderately clever people generally do better by copying the rare stray geniuses that float around in polite society. This manifests as an "unwillingness" to "look stupid". It is important to ask "what does stupid mean" and "how do I measure 'looking something'" when this sort of topic is bought up.
I am - and I don't think this is that unusual - willing to go about a decade ignoring the opinions of others if I'm really confident that I have an objectively good idea. It is a high-risk high-reward strategy and not for everyone.
Why is that?
That is a very subtle, fraught and complicated assessment. There is a lot going on to do with the audience, context, risk and the truth. There is a lot going on behind the term "looking stupid" and it undersells the complexity of the social interaction. There are two parties, multiple issues and a lot to think about.
So in general it may seem pretty noticeable, but in reality it's rarely so.
> In particular, it's often the case that there's a seemingly obvious but actually incorrect reason something is true, a slightly less obvious reason the thing seems untrue, and then a subtle and complex reason that the thing is actually true.
This is a good example of what's in the submission! It's "seemingly obvious" that people are judging you all the time, and slightly less obvious that people aren't actually thinking about you nearly as often as you think, but the few who are thinking about you might be indeed judging you to look stupid for asking "basic" questions.
That's an interesting assertion. I would have guessed the opposite is true.
People are hilariously bad at induction, deduction, and making decisions based on their own research.
We're biased because we're already on the internet, on this site, and nothing is on fire in our vicinity.
I suppose "rubber duck debugging" is a form of this.
Sounds kinda dumb, but it was an ah-ha realization that extended beyond finding misplaced items.
I'd imagine that it's not so viable in more aggressive/competitive/toxic environments though? But I've been lucky avoiding those.
Edit: Oh and sometimes my questions do turn out to be ... a bit dim. Most recent case that springs to mind was asking the local equivalent of "what does SSN stand for?" in a context where I really should have known. But the average outcome is good.
If you ask dumb questions, the person speaking (if they’re any good) will start looking to you to figure out if they’re pitching their language correctly. The other people in the room who didn’t understand will be relieved and quietly thankful of you because they didn’t have to be the ones to ask. And people who understood already are usually way more chill about this sort of thing than you would expect. Especially if you give them the opportunity to explain something in front of everyone. And then thank them for doing so.
I don’t think I fully understand why, but asking dumb questions is often a subtle act of leadership.
Very much so. It helps establishing an environment with less ego, more helpful people, and people who aren't afraid to learn. It also diminishes feelings of imposter syndrome in other people, by showing that not everyone knows everything.
All of those are things leaders should incentivize.
I think this is remarkable, how common people with some level of scientific literacy were able to get this correct much better than the whole medical establishment.
I don't think it's remarkable at all. Common people with some level of scientific literacy took basically all kind of stances about masks. Some of them had to be right in the end.
'The medical establishment' otoh had to come to one single common recommendation and as it's only one there's a chance of failure (there were, ofc. individual medical professional and scientists who got it right as well).
And they have to be able to communicate it in an effective way such that people believe it... AND can act on it. AND can act on it in a way that doesn't trigger panic or totally mess with supply chains needed to get proper equipment to front-line responders.
like Lawrence from azangru's quote above, the medical establishment needs to consider many more factors than 'common people' before making a public statement.
Further, my former co-workers from my stint in HIV testing were ALL saying wear masks and don't count on a vaccine being available until 2021 at the very earliest. They all started self isolating very early.
The whole "medical establishment" DID know this.
This was a failure of leadership of the medical establishment to either listen to the rest of the medical establishment or to effectively push back on the political leadership.
Sure, that might very well be what you aim for, but from my understanding, FFP2 should prevent both, at least theoretically, since wearing them correctly is another point of failure.
I can't remember his exact words, but my takeaway was not to be afraid of asking super basic questions.
(Also, it probably doesn't need to be said on HN again, but that really is a good book.)
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
We should be confident enough that we stand by comments even if we expect some of them to be misunderstood/unpopular. There are always people who will agree and always some who will agree. Once we can judge ourselves fairly, we won't care what other people think - we can be judged by our outcomes.
"You don't need more control over everything, you need more courage". In a lot of ways that dovetails with Dan's comments.
But I cannot help but compare this to negotiation. It is a lot easier when you negotiate from a place of abundance. Negotiating salary is easier when you do not need the job. Negotiating a house is easier when you do not need to buy that house.
I feel like the same applies here. Willingness to look stupid is a lot easier in situations where you have confidence and nothing to lose.
Nothing says ego in the backseat like an iamsosmart blog post. Bonus points if the website looks like it's from 2005 and if you write it in a tone as if you just invented penicillin.
Being willing to look stupid involves actually being able to deal with mistakes and failure, with actually _feeling_ stupid sometimes. Just listing a bunch of great decisions you made that other people thought were stupid seems less life-changing to me.
Maybe that's a subtle distinction, but I think it's important.
There is way to much of this bullshit all over the place (e.g. PPE use) and I'm quick to judge people who do it, because I find it a truly moronic attitude.
Well, if I think too much, probably I think more than you about your own profession, so, I do not want to say this, but you are not the best possible professional, because sometimes I had the feeling that she just follows the trend instead of getting genuine opinions about some of the topics in the discipline.
And was the encounter really antagonistic? Dan Luu is the one who left looking stupid.
Dan was asking the employee to expend considerable additional effort to find the smallest laptop box when he potentially knew the model number, or least had a reason that would justify the extra work. I would have just said "I'm really tight on carry-on space", not to avoid looking stupid, but to assure the employee I wasn't breaking their balls for no reason.
He touches on this later in the article after comparing thoughts to another person (who is block quoted) who seems to wonder the same things as a lot of commenters here...
The point is that this is a two way transaction with a real person, who has their own hidden state, goals and limits that are not always apparent to a consumer.
E.g. company policy on deducing what the customer really needs.
How was the employee to know Dan was the one person who actually knew what they needed, out of 100 over confident buffoon's that came to the shop that week.
This is why I don't hassle the support person fixing my internet when they run through support script.
I don't say "skip this, I have an honours degree blah blah", cause they have enough constraints to deal with as is... And once in a 100 times, I will learn something I didn't know...
Anyways, if you tell a store person "oh, I'm getting this for my husband" when it's a gift for yourself, that's more honesty than dishonesty, because to the store person, "clarity" with a customer is very goal oriented. Dan Luu wasn't trying to screw with the store person, and in the end they all got what they wanted, even if Dan Luu walked away "looking stupid".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
That he doesn't care if he looks stupid is besides the point here. He looked stupid to the retail worker not because he didn't explain his underlying reasons for wanting a small box. He looked stupid because he didn't understand the retail sales process. That is to say, he was stupid, about that one thing, and that is why he looked stupid.
The question is really what kind of person do you want to be? Do you want a person who habitually lies about unimportant stuff in order to accomplish goals? Do you want to be a person who is genuine but gets unfairly judged by strangers? Or do you want to be a person who justifies themselves to strangers in order to avoid getting judged?
If you think lying is wrong and seeking the approval of strangers is a bad habit only one option remains.
I guess the reality is that huge majority of customers in those shops aren't proficient at technology at all,
so it's incredibly good bet that customer has no idea what s/he's doing.
Part of the job of someone working in a customer-facing, sales job is to understand what the customer wants. A sales associate at an Apple Store probably has dozens of interactions every day where they're able to help people understand the products better and enable them to make a more informed decision. That is their job.
Saying "I just want the one that's in the smallest box" makes you look like a customer that's in need of guidance and help, and someone who's probably going to have a bad experience with the product if they don't get it.
Getting irritated by a response that is trying to help just shows a lack of empathy. People are not robots and there is a really good reason that the "white lie" is a thing.
Not only that, but he is also implying that people "who design processors" must also know our way around shopping for computers. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
So this story does not come off as an example of "I don't mind being seen as stupid", it comes off as a very strong example of "I'm holier than you"-attitude which is the entire opposite than the article author's is trying to make.
Exactly my thoughts.
Even the way the story is told to the reader with: "which I had a good reason to want at the time", has the same sentiment towards us.
"My reasoning is even above explaining to you, my reader."
Extrapolating from this article, this individual is likely a nightmare to work with due to their closed nature and unwillingness to share thoughts or decision making points.
> I try to be careful to avoid this failure mode when onboarding interns and junior folks and have generally been sucessful, but it's taken me up to six weeks to convince people that it's ok for them to ask questions
I kind of get the impression that asking the author questions is actually a very painful process.
Probably not.
People are shallow and often don't spend a lot of time trying to understand other people.
You won't always have the luxury to explain yourself.
Like "Willingness ..." it's a tool to remove your ego from and look-for/work-with 'talent' thru a (slightly more) objective lens.
As an individual contributor, it opens you to alternative ideas (learning from others). As a manager, it allows your team to build confidence and be open with you about problems and potentially radical alternatives.
A variation on this idea: + the only things I know I learned from other folks.
Just be like this girl :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q89tdSjE-0
>Learning a sport or video game: I try things out to understand what happens when you do them, which often results in other people thinking that I'm a complete idiot when the thing is looks stupid, but being willing to look stupid helps me improve relatively quickly
Overall author came up with this concept of "looks stupid", yet it does already exist as "failure teaches more" or just "curiosity" in my opinion.
Overall2:
Maybe
Why Is It So Hard to Be Rational?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/23/why-is-it-so-h...
> For example, if a date thinks I'm stupid because I ask them what a word means, so much so that they show it in their facial expression and/or tone of voice, I think it's pretty unlikely that we're compatible, so I view finding that out sooner rather than later as upside and not downside.
Have you noticed? We spend almost our entire adult lives doing things we’re good at. Anything we do that we’re bad at, we either stop doing or we get good at it. So all roads lead us away from the experience of being a beginner. For me, it had been too long. And I’d accidentally forgotten how to do it.
So I took up dancing (which I’m bad at). That was really terrifying. And trampolining. And more recently improv. At the moment I’m learning to draw - which I spent most of my life wanting to do. But I never stuck with it because I hate drawing badly. But that’s just what it feels like to be a beginner. The trick is letting that go, because it doesn’t matter. You don’t get to be good at anything without first being bad at it. And being comfortably, visibly bad at something gives everyone else permission to play.
I took up Jiu-Jitsu at age 40. Talk about humbling. I also catch myself occasionally doing what you did and mention how terrible I am/will be as a defensive mechanism.
But, the more comfortable I got at being a beginner led to even faster learning. This attitude has spread through other parts of my life, even areas where I'm not a beginner, and has led to improvement across the board.
I think there's a ton of wisdom in this. You learn to learn by, surprise surprise, being a beginner at something. Exposing yourself to broad areas in which you're a total newb can teach patience (I've yet to learn basic carpentry because I am one of those people who hasn't got the patience to measure twice), too.
This is really insightful: being a beginner is going to teach you how to learn things, and that's a hugely transferable skill. (Besides, it's also really enjoyable.)
"You are being nervous because you think that you might not be perfect, and doubt creates a feeling of nervousness and unsurety.
Well, I can dispel the doubt. You won't be perfect. In fact, you will be pretty lousy, because it is your first time, and it it is in front of a relatively large crowd.
So two pieces of good news. You needn't be nervous. And its not so bad that it will go lousy. Because everyone knows it is your first time, anyway, and they are expecting you to mess up. And this way, in the future, you will actually be great!"
A lot of wisdom there, IMHO
I have a 5 year old and a 2.5 year old, and hang out with lots of small children. Fear of looking stupid as a beginner is something that most people have right from the start: I have watched kids be afraid of incompetence (to the point of not wanting to try) at riding a bike, running, swinging across monkey bars, drawing, singing, reading, learning a new language, ...
Kids of 2–4 years old seem to have similar range of behaviors across substantially different cultural groups, e.g. comparing kids raised by tolerant non-confrontational hippies vs. strict immigrant professionals.
I imagine that learning to be comfortable as a beginner is something that can be trained / practiced. Some people certainly improve at it as they get older.
I'm a parent of a 5yo and surprised this is your experience. If anything, I'd say child behavior is the perfect anti-example of fear of trying new things.
Take one of the examples you provide: language. Young children ages don't care about using incorrect grammar or using the wrong words. This is why they're so good at progressing so quickly. Kids are way less afraid of failure than adults.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there's a significant environmental impact to children's behavior as well; in most ways, they're blank canvases when it comes to skill-based behavior. Personality...not so much.
The most important thing I have found when trying to teach kids [and probably most other people too] is (1) break tasks into very small steps, (2) make the lesson as low-pressure and fun as possible.
When you put the average adult learning a new language in a foreign country, they'll pause before new words, think before conjugating a verb, etc. Kids don't do that; they just talk. They don't worry about making a mistake, but adults (on average!) do.
The same kid will happily try riding a bike if you just leave one sitting around where they can find it, but will balk if you ask them to try in front of their friends who already know how. I think a huge part (the majority) of people’s fear of learning new skills is a kind of performance anxiety. Both fear of looking bad in front of others, and to some extent fear of looking bad to themselves. The other significant problem is an inability to break the new skill down into small enough pieces to manageably tackle independently.
Speaking a language is always and inevitably a performance. But kids are typically given much more time and space to just listen without trying to speak, and are judged less when they do try. Some kids who move to a new country will just quietly listen for months before ever trying to say something in the new language; adults rarely have that luxury.
But in any event, there are plenty of adults who are willing to try speaking foreign languages imperfectly, and studies have shown children and adults have comparable ability to learn a second language (indeed adults often improve faster at the start).
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/user/shugemery
I don't even think they think I'm stupid, I'm sure they appreciate the fact that I've made every mistake before when they come to me for help later. I enjoy doing stuff more than I enjoy looking like an expert.
and that is to act stupid/ daft - not just one question, but for periods of time. and see how they respond to you
a very effective technique when dealing or interacting with so called Subject Matter Experts. If they're an expert they should be able to explain complex stuff at a High/ medium/ low levels or just say they do not know.
If they're not really an expert then they cover up their lack of knowledge
===
They gave him an intelligence test. The first question on the math part had to do with boats on a river: Port Smith is 100 miles upstream of Port Jones. The river flows at 5 miles per hour. The boat goes through water at 10 miles per hour. How long does it take to go from Port Smith to Port Jones? How long to come back?
Lawrence immediately saw that it was a trick question. You would have to be some kind of idiot to make the facile assumption that the current would add or subtract 5 miles per hour to or from the speed of the boat. Clearly, 5 miles per hour was nothing more than the average speed. The current would be faster in the middle of the river and slower at the banks. More complicated variations could be expected at bends in the river. Basically it was a question of hydrodynamics, which could be tackled using certain well-known systems of differential equations. Lawrence dove into the problem, rapidly (or so he thought) covering both sides of ten sheets of paper with calculations. Along the way, he realized that one of his assumptions, in combination with the simplified Navier Stokes equations, had led him into an exploration of a particularly interesting family of partial differential equations. Before he knew it, he had proved a new theorem. If that didn’t prove his intelligence, what would?
Then the time bell rang and the papers were collected. Lawrence managed to hang onto his scratch paper. He took it back to his dorm, typed it up, and mailed it to one of the more approachable math professors at Princeton, who promptly arranged for it to be published in a Parisian mathematics journal.
Lawrence received two free, freshly printed copies of the journal a few months later, in San Diego, California, during mail call on board a large ship called the U.S.S. Nevada. The ship had a band, and the Navy had given Lawrence the job of playing the glockenspiel in it, because their testing procedures had proven that he was not intelligent enough to do anything else.
[0] It's possible he gave an answer that wasn't what they expected and it was "incorrect".
To be honest, this entire post make him look stupid, but we all know now that he doesn't care what we think. I'm probably stupid for falling for another one of his clever schemes where he's just pretending to be stupid.
This isn't just looking stupid, this is being stupid. Why in Heaven's name wouldn't you at least adjust your behavior when you're in an interview?
Acting stupid can be a convenient way to hold up your belief that you're smarter than the rest. Nobody will ever challenge your belief because hey, if they think you are stupid, it's because you made them believe that, which means that they are actually the stupid ones!
They saw my weird resume - it always gets a comment. It was revised and edited under direction from a retired entrepreneur and CEO who explained how employee employer and employee/employer/HR/hiring managers interactions work "in real life".
They did a phone interview. They called me in. The only times I get the "thanks for interviewing, but" calls is when the recruiter or headhunter obfuscated the job description to prevent poaching and/or losing their commission/bonus and I had literally no idea about any of their stack/business/whatever.
I could just be lucky, I guess, not having to lie or embellish or present a facade.
I believe the author thought the clerk was too stupid to understand the real reason and it would be a waste of time to explain to the clerk why.
My intuition has changed from this, I find it that most times, when someone shows genuine interest and asks honest, revealing questions about some new topic, they often excel at many other things (and will likely on the new topic as well).
I'm adapting this myself, being honest, asking honestly, and sometimes looking really stupid (because, in that context, I am!), and I appreciate greatly both the wealth of information that allows me to access, and that almost anybody worth their salt recognizes this trait as well.
Failing an interview due to looking stupid is probably a blessing in disguise, you don't want to be hired by people who can't see this, and you don't want to work next to people who's just pretending to understand, not learning because they can't afford to look stupid when they are (and thus stay stupid, and be much more inclined to try to pass blame to someone else, like you, who look stupid).
Naturally, the established powers and polite society didn't find this to their liking. We all know how his story ended.
Today we call this method of exposing contradictions in one's mindset the Socratic Method.
> sentenced to death because he was deliberately annoying people
I see you're still certain of Socrates' motives.
When you claimed he was 'corrupting the minds of the youth' and 'denying the gods of the city' you were simply repeating the charges laid at any philosopher who threatens the powers that be.
If anyone asks too many uncomfortable but honest questions these days, in some societies you will still be met with death, though here we have a milder but still harsh punishment known as 'deplatforming'.
But more to the point, if you are so certain of what you know, you could explain it and wouldn't find questions 'annoying'. Frustration justifies the case, because it means you really do know nothing but simply aren't honest enough to admit it.
Care to elaborate?
Just that it doesn't hurt points of view that are legitimate.
Illigitimate views and your feelings may still suffer from hearing the truth.
My point is that the facts don't care.
Therefore, completely true facts can make you believe a falsehood.
Therefore, the truth can harm a point of view that is legitimate.
It was a pretty big event so I know we all remember it as long as you follow current events, but it's easy to find articles mentioning it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-reverse-defunding-the-po...
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/february/minneapolis-re...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/portland-mayor-addit...
Cities defunded police departments, crime went up, some of those same cities then later re-funded those departments, and even increased budgets.
The crime statistics and city council laws passed support these claims, I have not found any claims disputing these facts.
Even the left most leaning sources agree with these claims.
The police budget for MPD in 2014 was $145.6M for 850 officers. In 2020, the year you suggest they were defunded, the budget was $181.9M for 770 officers—a 38% increase per officer from 2014 (28.7% after adjusting for inflation)[0]. In fact, that department is ending the current fiscal year $5M under budget[1], and the current mayor has proposed an additional 17% expenditure increase for 2022.[2]
The police in Minneapolis were never defunded. They have more money than ever. Efforts to introduce meaningful reforms (inaccurately called “defunding the police” by some) have also not been abandoned by the city council. We are currently voting on a charter amendment that would replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new Department of Public Safety. The new department would still include police officers but would be coequal with all other departments in the city (it currently has a unique status where it is controlled exclusively by the mayor), and its focus would be on preventing crime instead of policing people.
On the other hand, other parts of the city budget are underwater due to hundreds of former officers quitting and claiming PTSD[3], and the officers who remain are engaged in an intentional work slowdown[4] while blaming others[5] for what is a largely self-inflicted wound.
What I think the other participant in this discussion was suggesting—and something that I would echo—is that your sources for news don’t seem to be giving you accurate information and you may want to reconsider using them as primary sources, at least on this topic.
[0] https://minneapolismn.opengov.com/transparency
[1] https://twitter.com/lisabendermpls/status/145018398771290931... (This is the Minneapolis city council president)
[2] https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/FileV2/24988/2022-Bu...
[3] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/10/06/mpls-police-ptsd-cl...
[4] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-poli...
[5] https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/10/20/mpd-cop-says-office...
February 2021, the Minneapolis city council voted to add $6.4 million to the police budget. [2]
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minneapolis-city-council-v...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/minneapolis-police-fun...
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minneapolis-to-spend-2464-...
The budget for 2020 was never in question, the riots and defund police movement started in the summer of 2020.
City policies were being discussed late in the year, concerning the 2021 budget.
Less resources means slower response times or no response at all.
That wasn't the premise though, the question was whether they defunded and then later refunded when crime was rising.
Above I showed GP that Minneapolis did in fact do this, as did many other cities.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625629/REFUND-poli...
So they didn't actually do anything.
Some cities backpedalled on their promise to defund and added to the budget instead.
The existence of the latter scenario does not nullify the former.
[1] https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/managing-harmful-vaccin...
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
Merriam Webster has used that definition since they added the term to their dictionary in 2018: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/17/viral-imag...
Though I do like your form of expressing your frustration about the trial and sentencing of Socrates at myself as though I were his prosecutor, I assure you that I'm an under-50 mortal not born of gods and not atanatos.
A question would not be annoying. Badgering, accusations, and pestering would be. And quite frankly, as we both know, every single one of us has contradictions in their beliefs and their actions. I'm not going to defend mine in public to a beggar following me around with the explicit intention of exposing my contradictions to my peers as a way to demonstrate that I (and for that matter, anybody) am not fit for the office I hold.So yeah, "different set of ethics or starting to distrust authority" but no necessary in a nice way.
Of course you do, you just wait until you have a more ethically "usable" argument than that, you build a solid case, then you have a mock trial and a fully expected conviction.
It was as true 2500 years ago as it is today.
It had more to do with revolutions in city just before, when two his students and friends worked with enemy to make dictatorship out of Athens. They killed and tortured quite a lot of people. Then it reversed. Now, he did not participated actively and citizens behavior during above was supposed to be forgiven anyway. It was miscarriage of justice.
But, these events in combination with what his ideas actually were were closer to why they wanted him killed then general "asked too many questions". As far as they were concerned, he was actually dangerous.
The yet other official reason was impiety, which despite sounding ridiculous to us, to them was important too.
And I dunno, ask my wife.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
No. Socrates was executed because he was associated with the worst rulers that the city of Athens had ever known, all former students of his, who notably went on to kill thousands of Athenian citizens (not enemies, strangers, or slaves), following the defeat in the Peloponnesian War.
After the tyrants were killed and democracy was restored, general amnesty law was granted to anyone involved except the Thirty Tyrants themselves and their direct aides. However resentment, understandably, remained.
> There was a lot of bad blood between the people of Athens and Socrates’ followers. That wouldn’t have been enough by itself. But the murder of between 5% and 15% of the citizen population in 404 must have pushed things over the edge. Imagine if Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, and Saddam Hussein had all had the same person as their ethics teacher: would you be very surprised if that person got harsh treatment from a jury? And would you then call that person a martyr?
http://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2016/04/socrates-1-did-soc...
I guess there's some platonic happiness in thinking you have it all figured out.
error 404: population not found
i like the term abandonment these days, drop your assumptions, drop your habits and try to see things as they are
When trying to approach sacrosanct 'truths' from a clean slate, I've met torrents of emotional resistance. Yes, from others. But also inside myself. It is quite something.
I wish I could spend my days wandering the marketplaces asking sincere and pointed questions, but I have to get back to work.
“Nothing to excess”, and “Certainty brings insanity”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
Imitation, which is easiest.
Meditation, which is noblest.
Experience, which is bitterest.
Anytime I learn anything new, I imitate until I can’t anymore, then I meditate to understand why I think I can’t imitate anymore, then I experience my meditation, then I go back to mediating based on that experience.
Repeat until you can’t OODA loop effectively anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
The environment largely shapes people's behavior. Of course, we can argue that we should work towards changing the environment for the better, but practically, how much influence does a person (who is not in a position of authority) have? In the end, people simply take the easy way out, which is keep quiet and only speak when they're absolutely sure that whatever they're about to say/ask is fully accurate.
Surprisingly much, for the kind of people who stay quiet. They underestimate their own potential impact.
I certainly remember feeling that way when I was a junior engineer. It was kind of a shock to me when I realized how many others generally had the same questions I did.
conversely, when interviewing or evaluating people, if i observe someone pretend s/he knows something, that's often a really bad sign…
I've never inferred stupidity or lack of intelligence with asking questions. The only thing I've inferred was lack of knowledge. And the best way to get knowledge is to ask. People who ask want to know. They want the information to get to correct.
People who don't ask questions eventually make assumptions that are wrong. Because they're so wrapped up in "looking smart" and they think being "smart" means having all the knowledge. They "want to be right" so they don't look information because looking would expose they don't already have it.
Smart people seek information so they can apply it. Genuinely intelligent people just have faster processors.
What I take from the article is that saying stupid things is the best way to avoid doing stupid things.
The issue with this is that you might not even work with this one person declining you.
The causality also goes the other way. Very smart people see their limitations more clearly and so tend to be humbler about what they know.
They realize they can learn from others and so ask a lot of questions that others might feel foolish asking.
However this only works when there is enough knowledge to know why the unimportant details won't matter.
My own experience has been that if you’re pretty sure you’re one of the smartest people in the room, you have an obligation to ask the “stupid” questions, because the rest of the room will be too afraid to look stupid.
I really agree with that but it's all about being willing to take a risk.
Many settings, especially in corporate environments, are intrinsically hostile to inquiry. These are places where meetings are run with semi-parliamentary rules-- just pro-forma affairs to mark project transitions.
In such situations, it may be that the others know better than you do and thus STFU or else be silently, immediately, and permanently dismissed for future consideration by those who call the shots.