Way easier to understand in Japan because of how it is delivered (body language, lived there for years).
Americans can sometimes deliver a yes/no with a non confrontal, energetic go getter smile which makes it very puzzling to outsiders. To believe an American I really have to look for commitment details delivered unprompted, otherwise it’s just hot air. Very anecdotal data because I haven’t been there much though.
Yes, a well-engineered font should handle the interaction better -- probably the easiest approach would be to ensure that case-substitution subtables are ordered ahead of ligature subtables.
(Though as cobertos noted, the author could have worked around the font issue by more careful use of font variant properties in their CSS.)
Depends a bit on your definition of a sentence, but "no" is only an interjection. The sentence lacks a verb and a subject, so some might not consider it complete. In case of a yes/no question, the rest of the sentence can be thought elided, which would make it complete.
It entirely depends on who you're talking to if they are entitled to grace and style.
Although I would like to think that I treat everyone with grace and style. If I'm polite with my "no", and it still doesn't work and the person isn't entitled to grace and style then I make it very clear and abrupt. "I said no, do you understand what that means?"
When the other fills in the void of an awkward pause, it tends to be to try to further convince you to say yes, which can be really annoying. I usually just say sorry, no by default, then I can change mind after if necessary.
Not related to the post content itself, but I really like this blog’s theme. It makes me prefer reading the actual page instead of the “reader mode” from my browser.
In academia, it’s almost impossible to say “no” to a senior faculty. I’ve had situations where a coauthor requested something that was just infeasible, but pushing back against that made them not trust me with future projects because they thought I was justifying my incompetence, whereas they were the ones who wouldn’t even listen to my detailed reasoning.
This environment forces you to just give them the results that they like to see, even if the results are not scientifically accurate. It’s as if the goal is not to do science, but to publish and tell an interesting story in your papers.
You might say: “well, just ignore them and do your own thing”, but unfortunately in academia so much depends on how people like you. Without good recommendation letters, citations, and networking, you can’t really go far in your academic career. I’ve seen people who couldn’t get their tenure after several years because of this.
It makes me sad but unfortunately this is the truth I discovered only recently. Had I had known about it, I’d stick to industry jobs.
I can remind myself that almost no one will ever read academic papers in my field, but at the end of the day, I’m still struggling with this dilemma: do the right and scientific thing and ruin my future in academia, or do what my peers are doing and make senior faculty like me.
Trust me, I've thought about it for long. Unfortunately, the main obstacle is visa issues. I've heard stories about international PhD students who left academia to work in the industry, only to be treated like slaves because the employer knew the person couldn't just switch jobs while on H1B visa (no other company would hire them). Then there's the greencard issues (easier to get approved if you're an academic).
Having joyfully never dealt with any form of "academia" I am still morbidly curious about what it's all about and these cryptic warnings about it from its victims. Why can't it just be a place where people learn and research and support each other? Actual question, not rhetorical.
It has to do with how resources are allocated (both human and financial resources).
It creates a very unhealthy environment where relationships and who has your back or not has more influence than the actual work you are able to deliver.
That's a bit too cynic. It's a good rule of thumb, but people shouldn't take it as 100% true.
I personally have left academia, mostly for personal reasons before I could really know for certain whether I would have made it or not, and I know some very competent people who stayed and managed to get good positions without having to compromise who they are.
I think the problems start when you're competent but not competent enough, and your ambitions don't align with how competent you are. That may sound harsh, but I think it's true (with admittedly some variance depending on the exact field you're in).
> In academia, it’s almost impossible to say “no” to a senior faculty.
That is so strange. In the corporate world it is always easy and straightforward to say no to higher ups. They always accept a no gracefully.
/S
In my experience, the best organization are the ones that are willing to get bottom up feedback. The more feedback is accepted and acted upon, the best is the organization. None gets it 100%, most are just half good at it.
> do the right and scientific thing and ruin my future in academia, or do what my peers are doing and make senior faculty like me.
Look for a middle ground. Do not make things worse if you cannot make them better. You will get small wins and wins will become bigger with time. And remember how it felt so you do not repeat the same behavior when you are at the top.
Sometimes, there are reason why things are like they are. Try to change the system instead of change people.
> That is so strange. In the corporate world it is always easy and straightforward to say no to higher ups. They always accept a no gracefully. /S
I know, the grass is always greener on the other side.
> Look for a middle ground. Do not make things worse if you cannot make them better. You will get small wins and wins will become bigger with time. And remember how it felt so you do not repeat the same behavior when you are at the top.
This is what I'm currently trying to do. Unsurprisingly, it takes more effort (time and energy) to solve this problem given constraints (the constraints being: make advisor happy + find a middle ground). It'd be much easier if the constraints were not there, or if I could just drop the second constraint.
Would it be useful to voice your dilemma to your advisor? Something like:
When I hear your request, I am hearing you ask me to fudge the numbers so that this experiment has a more desirable outcome. Is that really what you want me to do? If not can you help me understand how to achieve what you are asking?
Also even if you can’t ask your advisor, maybe there is someone else with authority you could ask
It's definitely easier to say no in a corporate setting. You have way more options than someone in academia. It's really hard to transfer and your higher ups control pretty much everything.
I had a short stint in academia, and it is much easier to say no even in worst company compared to average professor. The problem is not even that the people are bad but in the setting itself, it is that there is no clear data to see the direction in which to put effort in acedemia and in IT jobs at least you could argue with clearer points for why something can't be done in some way, or why developing something would interfere with some other thing.
When two people are arguing with just opinions, the senior person assumes their choice is valid. At least for me, this was frustrating as I felt my opinions are not given any respect.
“It’s as if the goal is not to do science, but to publish and tell an interesting story in your papers.”
Yup, it is the result of the profit motive. I think thanks to the Internet there has become a lot LESS respect for all kinds of views. Every blogger who has comments below can receive pushback. It wasn’t the case when people were simply publishing books with references.
I have taken advantage of this to some extent by interviewing some of the top people in what I am interested in. “Freedom of association”. I didnt even bother posting the videos as public, they are often unlisted.
Tim Berners-Lee
Noam Chomsky
Inventor of Freenet
Grandson of Milton Friedman
The author of Regulation S
Richard Heart from Hex
And so forth. A random assortment of people. Also people building new movements:
Andrew Yang
Tulsi Gabbard
Brock Pierce
Ben Swann
In general, I think people trust institutions less now, including scientists. Look at RFK Jr on Joe Rogan challenging the prevailin establishment on the coronavirus, etc.
As a rule, on the industry you are not pushed out of the entire industry if your superior dislikes you. Instead, you get a career bump; surely with long-term consequences, but your career is not killed right there.
Academia nowadays is a hyper-competitive hellhole.
> In my experience, the best organization are the ones that are willing to get bottom up feedback.
Yes, and those are distributed about equally everywhere. What changes is the impact of the bad ones.
Anyway, a clear sign you are in one of the good places is that people don't keep asking you "yes/no" questions.
My career has been seriously hampered by quitting a particular project early in my PhD. That project was intractable as far as I'm concerned. My PhD supervisor never treated me the same after quitting that project. I had to get advice from a third-party in my department to get my PhD supervisor to agree to let me graduate. My PhD supervisor refuses to provide me a reference now.
I wasn't able to get a research job immediately after my PhD, and worked as an underpaid bureaucrat (not doing research) for about 2 years before starting my current government contractor research position. My job security is comparable to that of a postdoc and I have worse benefits than most postdocs, but I am paid better.
I recently applied to a job at a national lab, and I could tell that the interviewer was alarmed when I said that my PhD supervisor refuses to provide me a reference.
The important difference between academia/research and non-research industry is that while saying no can jeopardize your current job in both cases, in academia/research saying no is far more likely to jeopardize your future jobs due to the heavy reliance on detailed reference checks.
publish or perish, lifelong grudges from irreplaceable never-wrong superiors looking to further their own Erdős numbers.
unpaid peer reviews that then become paywalled. rent-seeking from public libraries / community colleges via bundling.
data "science" aimed at producing a predefined conclusion. e.g. corporate research grants. p-hacking, dismissal/omission of inconvenient results that dont fit a narrative.
the adage "people don't leave companies, they leave managers" is simply not a thing that can happen without risking your entire carreer.
From my PhD supervisor's perspective, he holds no grudges against me. He's simply believes that I'm unreliable. (Or something like that. He never clearly told me what his problem with me was.) I freely admit that I've made mistakes. Frankly, quitting my first PhD project was hard on me and I wasn't productive for a while after that. But I did eventually improve and he never noticed! He seemed to ignore anything good I did and focus on the (inevitable) things that didn't work.
In retrospect, it would have been better for me to switch PhD supervisors or quit academia entirely.
The problem is with the structure of academia in my view. Disagreements are inevitable, but don't make someone unemployable because of them.
The last time I spoke to him, I stated something along the lines of "I know that you have some problems with me". My goal was to see what could be done to reconcile with him. He explicitly denied having any problems with me. I was applying for jobs at the time and needed references from him, and after this conversation he stopped replying to those requests. His behavior doesn't make sense if he really doesn't have any problems with me.
This is the unfortunate endgame of any system that depends on political promotion instead of 100% merit based advancement. My experience in the corporate world has shown me that a "skillpoint" in self-promotion is worth several more orders of magnitude than a point in actual skill. Perhaps this reflects actual value to companies as company-scale self-promotion seems to be what boards, seed stage investors, and other shareholders value lately more than long term company benefit to society.
Humans have made incredible advancements in our understanding of the universe, yet we still have a starkly incompetent understanding of how to measure who is fit to hold power.
Not entirely the case. Pump and dump schemes where seed stage investors sell to unassuming retail buyers in an IPO might be "companies going under", but if the free market rewards the creators of those schemes in premarket valuation etc, that behavior will proliferate instead of decline as society advances without putting them in check.
Look at the flood of SPACs that have declined 90%+ over the past few years after their IPO. Just because something is illegal, like speeding on a highway, doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day.
"What should I deprioritize?" I've known a couple supervisors who hate this response, effectively responding in turn "nothing!" (Fortunately I did not work for them myself, just heard them complain about it.)
that was my immediate reaction to reading that also. It's easy for the person to say nothing and then what? You haven't got much out of that exchange at all. Now you still have to say no, which was the original problem that you tried to side-step.
Well, this depends. If you were saying no because you honestly believe that you cannot accommodate your manager's (or whatever) request into your current schedule/plan/loading, then you probably want to take the time to get in writing a new plan that exactly articulates what your manager believes your old plan and priorities were, and what your new plan and priorities are. You are now trying to solve a planning and communication problem.
If you were just saying no because you didn't -want- to do it. Well, then your manager is calling your bluff, and ya, you need to find another way to wiggle out of it. Tough luck.
A useful variation is: "Where does this fit in the order of priorities? Would you put it above <most important pending task> or <most urgent pending task>?". If neither, you have some time to figure it out later, after you complete your ongoing task(s).
> Saying no to a senior leader at work is almost unthinkable, even laughable, for many people. However, when saying yes is going to compromise your ability to make the highest level of contribution to your work, it is also your obligation.
What kind of world do the people who write this stuff live in?
Agreed. Not the world I live in. My default answer to almost every request from anyone for my extremely limited time is no. Maybe this is cultural or something.
For that kind of manager, just employ their other brilliant strategy: a long awkward silence. And make sure to keep eye contact throughout. It will go much better!
the response is: list out your priorities and the impact of not doing them long with a recommendation of moving forward
... isn't that YOUR job? This especially sucks when it happens regularly and it means you're not spending any time on the prioritized work, just working on setting priorities.
I feel for you. A manager should probably be better on-top of those things. But this response means you're probably working with an earnest, but perhaps not fully up to level manager, instead of someone who just doesn't give a shit about how you're getting screwed.
Many times, to me it just works to say "yes" and just not do it. Managers ask for so many things, and change priorities so often (cancelling the previous things they asked), that they don't really make a difference.
So if I agree, I say "yes" and I do it. If I disagree, I say "yes" and I don't do it. Usually, when I disagree, that's because it is not as important as they think, and therefore they don't have to come ask a second time: they just forget about it.
Absolutely. I've asked this in the past a little differently: "which one do you want me to prioritize first?", only to be left with "both", or "all of them are top priority", effectively wiping their hands clean of the situation, meaning I'd be the one at fault if I couldn't deliver.
> We try not to delete entire account histories because that would gut the threads the account had participated in. However, we care about protecting individual users and take care of privacy requests every day, so if we can help, please email hn@ycombinator.com. We don't want anyone to get in trouble from anything they posted to HN. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23623799
These are all fairly obvious sadly. And as such are lacking in style, and grace is much harder with angry people who know what is up.
These days when I say I need to check my calendar people are instantly disappointed, everyone knows it’s beyond full.
And I can memorably remember being screamed at extensively (by a higher up outside of my chain) in a meeting 20 years ago, for asking what needed to be deprioritized.
I mean I use these all, but if people are going to be emotional about a no, they will see right through these, and you will have the same problems.
> And I can memorably remember being screamed at extensively (by a higher up outside of my chain) in a meeting 20 years ago, for asking what needed to be deprioritized.
I think the list assumes you aren't being abused :( Screaming at a subordinate like that is abuse, full stop. If that's what one is dealing with, nothing on this list is going to help. I had a similar experience, in about the same era, and nothing on this list would have helped me, either.
But it's still good advice! Some people just don't know how to say no, and it's tough watching them bury themselves with stress handling tasks that could have been deflected with no loss to the company, or even the one who asked.
You would think. But while it’s not common, in my experience, it does happen. I recall one job I had in a startup where the CTO was a screamer; he’d literally storm around the programming pit shouting at everyone when he was in a mood.
I was told in my last job that apparently the tech department was really sensitive because they didn't like being screamed at, for the rest of the company it was totally normal. I honestly don't get it, how can anyone do reasonable work in an environment where getting screamed at because the boss had a bad day is normal.
I'm not saying this is you, but many people explain too much. Either the explanation ends up being lies to weasel out of something, or it's unnecessarily long explanation that the other person doesn't want to hear.
I prefer to both give and hear a simple no.
People who seek explanations aren't always entitled to them (i.e. they're not your boss). Some people feel rude not giving explanations when asked. I feel people are rude for expecting me to give an explanation when I've said no.
Last time I gave an explanation, it was to someone who thought he was my "boss"... Instead of telling him no, i told him why he had no reason to tell me what to do... I probably should have told him no or fuck you like you suggested
I had big cultural shock when I came to Canada just because of that. You talk to a person (especially in business environment) and you have no fucking idea what are they saying. Dealing with muricans was a breath of fresh air. They mean what they say and if they say something it is as good as on paper (at least this was my experience). It is my impression that in Canada many are pathologically incapable of giving straight answers (there are pleasant exceptions here and there).
I was told many times that I am "too direct". Well for some reason I prefer it this way and refuse to bend. Maybe it hurt me few times but I think it had also paid back.
I'm wondering if there are any advantages to having a culture of indirectness, where instead of "no" you say something like "That would be very difficult" or some other code language for "no".
Thus far, I've only been able to see downsides to not being direct in communication.
If they're being weasely with you it's probably to avoid giving offence. A lot of people don't react well to "You have no idea what you're talking about, please be quiet while the rest of us discuss what needs to happen." or similar, so instead some platitudes get mentioned and the topics move on.
Nope. Nothing of that nature. If "I have no idea" what I am talking about I freely admit to it and do not mind asking an explanation. It was mostly business dealing with various subcontractors including factories.
Q. Can you make this and that by 11 xteenth? And how much
A. Eh, meh followed by the story of their life.
Q. Ok let's try the other way. Give me a terms you are comfortable with
A. Blah, blah, blah ... Yap, yap, yap ... No real answer
Finally found somebody from whom I was able to extract X pesos Y months. Deposited retainer. Y month passed
Q. A we ready.
A. Oh this part did not come. That material is not available.
Q. Why the fuck did not you say so before? You have assured me that there will be no hold ups of that nature.
A. Blah, blah, blah ... Yap, yap, yap ... No real answer
Sounds like you're used to having slick conmen give you assurances that they're expecting to break. There's a lot of stuff I wouldn't be happy to commit to as you're asking for it. I could give estimates or forecasts, but the real world is messy and it isn't worth my time to give hard committments.
>"...and it isn't worth my time to give hard committments."
When they say it is 3 month and 150K and may take a month or 2 of delay it is one thing and I am ok with such offer. But when it then becomes half a year and more and $200k and I am late for a season that messes with one's business. And this is why later on I found few people who knew what they're doing and were not fooling around and all my money went their direction (and I also sent them many clients).
Of course, there is a cultural bias to be recognized as well. In the country I currently live in, I notice that it is way more common to give a blunt "no" to some request than it would be in the states, where we would (at least on the surface) try to be more accommodating. Even if we don't want to say yes :)
> “The difference between successful people and very successful people is that very successful people say ‘no’ to almost everything.”
Which is false if you're not a decider to begin with. Otherwise, saying “no” to almost everything lands you somewhere between ‘uncooperative’ and ‘insubordination’. The majority of people are not the target audience for this article.
Exactly. This is like saying the difference between sick and healthy people is that healthy people almost never go to a hospital. It's true, but saying no to almost everything is more useful as a way of recognizing a very successful person than becoming one.
I have no clue who the target audience is for this article...
The "advice" ranges from saying no to coffee to saying no to your boss. Then the advice on "checking my calendar"...uh if I'm your boss, I would have checked your calendar already and see where you have timeslots.
Article seems like the author asked ChatGPT for ways to say no and then added their examples to shoehorn to one article.
Saying ‘no’ to almost everything is the difference between successful people and very successful people. It’s not the difference between very successful people and unsuccessful people.
That's just saying "beggars can't be choosers" in a way that flatters the powerful. If you're "successful" and need Warren Buffet to tell you that, you might as well let it be.
The quote misses scale. I have no doubt that successful people say no more often. However, they also say yes more often.
It’s kind of like saying a successful race car driver uses the breaks more than the average driver. It’s meaningless because the nature of racing means your either at full they or full braking.
Agree, the context of this quote was investing. There are unfathomable amounts of ideas out there, so the best investors say “no” to 99.999%. This doesn’t apply to a career, where in 99.999% of cases, the “yes” person gets the promotion.
I have found that "No problem, which of your projects may I put on hold for that?" is a pretty effective way of saying "No".
Doubly useful, because if they actually want it enough to have it done anyway, they will free up the time required for it by themselves. The important thing here is to memorize another phrase: "Certainly. Could you send me a quick email about that reprioritization?"
Which is just a very graceful and stylish way of saying: "Can I have that in writing?"
And if you have to deal with someone who can't be bothered to write an email for you, you can just agree verbally and send them a summary email afterwards. Either they respond or they accept the summary implicitly.
Maybe we have different goals, but if you want to grow in your career this is terrible advice. I get it, we can’t do everything, but surely there’s something you can put to the side.
I’ve found the opposite FWIW - in many orgs you get rewarded for getting stuff built, and a powerful tool for that is to show product and upper management the tradeoffs of their requests, to counter scope creep. “I can move the team off what they are doing to accommodate this request, but we will need to deprioritise <thing you asked for last week> if we want to stay on schedule”
I am not putting anything aside. My employer is. My time is a resource my employer has at his disposal. He pays me and in exchange gets to decide how he wants to allocate my time.
My job includes giving realistic estimates on how long things take to accomplish. When asked to do something that I know cannot be done due to resource and time constraints, I's my duty to tell my employer as much, so he can make a strategic decision.
Do people not understand that tactic, or don't they want to understand it? Perhaps it's a bit of both, but it is not a sure-fire way of denying a request.
About 80% of these are pretty cowardly and the others overly verbose. Saying “sure I’ll meet you later this year” is not saying no. It is either lying or just a yes. Ignoring people with bounces is also lying and cowardly. Just say no.
The one with the priorities is too long and vague. It is also known as “yes, and” as in “yes and which thing should I not do?” Much more to the point.
People will respect you more if you literally say “no”. If you start saying things like “I can’t right now because …” that just invites people to do problem solving like “ok so what if I write the blog post, then can you do the job interview?”.
A more direct variation is “no. I can explain to you why if you want”. Then the answer is clear and it signals there is no room for negotiation. That is a real no.
Yes they are mostly weasel ways of saying No. But humans are strange irrational creatures and for some reason even when you know what the other is doing it's still better to hear I would love to help you but.. phrase.
I've tried the downright No after getting advice it's just better to say No directly, and I can tell you from experience that there is no better way to burn bridges and get people to dislike you when you do that. People seldom respect you for doing that. I think it's some strange disconnect from the theoretical and practical.
> I can tell you from experience that there is no better way to burn bridges and get people to dislike you when you do that.
Agreed, with the caveat that I’ve almost always not regretted letting the bridge burn, because I dislike them for not being able to handle a simple but polite “no” as much as they dislike me for offering it.
> About 80% of these are pretty cowardly and the others overly verbose. Saying “sure I’ll meet you later this year” is not saying no.
Only if you really mean "no" but are lying and saying that to be polite. Most of these aren't really about how to phrase "no", but how to think about prioritization and scheduling and in many cases "yes, but" or "no, but" are more appropriate than unconditional yes or no.
137 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadA problem ignored is a problem solved.
Obviously, you've never been to Japan.
Americans can sometimes deliver a yes/no with a non confrontal, energetic go getter smile which makes it very puzzling to outsiders. To believe an American I really have to look for commitment details delivered unprompted, otherwise it’s just hot air. Very anecdotal data because I haven’t been there much though.
EDIT: Ahh, it looks like it uses a font-variant: all-small-caps without setting font-ligatures: none
Nice find. I'm guessing it's a bug in the font?
(Though as cobertos noted, the author could have worked around the font issue by more careful use of font variant properties in their CSS.)
It is, however, perfectly clear.
Although I would like to think that I treat everyone with grace and style. If I'm polite with my "no", and it still doesn't work and the person isn't entitled to grace and style then I make it very clear and abrupt. "I said no, do you understand what that means?"
“Let me get back to you on that.”
I just learned a new thing, can't wait for the opportunity to use it in real life.
This environment forces you to just give them the results that they like to see, even if the results are not scientifically accurate. It’s as if the goal is not to do science, but to publish and tell an interesting story in your papers.
You might say: “well, just ignore them and do your own thing”, but unfortunately in academia so much depends on how people like you. Without good recommendation letters, citations, and networking, you can’t really go far in your academic career. I’ve seen people who couldn’t get their tenure after several years because of this.
It makes me sad but unfortunately this is the truth I discovered only recently. Had I had known about it, I’d stick to industry jobs.
I can remind myself that almost no one will ever read academic papers in my field, but at the end of the day, I’m still struggling with this dilemma: do the right and scientific thing and ruin my future in academia, or do what my peers are doing and make senior faculty like me.
Society is better off with good people in academia, but an individual is better off out.
It is - for tenured professors at good schools. But getting to that point is intensely competitive, and the vast majority of people don't make it.
I personally have left academia, mostly for personal reasons before I could really know for certain whether I would have made it or not, and I know some very competent people who stayed and managed to get good positions without having to compromise who they are.
I think the problems start when you're competent but not competent enough, and your ambitions don't align with how competent you are. That may sound harsh, but I think it's true (with admittedly some variance depending on the exact field you're in).
That is so strange. In the corporate world it is always easy and straightforward to say no to higher ups. They always accept a no gracefully. /S
In my experience, the best organization are the ones that are willing to get bottom up feedback. The more feedback is accepted and acted upon, the best is the organization. None gets it 100%, most are just half good at it.
> do the right and scientific thing and ruin my future in academia, or do what my peers are doing and make senior faculty like me.
Look for a middle ground. Do not make things worse if you cannot make them better. You will get small wins and wins will become bigger with time. And remember how it felt so you do not repeat the same behavior when you are at the top.
Sometimes, there are reason why things are like they are. Try to change the system instead of change people.
I know, the grass is always greener on the other side.
> Look for a middle ground. Do not make things worse if you cannot make them better. You will get small wins and wins will become bigger with time. And remember how it felt so you do not repeat the same behavior when you are at the top.
This is what I'm currently trying to do. Unsurprisingly, it takes more effort (time and energy) to solve this problem given constraints (the constraints being: make advisor happy + find a middle ground). It'd be much easier if the constraints were not there, or if I could just drop the second constraint.
When I hear your request, I am hearing you ask me to fudge the numbers so that this experiment has a more desirable outcome. Is that really what you want me to do? If not can you help me understand how to achieve what you are asking?
Also even if you can’t ask your advisor, maybe there is someone else with authority you could ask
When two people are arguing with just opinions, the senior person assumes their choice is valid. At least for me, this was frustrating as I felt my opinions are not given any respect.
Yup, it is the result of the profit motive. I think thanks to the Internet there has become a lot LESS respect for all kinds of views. Every blogger who has comments below can receive pushback. It wasn’t the case when people were simply publishing books with references.
I have taken advantage of this to some extent by interviewing some of the top people in what I am interested in. “Freedom of association”. I didnt even bother posting the videos as public, they are often unlisted.
Tim Berners-Lee
Noam Chomsky
Inventor of Freenet
Grandson of Milton Friedman
The author of Regulation S
Richard Heart from Hex
And so forth. A random assortment of people. Also people building new movements:
Andrew Yang
Tulsi Gabbard
Brock Pierce
Ben Swann
In general, I think people trust institutions less now, including scientists. Look at RFK Jr on Joe Rogan challenging the prevailin establishment on the coronavirus, etc.
Academia nowadays is a hyper-competitive hellhole.
> In my experience, the best organization are the ones that are willing to get bottom up feedback.
Yes, and those are distributed about equally everywhere. What changes is the impact of the bad ones.
Anyway, a clear sign you are in one of the good places is that people don't keep asking you "yes/no" questions.
My career has been seriously hampered by quitting a particular project early in my PhD. That project was intractable as far as I'm concerned. My PhD supervisor never treated me the same after quitting that project. I had to get advice from a third-party in my department to get my PhD supervisor to agree to let me graduate. My PhD supervisor refuses to provide me a reference now.
I wasn't able to get a research job immediately after my PhD, and worked as an underpaid bureaucrat (not doing research) for about 2 years before starting my current government contractor research position. My job security is comparable to that of a postdoc and I have worse benefits than most postdocs, but I am paid better.
I recently applied to a job at a national lab, and I could tell that the interviewer was alarmed when I said that my PhD supervisor refuses to provide me a reference.
The important difference between academia/research and non-research industry is that while saying no can jeopardize your current job in both cases, in academia/research saying no is far more likely to jeopardize your future jobs due to the heavy reliance on detailed reference checks.
publish or perish, lifelong grudges from irreplaceable never-wrong superiors looking to further their own Erdős numbers.
unpaid peer reviews that then become paywalled. rent-seeking from public libraries / community colleges via bundling.
data "science" aimed at producing a predefined conclusion. e.g. corporate research grants. p-hacking, dismissal/omission of inconvenient results that dont fit a narrative.
the adage "people don't leave companies, they leave managers" is simply not a thing that can happen without risking your entire carreer.
In retrospect, it would have been better for me to switch PhD supervisors or quit academia entirely.
The problem is with the structure of academia in my view. Disagreements are inevitable, but don't make someone unemployable because of them.
Have you asked him?
Humans have made incredible advancements in our understanding of the universe, yet we still have a starkly incompetent understanding of how to measure who is fit to hold power.
Hang up on yourself.
Right in the middle of a sentence.
They’ll assume your battery died or that you lost service… because who hangs up on themselves?
Then, at least you know that you are dealing with a jerk.
If you were just saying no because you didn't -want- to do it. Well, then your manager is calling your bluff, and ya, you need to find another way to wiggle out of it. Tough luck.
What kind of world do the people who write this stuff live in?
Of course this is ridiculous. When everything has the highest priority, there's no priority between the tasks.
The solution? Use my judgment and ignore the marked priority. The boss was going to be an ass either way.
the response is: list out your priorities and the impact of not doing them long with a recommendation of moving forward
... isn't that YOUR job? This especially sucks when it happens regularly and it means you're not spending any time on the prioritized work, just working on setting priorities.
So if I agree, I say "yes" and I do it. If I disagree, I say "yes" and I don't do it. Usually, when I disagree, that's because it is not as important as they think, and therefore they don't have to come ask a second time: they just forget about it.
> Can I delete my account?
>
> We try not to delete entire account histories because that would gut the threads the account had participated in. However, we care about protecting individual users and take care of privacy requests every day, so if we can help, please email hn@ycombinator.com. We don't want anyone to get in trouble from anything they posted to HN. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23623799
It wouldn't if it just gutted the data and replaced the username with a generic string. This feels very "perfect being the enemy of good" teritory.
Of course if HN was based in the EU this would have to have been solved by now.
These days when I say I need to check my calendar people are instantly disappointed, everyone knows it’s beyond full.
And I can memorably remember being screamed at extensively (by a higher up outside of my chain) in a meeting 20 years ago, for asking what needed to be deprioritized.
I mean I use these all, but if people are going to be emotional about a no, they will see right through these, and you will have the same problems.
I think the list assumes you aren't being abused :( Screaming at a subordinate like that is abuse, full stop. If that's what one is dealing with, nothing on this list is going to help. I had a similar experience, in about the same era, and nothing on this list would have helped me, either.
But it's still good advice! Some people just don't know how to say no, and it's tough watching them bury themselves with stress handling tasks that could have been deflected with no loss to the company, or even the one who asked.
I prefer to both give and hear a simple no.
People who seek explanations aren't always entitled to them (i.e. they're not your boss). Some people feel rude not giving explanations when asked. I feel people are rude for expecting me to give an explanation when I've said no.
As for personal commitments (or “yes”) find it easier to say “let me think on it” or “that’s a great idea. Let me get back to you.”
Life is busy and it’s hard to commit in the moment anyway amongst whatever your existing commitments are.
Which is by far not the norm with managers I've had.
I was told many times that I am "too direct". Well for some reason I prefer it this way and refuse to bend. Maybe it hurt me few times but I think it had also paid back.
Thus far, I've only been able to see downsides to not being direct in communication.
Q. Can you make this and that by 11 xteenth? And how much
A. Eh, meh followed by the story of their life.
Q. Ok let's try the other way. Give me a terms you are comfortable with
A. Blah, blah, blah ... Yap, yap, yap ... No real answer
Finally found somebody from whom I was able to extract X pesos Y months. Deposited retainer. Y month passed
Q. A we ready.
A. Oh this part did not come. That material is not available.
Q. Why the fuck did not you say so before? You have assured me that there will be no hold ups of that nature.
A. Blah, blah, blah ... Yap, yap, yap ... No real answer
When they say it is 3 month and 150K and may take a month or 2 of delay it is one thing and I am ok with such offer. But when it then becomes half a year and more and $200k and I am late for a season that messes with one's business. And this is why later on I found few people who knew what they're doing and were not fooling around and all my money went their direction (and I also sent them many clients).
Which is false if you're not a decider to begin with. Otherwise, saying “no” to almost everything lands you somewhere between ‘uncooperative’ and ‘insubordination’. The majority of people are not the target audience for this article.
The "advice" ranges from saying no to coffee to saying no to your boss. Then the advice on "checking my calendar"...uh if I'm your boss, I would have checked your calendar already and see where you have timeslots.
Article seems like the author asked ChatGPT for ways to say no and then added their examples to shoehorn to one article.
It’s kind of like saying a successful race car driver uses the breaks more than the average driver. It’s meaningless because the nature of racing means your either at full they or full braking.
Doubly useful, because if they actually want it enough to have it done anyway, they will free up the time required for it by themselves. The important thing here is to memorize another phrase: "Certainly. Could you send me a quick email about that reprioritization?"
Which is just a very graceful and stylish way of saying: "Can I have that in writing?"
My job includes giving realistic estimates on how long things take to accomplish. When asked to do something that I know cannot be done due to resource and time constraints, I's my duty to tell my employer as much, so he can make a strategic decision.
And in my experience, employers value that input.
The one with the priorities is too long and vague. It is also known as “yes, and” as in “yes and which thing should I not do?” Much more to the point.
People will respect you more if you literally say “no”. If you start saying things like “I can’t right now because …” that just invites people to do problem solving like “ok so what if I write the blog post, then can you do the job interview?”.
A more direct variation is “no. I can explain to you why if you want”. Then the answer is clear and it signals there is no room for negotiation. That is a real no.
Or just “no”
I've tried the downright No after getting advice it's just better to say No directly, and I can tell you from experience that there is no better way to burn bridges and get people to dislike you when you do that. People seldom respect you for doing that. I think it's some strange disconnect from the theoretical and practical.
Agreed, with the caveat that I’ve almost always not regretted letting the bridge burn, because I dislike them for not being able to handle a simple but polite “no” as much as they dislike me for offering it.
Only if you really mean "no" but are lying and saying that to be polite. Most of these aren't really about how to phrase "no", but how to think about prioritization and scheduling and in many cases "yes, but" or "no, but" are more appropriate than unconditional yes or no.
The article is telling you to lead people to believe you'll say yes - and when you ultimately never do - they'll hate you more for it.
Or, you're simply creating more work on yourself because you're having to constantly come up with yet another excuse to kick the can down the road.
If the answer is "no", just say no.
People will appreciate it more than above because you're respecting them and their time.