Corporate and professional dynamics often make it to the front page because it's important to many technical workers and hackers who have to make a living. This is a topic that's important to many women in tech, as they are often dictated how to present in a way that's unnatural to them in order to be more "professional" (read tfa).
This is important to many readers of hacker news, as not everybody who is a hacker is a man (I am a woman who is also a hacker, for example, and I use a lot of exclamation marks in my writing, so, I found it interesting that this is noted by someone else, so I'm personally glad it's on the front page).
I'm assuming you're asking genuinely, so this is a genuine attempt to explain :)
I'm split on that, as it made me check the README I'm rewriting, and compare it to the previous version. After noticing an increase in the amount of exclamation points and enthusiasm, I think I may decide to rewrite it again, to cut down on the enthusiasm.
Besides being an obvious waste of time, why should tech be boring?
I don't want it boring! I want my vim and my xterm to be cute!
As an ESL, my opinions in exclamation points are “shrug”. But here’s something about tone that grinds my gears: Why is clear writing considered aggressive?
I often find it nearly impossible to understand coworkers because they couch everything in layers of fluff. Seemingly to avoid coming across as aggressive.
Especially when giving feedback. Please just tell me what’s wrong so I can fix it.
Skill issue. What you intend as "clear" has an aggressive tone.
It may be related to power differentials: when talking to peers or superiors people tend to use more deferential and roundabout phrasing. When talking to an underling, communication can be much more terse.
> Skill issue. What you intend as "clear" has an aggressive tone.
That's one of the things I find weird about English. Just saying what you want in a straightforward way is considered "rude" or "aggressive", and you have to add tons of those bullshit expressions like "please", "would you mind", typically at least two or three of them in a single sentence. What a waste of time....
So maybe it is just overly flowery language in general? How would you like to word that?
- Tomorrow.
- I'll give examples tomorrow.
- I have good examples to give you tomorrow.
...Do you find the "extra" language is equally required in speech and text? I also wonder if there is a certain conservation of syllables across languages, maybe related to how fast our brains can process speech? And in some languages the syllables are needed for comprehension, and in other language there are "filler" words?
Your quote is one already; instead of saying "Give me an example or two", you don't even ask, you instead posit a problem, a thing you would like, without asking anyone in specific. It's indirect communication, and sometimes people get upset if their indirect question or their positing of a problem isn't responded with a "Here you go!".
If you want something, go and find it. If you want someone else to provide it for you, ask. Or tell. But don't posit a problem and expect someone to fix it for you.
It's interesting for me to have this pointed out. I've read posts from English speakers trying to learn Japanese complain about Japanese culture being very indirect and subtle, but the same complaint can be applied to our own culture.
As a teenager, I stayed in Spain for a month living with a host couple, and I remember the wife telling me that I said "por favor" too much (like asking "could you please pass the salt?" at dinner) asked for things too much, and generally acted overly polite. For example, it's apparently more common in Spain to order food at restaurants like "Give me a coffee (please)" and not "I would like a coffee, please". All this was in Spanish; I'm just translating what we said into English.
But in sentences like: “Could you hand me that, please?” The word “please” seems redundant, “could you” already does the job of asking nicely. That is, from my perspective as someone speaking English as a second language.
In that case, it does not materially change the content but it does change the tone to indicate you would appreciate them responding in the affirmative . Adding a “please” to a request also doesn’t make it harder to understand.
You do have a point, though. Passive voice can be a lot more wordy / harder to parse, but people often use it to be more polite sounding.
Eh, language is complex. Maybe some people read too much into the absence of a please, but in English, imperatives are in fact intrinsically rude most of the time. If I say, "open the window", that's rude in 9 out of 10 contexts, as opposed to "could you open the window?"
That said, I have absolutely seen people be excessively polite in a way that comes off as non-genuine, but they are always ESLs. I assume they just have a hard time seeing the line, so they try to play it safe.
> That said, I have absolutely seen people be excessively polite in a way that comes off as non-genuine, but they are always ESLs. I assume they just have a hard time seeing the line, so they try to play it safe.
I wonder if on a subconscious level people give me the too-aggressive feedback for the same reason women get that feedback: I’m an immigrant and acting too much like an equal.
Both my sibling and I experienced the same in the US corporate culture. Even non-confrontational phrases have to be wrapped in multiple layers of please / perhaps / would you kindly to not be considered "rude".
From what I heard, this "corp-politeness" is somewhat of a meme in foreign software developer teams and is often mocked.
I guess it’s sort of game theoretical - making you sift through extra words has a lower downside than somebody else in the company thinking I’m being curt and aggressive with them, thus it’s safer to add the ‘corp-politeness’
It seems overly simplistic to boil this down to sexism. You're really going to tell me that I'm sexist because I think emailing a paying customer with multiple sentences ending in multiple exclamation marks comes off as unprofessional? I should be able to have an opinion about messaging and tone without involving that person's gender.
Not the OP, but seems like the typical used-car sales pitch, where they yell at you to pay attention. If what they had was so great, they wouldn't have to yell. But since these are used cars, not materially different from other used cars, they try to differentiate themselves by volume instead of value.
I think Apple could put out an 15 second ad, with just a black background, where in the first second a white Apple logo fades in. And then a several seconds later, a date fades in below the logo. Maybe a soft ocean sound in the background. And people would be eagerly awaiting whatever mystery launch is happening. (Or maybe Apple (or someone else) already has run an ad like this?)
Playing on that theme some more, exclamation points seem like a fake signal of importance. As in, I didn't bother to take the time to make my message interesting or useful, so I'll add this punctuation at the end to try to trick you into believing it is worthy of your time. But of course you didn't trick them, they just now start to dismiss you.
Also, I could see similarities between exclamation use and swearing. Some people swear all the time, so it means essentially nothing. "I like fucking butter on my toast." So they don't have that option to escalate their language in the future. Whereas a person whose previous last use of the f-word was 20 years when they lost their leg in a traffic accident, now says "We need to get this fucking situation sorted out by Friday" gets some extra gravitas.
Because it is. You are not communicating very well if you need to use multiple exclamation points. "...after a word group or sentence in order to emphasize a point or to express strong emotion or surprise"
Just how many points are you trying to emphasize? Unless it is an ad, multiple exclamation points look awkward and amateurish.
Taking it beyond the sexism angle, exclamation points are like the pumped up macho guy in a mafia movie, yelling and threatening with puffed up gestures and poses. But he has very limited power. The real authority lies with the withered 80 year old godfather; he doesn't even need to speak. An unchanging facial expression, a small, almost imperceptible upward head nod with a sideways glance and the henchmen know exactly who to put the hit on.
Hey! You know what! In 2022 I am using exclamation points at the end of every email sentence! I don’t care if it looks like I’m unhinged! I am! Warmest regards!!!
> It's the repeated exclamations (!!) that are the true offenders.
A lawyer I know told me, about 25 years ago (before email was really common place everywhere), something I never forgot. I'm paraphrasing but it went like this:
"When a would-be client sends me a letter with some words or a sentence written in a size 16 font in bold red characters and ends the sentence with three exclamation marks, I refuse that person as a client. They're impossible to deal with. They're people convinced they're always right and you cannot make reasoned arguments to these people.".
> If you think someone’s written communication style is off, or wrong, or bitchy: see if it’s possible to clarify their intention without asking them to change their tone.
This is an interesting thread for me. I’m definitely a cisgender man but that sentence makes total sense to me. She probably uses exclamation marks to be friendly or otherwise communicate a certain “happy” kind of tone. Like it’s intended to be said a bit passionately. Removing the exclamation marks makes it read as more serious; more like it’s just a pleasantry which is expected but not necessarily meant.
It’s very distinct to me as the difference between these sentences:
> Thanks, Alice!
> Thanks, Alice.
Now I’m curious about how others see it. Does one of the examples read more aggressive, more friendly, less genuine, etc.?
And maybe the "Thanks Alice! For help with the orphanage..." still seems a little informal because of the exclamation point. So I got to thinking, when are they appropriate? Something like:
"Boom! The sudden explosion rocked the mine-shaft, causing a cave-in that blocked the exit and filling the corridor with an almost asphyxiating amount of fine airborne dust."
"'Help!' she cried as the giant sea monster drug her under the water..."
...seem perfectly acceptable. I don't know, maybe they just seem informal, and so shouldn't be used in communications where you want to be taken seriously. E=m·c²! Seems like you are trying too hard. But that's a bit strange now that I think about it, because exclamation points also seem like a lazy way to keep the readers interest. So it is potentially doubly cursed; trying too hard, and yet you are too lazy to even do that right. So maybe that's reason it requires a lot of finesse to use exclamation points properly! And a good excuse to use them sparingly.
>shouldn't be used in communications where you want to be taken seriously
I'll have to retract that. There are political speeches where the exclamation point adds more than it detracts. For example, most transcripts of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech includes exclamation points, but interestingly enough, don't have them in the same places. Also, Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death". No exclamations that I can find in transcripts of JFK's "Ask Not" inaugural speech; maybe some should be added? Nor in Churchill's "We shall fight on the Beaches". I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts on adding one after "We shall never surrender" (@1:24 on [1]). But that doesn't necessarily give free reign. There are no exclamation points in the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independence.
51 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadThis is important to many readers of hacker news, as not everybody who is a hacker is a man (I am a woman who is also a hacker, for example, and I use a lot of exclamation marks in my writing, so, I found it interesting that this is noted by someone else, so I'm personally glad it's on the front page).
I'm assuming you're asking genuinely, so this is a genuine attempt to explain :)
I'm split on that, as it made me check the README I'm rewriting, and compare it to the previous version. After noticing an increase in the amount of exclamation points and enthusiasm, I think I may decide to rewrite it again, to cut down on the enthusiasm.
Besides being an obvious waste of time, why should tech be boring?
I don't want it boring! I want my vim and my xterm to be cute!
I often find it nearly impossible to understand coworkers because they couch everything in layers of fluff. Seemingly to avoid coming across as aggressive.
Especially when giving feedback. Please just tell me what’s wrong so I can fix it.
It may be related to power differentials: when talking to peers or superiors people tend to use more deferential and roundabout phrasing. When talking to an underling, communication can be much more terse.
That's one of the things I find weird about English. Just saying what you want in a straightforward way is considered "rude" or "aggressive", and you have to add tons of those bullshit expressions like "please", "would you mind", typically at least two or three of them in a single sentence. What a waste of time....
Sorry for sneaky edit :-)
- Tomorrow.
- I'll give examples tomorrow.
- I have good examples to give you tomorrow.
...Do you find the "extra" language is equally required in speech and text? I also wonder if there is a certain conservation of syllables across languages, maybe related to how fast our brains can process speech? And in some languages the syllables are needed for comprehension, and in other language there are "filler" words?
If you want something, go and find it. If you want someone else to provide it for you, ask. Or tell. But don't posit a problem and expect someone to fix it for you.
As a teenager, I stayed in Spain for a month living with a host couple, and I remember the wife telling me that I said "por favor" too much (like asking "could you please pass the salt?" at dinner) asked for things too much, and generally acted overly polite. For example, it's apparently more common in Spain to order food at restaurants like "Give me a coffee (please)" and not "I would like a coffee, please". All this was in Spanish; I'm just translating what we said into English.
"Hand me that." An order, a directive, as one might issue to a servant.
"Hand me that, please?" A question, a request, a favor, as you might ask of someone you respect.
You do have a point, though. Passive voice can be a lot more wordy / harder to parse, but people often use it to be more polite sounding.
Do English speakers generally not use "please" and "thank you" with servants?
That said, I have absolutely seen people be excessively polite in a way that comes off as non-genuine, but they are always ESLs. I assume they just have a hard time seeing the line, so they try to play it safe.
I wonder if on a subconscious level people give me the too-aggressive feedback for the same reason women get that feedback: I’m an immigrant and acting too much like an equal.
From what I heard, this "corp-politeness" is somewhat of a meme in foreign software developer teams and is often mocked.
> I think emailing a paying customer with multiple sentences ending in multiple exclamation marks comes off as unprofessional
Why?
I think Apple could put out an 15 second ad, with just a black background, where in the first second a white Apple logo fades in. And then a several seconds later, a date fades in below the logo. Maybe a soft ocean sound in the background. And people would be eagerly awaiting whatever mystery launch is happening. (Or maybe Apple (or someone else) already has run an ad like this?)
Also, I could see similarities between exclamation use and swearing. Some people swear all the time, so it means essentially nothing. "I like fucking butter on my toast." So they don't have that option to escalate their language in the future. Whereas a person whose previous last use of the f-word was 20 years when they lost their leg in a traffic accident, now says "We need to get this fucking situation sorted out by Friday" gets some extra gravitas.
https://twitter.com/kaitfeldmann/status/1480629739542888451?...
A lawyer I know told me, about 25 years ago (before email was really common place everywhere), something I never forgot. I'm paraphrasing but it went like this:
"When a would-be client sends me a letter with some words or a sentence written in a size 16 font in bold red characters and ends the sentence with three exclamation marks, I refuse that person as a client. They're impossible to deal with. They're people convinced they're always right and you cannot make reasoned arguments to these people.".
That works both ways, girl.
Interesting. I would have thought the opposite. Save the exclamation for emphasis, especially for something like "No!".
It’s very distinct to me as the difference between these sentences:
> Thanks, Alice!
> Thanks, Alice.
Now I’m curious about how others see it. Does one of the examples read more aggressive, more friendly, less genuine, etc.?
"Thanks Alice! That loan of $1,000 you gave me got us over the hump so that the bank didn't foreclose on the orphanage."
Seems more heartfelt and genuine than:
"Thanks Alice! For passing me the menu sitting on the table at lunch today."
"Boom! The sudden explosion rocked the mine-shaft, causing a cave-in that blocked the exit and filling the corridor with an almost asphyxiating amount of fine airborne dust."
"'Help!' she cried as the giant sea monster drug her under the water..."
...seem perfectly acceptable. I don't know, maybe they just seem informal, and so shouldn't be used in communications where you want to be taken seriously. E=m·c²! Seems like you are trying too hard. But that's a bit strange now that I think about it, because exclamation points also seem like a lazy way to keep the readers interest. So it is potentially doubly cursed; trying too hard, and yet you are too lazy to even do that right. So maybe that's reason it requires a lot of finesse to use exclamation points properly! And a good excuse to use them sparingly.
I'll have to retract that. There are political speeches where the exclamation point adds more than it detracts. For example, most transcripts of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech includes exclamation points, but interestingly enough, don't have them in the same places. Also, Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death". No exclamations that I can find in transcripts of JFK's "Ask Not" inaugural speech; maybe some should be added? Nor in Churchill's "We shall fight on the Beaches". I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts on adding one after "We shall never surrender" (@1:24 on [1]). But that doesn't necessarily give free reign. There are no exclamation points in the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independence.
[1] https://youtu.be/NB53TLCFhAA?si=F5xZ0qeqobgEgOwE&t=84