Aytishniki and normal people. Communication problems.
I want to raise a topic that, I am sure, will be relevant for many programmers, administrators and other IT fraternity. It is no secret that mutual understanding between IT people and non-IT people is achieved at the cost of tremendous efforts on both sides . But even when it is achieved, the contact remains only superficial. If it is possible to exchange views in a language that is more or less comprehensible to the interlocutors, then it is almost impossible to discuss the problems - it is very far from a complete understanding of the interests of the other side. At least, I have such feelings from communicating with non-IT specialists :). The motives of both sides remain a secret with seven seals for the opposite side.
I think, in part, this can be blamed on the initial difference between the characters - it is known for certain that people with quite a certain brain-march go to IT Co. Different from other internal world order, if you will. However, I tend to see the main reason in the habits and manners of communication of IT people within the community. Given the youth of information technology, you can often find fire in your eyes, maximalism in blood and fanatical devotion to your ideals - the ideas of changing the world for the better. In such a situation, it is not surprising that the discussion of new technologies, ideas or projects is quickly turning into a heated argument. Often in just dumb holivar . Naturally, as in any other professional sphere, there are attempts to transfer professional habits, including not the best ones, to private life.
On one of these attempts, I was asleep - starting to discuss with one of the users the problem of perceiving error messages, I quickly forgot that I was talking to an ordinary person and, as it turned out later, I asked a simple question “What is not clear to you !?” in such a tone that the interlocutor lost his temper - he considered my tone to be impermissible in a conversation. If you take the dormitory point of view - yes, maybe I got excited. But if you compare this with the heated debates about the architecture of a project, you can say that I spoke without raising my voice a bit.
I noticed a long time ago that all constructive ( from my point of view ) discussions on professional topics take place in a hot dispute mode - with active gestures, on high tones. It always seemed normal to me - in such disputes I try to keep a cool head and the ability to perceive the ideas of opponents, while actively testing these ideas for strength. I expect the same from my opponents. I think this approach can effectively identify the weakest points of new ideas and give the opportunity to generate a more or less tenacious option.
')
Problems begin when the interviewee does not have experience in such discussions. If the interlocutor is hot - he quickly loses his temper and a constructive argument on raised voices turns into a banal abuse. In another case, the dispute quickly stalls, and the interlocutor remains an unpleasant aftertaste, perhaps even resentment. In any case, such an approach turns out to be so unproductive that, willy-nilly, the phrase “it is better to chew than talk” is recalled .
I'm curious - how does the discussion process take place with other IT people? Maybe my habits are the exception rather than the rule? Maybe in the whole civilized world, it is not customary to discuss ideas in such a tough manner as I do, but in a softer one - over a cup of tea, pondering every word, enjoying the ideas of the opponent and enjoying their beauty with pleasure? I want to know what you think on this issue.
Shl tried to highlight the main idea of the bolt - not too overdone?
I think, in part, this can be blamed on the initial difference between the characters - it is known for certain that people with quite a certain brain-march go to IT Co. Different from other internal world order, if you will. However, I tend to see the main reason in the habits and manners of communication of IT people within the community. Given the youth of information technology, you can often find fire in your eyes, maximalism in blood and fanatical devotion to your ideals - the ideas of changing the world for the better. In such a situation, it is not surprising that the discussion of new technologies, ideas or projects is quickly turning into a heated argument. Often in just dumb holivar . Naturally, as in any other professional sphere, there are attempts to transfer professional habits, including not the best ones, to private life.
On one of these attempts, I was asleep - starting to discuss with one of the users the problem of perceiving error messages, I quickly forgot that I was talking to an ordinary person and, as it turned out later, I asked a simple question “What is not clear to you !?” in such a tone that the interlocutor lost his temper - he considered my tone to be impermissible in a conversation. If you take the dormitory point of view - yes, maybe I got excited. But if you compare this with the heated debates about the architecture of a project, you can say that I spoke without raising my voice a bit.
I noticed a long time ago that all constructive ( from my point of view ) discussions on professional topics take place in a hot dispute mode - with active gestures, on high tones. It always seemed normal to me - in such disputes I try to keep a cool head and the ability to perceive the ideas of opponents, while actively testing these ideas for strength. I expect the same from my opponents. I think this approach can effectively identify the weakest points of new ideas and give the opportunity to generate a more or less tenacious option.
')
Problems begin when the interviewee does not have experience in such discussions. If the interlocutor is hot - he quickly loses his temper and a constructive argument on raised voices turns into a banal abuse. In another case, the dispute quickly stalls, and the interlocutor remains an unpleasant aftertaste, perhaps even resentment. In any case, such an approach turns out to be so unproductive that, willy-nilly, the phrase “it is better to chew than talk” is recalled .
I'm curious - how does the discussion process take place with other IT people? Maybe my habits are the exception rather than the rule? Maybe in the whole civilized world, it is not customary to discuss ideas in such a tough manner as I do, but in a softer one - over a cup of tea, pondering every word, enjoying the ideas of the opponent and enjoying their beauty with pleasure? I want to know what you think on this issue.
Shl tried to highlight the main idea of the bolt - not too overdone?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/24686/
All Articles