Now that programmers are at war with the robots (Gen AI) for our jobs, we need to lean into the things that they cannot do. Today, I’m going to be talking about how to be a human and communicate with other humans in the most hostile of scenarios, “in conflict (drama).”

TLDR: Be clear in your communications what you support and “whose side are you on.” There’s a bullet point list of suggestions at the bottom.

Knot-quite-right help

Before connecting my thoughts back to tech and to “drama”, I’m going to start with a made-up example: Imagine you’re at school and a classmate comes to you and says:

“Hey idiot, tie your shoes.”

What do you do next? Do you say, “Hey, thanks! I appreciate you helping me not trip over myself,” or do you get defensive?

The schoolmate clearly led with an attack: “Hey, idiot.” So the rest of it: “tie your shoes” is likely to also be interpreted as an attack too. Maybe you guess they’ll say “made you look” and get the rest of your classmates to laugh too when you glance down at your shoes. Who knows. It’s not logical, it’s emotional.

Let’s break it down. In any “cause” or “drama,” there might be two sides, there’s at least three actors (bodies): Those involved, the speaker, and the listener.

In this case, the actors are:

  • Those involved: You, with Schrodinger’s shoelaces
  • The speaker: Classmate
  • The listener: You || The rest of class

Note: Here || is a logical “or”. So read this as “You or the rest of the class”.

Every conflict has two sides. Here sides for/against are:

  • For taking action: This person is looking out for me, and we have a shared goal
  • Against taking action: This person wants to make me look bad for some reason

Now, instead, imagine they said, “Hey, I saw your shoes are untied. I don’t want you to trip over them, get hurt, and delay getting to lunch for everyone.” Do you think you would be more or less likely to check your shoes and take action?

The difference between the two approaches is: Calling out, versus calling in. In the second example, the classmate didn’t just raise awareness of the issue, but also worked to make it clear they were on the side of “not delaying lunch” (which falls on the side of “please tie your shoes”). They didn’t just point out a problem; they worked to ensure the listener could hear their message and take the desired action.

Comment confusion

Recently, someone posted on Reddit, asking, “Why does tool X suck?” The actors involved are:

  • Those involved: Authors of the tool || Users of the tool
  • The speaker: Person asking the question on Reddit
  • The listener: Users of the tool || Community at large || Authors of the tool

It was a genuine question, and kicked off a great discussion. But, it was made without awareness that the authors are active in the sub-reddit and would 100% for sure see the post. Whether the poster meant it this is the conflict inherent in the question:

  • For: The author should feel good about making something people use even if it has rough edges.
  • Against: The author is bad and should feel bad.

If the intent of “Why does tool X suck?” was to say “I am mad at this tool and want to attack the authors,” then those would be good words to choose. If the intent is to understand the software, identify strengths and weaknesses, and possibly help the authors understand and make it better, the first step is not alienating them.

Three body problem

Now that you understand the for/against and involved/speaker/listener frame, it’s going to get complicated by getting recursive. As everyone involved can switch perspectives based on the flow of the conversation. Like the real “three body problem,” this switching of places of involved/speaker/listener makes real-world conflicts chaotic and unpredictable.

Take the prior case of “why does tool X suck?” After the post is made, someone sees it they comment something like “hey, that’s a really crappy thing to say…” as the original person “calling out” the tool, becomes called out. My suggested fix would be to recursively apply “calling in,” including “calling in” about “calling out.”

It also gets tricky, as a post on Mastodon (or other social media platforms) is read by individuals as if it were written “to” them, but “them” might be a random bystander or the leader of an organization. A statement, “I hate this tool,” might be true, but it might not be helpful if it’s missing the context and qualifiers needed to let people know what exactly you meant by making that statement.

Humans are really good at pattern matching and applying meaning, even when none exists. Others will read your communications and implicitly try to assign an “us” or a “them” side, whether it was meant that way or not.

For more info on this topic I like this PDF on “Calling In”, starting on page 2 for more examples.

Non Violent Comments

All of that is well and good. Here’s some other rapid-fire suggestions for being able to both hear and be heard:

  • No dog piles, please: Admitting a weakness is being vulnerable, not an invitation to attack and pile on. Agree with it and help strengthen it. If someone states, “here’s my bias on this issue,” it doesn’t invalidate their words, but helps frame them with context.
  • Don’t accept framing at face value, don’t dismiss it either: When people speak, they do so with bias and agenda. There’s always at least 2 sides to any story and normally many more. It’s okay to explore and question alternative viewpoints and interpretations. But no one likes to exclusively talk to “devil’s advocates.” Also, make sure you’re not dismissing lived experiences. Another way to express this is “you can acknowledge you heard someone without agreeing with their words.”
  • Stay hydrated, but don’t be thirsty: Being “thirsty” is being desperate for attention. Sometimes a comment thread isn’t about you, or the other person just doesn’t want to talk about what you want to talk about. Try to make conversations give-and-take and not take-and-take-and-take.
  • Some people just want to chat: Not everyone has an agenda, or a fully resolved set of viewpoints. Many people are working through how they feel on things and they need a place to talk through it. If this is you, I suggest looking for smaller communities like a friend’s five-person discord instead of the open internet. Even if you’re just “asking questions,” it will look like you’re trying to frame things, and you’ll be pushed into a position. If you are genuinely asking questions, try to be sensitive of the optics and be willing to have people respond defensively.
  • Disagree productively: From the r/ruby rules sidebar here are some high level tips:
    • YES: Read comments fully before responding
    • YES: Practice active listening. Let the other person know what you heard.
    • YES: Distinguish acknowledgment from agreement.
    • NO: Willful misrepresentation of someone’s stated position.
    • NO: Sexualized language or imagery
    • NO: Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks.
    • NO: Conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting.
  • When in doubt, use Non-Violent Communication (NVC): If you’re struggling to say what you have to say without others getting defensive check your communication has the following parts:
    • Observation: What did you experience that led to the comment? This is where you build shared context
    • Emotion: How did that make you feel are you supportive or against that observation? Note that “I feel that you…” or “You are making me feel…” is not an emotion. It’s okay to be mad but also sad or frustrated or curious or a billion other characters that will be in inside out 3
    • Need (general): Is it clear what you want from the world? What are your values? Do you care about justice or safety? Give the reader an anchor to know where you’re coming from
    • Request (to the reader): Is it clear what you want from the person you’re speaking to? It could be “to hear me.” If it’s not clear, people often default to thinking you want them to change their position or opinion, which, if you didn’t know, is … not common on the internet, therefore people fight back. Also note that a request is not a demand.

The above NVC is reworded as a bit of a checklist of questions, because if you formulaically apply it like an SAT essay, then it will sound robotic and condescending. Also, a big part of the real NVC practice is working to actively defuse perceived slights and perceived attacks from the speaker. NVC is not a magic bullet, and people can use it to harm. But I like thinking of it as structural de-composition. Every communication you send has all four parts in it. If something you say is missing a part, you’re asking the reader to do that work for you and fill in the blank. Not only is this a bit rude, but there’s also no guarantee they’ll do it correctly.

This section got longer than I was anticipating, but please don’t call me out on it. Instead, call me in.