I'm OK, the bull is dead (2004)(computerworld.com)
computerworld.com
I'm OK, the bull is dead (2004)
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2565077/i-m-ok--the-bull-is-dead.html
188 comments
It always pissed me off in movies where there’s a communication medium the characters supposedly are experienced with and the most important part of their communication gets chopped off. They never repeat themselves. Terrible, terrible writing.
One of the things I appreciate about Contact. When Ellie’s radio becomes mostly static she just repeats that she’s ready to launch, in a loop until they do.
Your typical schlocky movie? “CHHHZZZK is the killer! I found Sarah’s body. Don’t trust him!” “Do you think they heard me? Hopefully he is t killing them now.”
One of the things I appreciate about Contact. When Ellie’s radio becomes mostly static she just repeats that she’s ready to launch, in a loop until they do.
Your typical schlocky movie? “CHHHZZZK is the killer! I found Sarah’s body. Don’t trust him!” “Do you think they heard me? Hopefully he is t killing them now.”
There’s also the way overused, “just blindly trust me- I’m not giving you any information just because” (which is critical missing information the plot depends on being unknown) or the argument “<here’s my clearly incorrect perspective of what happened> right??? pauses, storms out” and the mc just doesn’t say anything or try to correct the misunderstanding, which the plot is built on.
Communication breakdown feels so tired
Communication breakdown feels so tired
It’s actually a pretty contemporary theme, but I agree not a good plot device: accuse someone of something and attempt to discredit them in the process before they can defend themselves, get their employer/social media company/affiliated parties to terminate their relationship, watch as they rebuild their live’s from rubble when as accusations are proven false.
It's just lazy script writing, and the audience can actually tell when the shows do this.
>"Hopefully he is t killing them now.”
I like the active example of your point ...
I like the active example of your point ...
Sounds very similar to how academics write with a similar anxiety to the future reviewer, trying hard not to get dismissed and pigeonholed too early on before they even read and understood the paper. It's one thing to defend your idea against obvious but incorrect angles of criticism, but this is not always enough and you need to order your sentences in the correct way and be mindful of what "buttons you will push" on the reviewer where they will switch off and go off track to some easy dismissal. It really is an art to do this well and it's not just the hard science skill of making the contribution. You must be able to sell and frame it in just the right way.
I think it’s more than this. I’ve seen several Wikis grow to the point of uselessness from lack of curation combined with lack of “executive summaries”. Before this I thought executive summaries were for Peter principled idiots whose ties were cutting off oxygen flow. It felt infantilizing having to be asked to add them.
What I experienced and others complained about was the situation where I know we have a document about X. I can’t remember what it’s called, I thought it was “Y” but I read the whole thing and it’s not there. Now I’m clicking on random things seeing if I can find it. I don’t want to read eight people’s life stories. I’m trying to keep the details of my task in my head.
Start every page with “where are you and why should you care” and that problem starts to evaporate.
With scientists you have people who go through a lot of papers every year. No one paper stands out that much. So I can see how they’d run into the exact same problem.
What I experienced and others complained about was the situation where I know we have a document about X. I can’t remember what it’s called, I thought it was “Y” but I read the whole thing and it’s not there. Now I’m clicking on random things seeing if I can find it. I don’t want to read eight people’s life stories. I’m trying to keep the details of my task in my head.
Start every page with “where are you and why should you care” and that problem starts to evaporate.
With scientists you have people who go through a lot of papers every year. No one paper stands out that much. So I can see how they’d run into the exact same problem.
This is extremely hard though. It's not just some wave your magic wand around, or ask people to not be lazy anymore or something. Distilling knowledge, understanding where readers may be coming, seeing the big picture and keeping track of different moving parts, remembering and documenting their histories, all this is real work, real cognitive effort of the highest sort, on par with developing the newest feature or migrating to a new solution or whatever is seen as the "meat" of the work, as opposed to this type of lower-status "meta" work of just documenting. Often, "writing docs" is seen as junior work, something easy. Some parts are of course more straightforward, but a lot of it is very serious work that is underappreciated. And it's a vicious cycle: as long as documentation and technical writing is undervalued, smart rational actors in the company will just do the bare minimum of it and do something more visible and flashy that people do appreciate.
----
Also, I've seen internal wikis and the issue is that they tend to go stale, and people are afraid of removing information, and some people just don't know how to use a wiki and will start using it as a message board or like a Wikipedia talk page and add stuff like "Note by Joe: I'm not sure the above is still correct since the migration to XYZ. Alice should check this part", things not deleted but crossed out with strikethrough style, because "what if it will still be useful" (they don't understand the page history concept) etc. So it becomes a dump of horrible mixture of outdated and up-to-date info, where an experienced employee will tell you "oh it's in the wiki, just check it", then you go back to them that you can't find it or you found contradictory info and they tell you "ah, of course, you should ignore the page on bla bla, we should remove it soon, for this kind of thing you need to check the other page, and even though it says on top that it's 'outdated', actually this part is still valid".
The "curse of knowledge" is also very difficult to get rid of. It's really really hard to know where the reader is coming from. And what may be obvious and over-explained for one reader may feel like not enough detail or confusing to another.
----
Also, I've seen internal wikis and the issue is that they tend to go stale, and people are afraid of removing information, and some people just don't know how to use a wiki and will start using it as a message board or like a Wikipedia talk page and add stuff like "Note by Joe: I'm not sure the above is still correct since the migration to XYZ. Alice should check this part", things not deleted but crossed out with strikethrough style, because "what if it will still be useful" (they don't understand the page history concept) etc. So it becomes a dump of horrible mixture of outdated and up-to-date info, where an experienced employee will tell you "oh it's in the wiki, just check it", then you go back to them that you can't find it or you found contradictory info and they tell you "ah, of course, you should ignore the page on bla bla, we should remove it soon, for this kind of thing you need to check the other page, and even though it says on top that it's 'outdated', actually this part is still valid".
The "curse of knowledge" is also very difficult to get rid of. It's really really hard to know where the reader is coming from. And what may be obvious and over-explained for one reader may feel like not enough detail or confusing to another.
I use a B tree strategy on wikis:
As time progresses, the most relevant topic areas for the project consume the main page, and over time specifics get pushed down to subtopics and sub-subtopics. Anything that hasn't been touched in a long time is prioritized for moving down. If something has been sitting at the bottom of the tree for a long time and looks wrong, it might be time to delete it. But in the meantime you've made it harder to find. Once a page sprouts too many links it's time to halve it and push some of them down one level. Good activity for a Thursday or Friday afternoon when you've fixed a major bug and don't want to start anything new.
The guys who need to toot their own horn want to put four links onto the main page. For some reason those scenarios live rent-free in my thoughts on Wikis. Probably because I was formulating this theory while working with one of them.
As time progresses, the most relevant topic areas for the project consume the main page, and over time specifics get pushed down to subtopics and sub-subtopics. Anything that hasn't been touched in a long time is prioritized for moving down. If something has been sitting at the bottom of the tree for a long time and looks wrong, it might be time to delete it. But in the meantime you've made it harder to find. Once a page sprouts too many links it's time to halve it and push some of them down one level. Good activity for a Thursday or Friday afternoon when you've fixed a major bug and don't want to start anything new.
The guys who need to toot their own horn want to put four links onto the main page. For some reason those scenarios live rent-free in my thoughts on Wikis. Probably because I was formulating this theory while working with one of them.
Hmm. That is an interesting idea, thank you for sharing it.
We currently just have a big list of pages in alphabetical order after a short blurb.
I'll need to figure out a new list order to implement. Hmm. Thanks for giving me something cool to think about!
We currently just have a big list of pages in alphabetical order after a short blurb.
I'll need to figure out a new list order to implement. Hmm. Thanks for giving me something cool to think about!
[deleted]
All of this applies to writing RFP responses too. I try to communicate the art to content authors during review, the ones who actually get it (or at least care enough to even try) write winning responses and end up with $$$ in their pocket.
Academia sounds very similar to writing pull requests on a large project, or working retail, waiting tables, serving on a Church board, going to court, teaching a master class, interacting with strangers, and growing up in a large family.
Except this example is a terrible way to implement it unless you want to play it for a joke.
"I'm ok, the car is not" would've communicated relevant information without followup. The bull is less important part.
> Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same way. Though I am not really convinced it is some positive character trait. It seems more like a anxiety problem.
I like that type of communication because it is very useful in emergency (whether actual one, or just some app at work not working).
I think it also generally produces less of an anxiety because starting with the bad can immediately make the other site start to speculate the worst
> With the example of the article I would find it much more normal, and useful, to say. 'I hit a bull, I am okay, the bull is not'.
Exactly. Much better way to say that.
"Data is safe, it's not a breach, we're being DDoSed", instead of "we're having a massive DDoS on our services affecting X y and Z, but we don't suspect any data breach or data loss".
"I'm ok, the car is not" would've communicated relevant information without followup. The bull is less important part.
> Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same way. Though I am not really convinced it is some positive character trait. It seems more like a anxiety problem.
I like that type of communication because it is very useful in emergency (whether actual one, or just some app at work not working).
I think it also generally produces less of an anxiety because starting with the bad can immediately make the other site start to speculate the worst
> With the example of the article I would find it much more normal, and useful, to say. 'I hit a bull, I am okay, the bull is not'.
Exactly. Much better way to say that.
"Data is safe, it's not a breach, we're being DDoSed", instead of "we're having a massive DDoS on our services affecting X y and Z, but we don't suspect any data breach or data loss".
The bull is, from the viewpoint of the kid in the accident, I think the most ingenious part.
"I'm okay, the car is not" communicates the most-relevant information, sure but at that point, Dad can start immediately getting upset about the car.
"I'm okay, the bull is not" presents Dad with a mystery, delays the onset of anger, and likely lowers the peak of anger, as the fun of unravelling an interesting and unique mystery probably takes up some of that mental energy.
In an office setting, yeah, you ideally have enough trust and safety to be able to disclose bad news without needing to worry about upsetting people (though frequently not, honestly). Families are... different. Even in "perfect" families, and especially for a situation like this, there's no "blameless postmortems", no "five whys", etc. Kid crashed the car. Kid should not have crashed the car. There's a direct line of responsibility. So being able to deflect a bit of that anger and upset is, frankly, ingenious.
"I'm okay, the car is not" communicates the most-relevant information, sure but at that point, Dad can start immediately getting upset about the car.
"I'm okay, the bull is not" presents Dad with a mystery, delays the onset of anger, and likely lowers the peak of anger, as the fun of unravelling an interesting and unique mystery probably takes up some of that mental energy.
In an office setting, yeah, you ideally have enough trust and safety to be able to disclose bad news without needing to worry about upsetting people (though frequently not, honestly). Families are... different. Even in "perfect" families, and especially for a situation like this, there's no "blameless postmortems", no "five whys", etc. Kid crashed the car. Kid should not have crashed the car. There's a direct line of responsibility. So being able to deflect a bit of that anger and upset is, frankly, ingenious.
> "I'm okay, the bull is not" presents Dad with a mystery, delays the onset of anger, and likely lowers the peak of anger, as the fun of unravelling an interesting and unique mystery probably takes up some of that mental energy.
No, it sounds annoying and tiring to deal with that kind of riddle-speech.
If your parent has anger issues it would just result in something like "what fucking bull, what the fuck did you do?", not some riddle mystery game you think...
No, it sounds annoying and tiring to deal with that kind of riddle-speech.
If your parent has anger issues it would just result in something like "what fucking bull, what the fuck did you do?", not some riddle mystery game you think...
Indeed. Presenting the bull immediately creates a visual mythos w/ assumptions of some Herculean efforts.
“Dad, I wrecked the car” is much more likely to be answered [non-verbally] with regrets about not paying for contraception.
“Dad, I wrecked the car” is much more likely to be answered [non-verbally] with regrets about not paying for contraception.
Confusing two people in the middle of the night with a short sentence is considered genius?
From what I can see, the situation was communicated very poorly.
From what I can see, the situation was communicated very poorly.
The specific example is indeed not that great in terms of communicating clearly, given how it begs an obvious, if nonessential question. Works well as click bait, of course.
But the basic idea is sound and useful.
Putting the most important fact first makes it much easier for the audience to understand the context and explanations that follow, and stop you when you're going on a tangent.
A problem that I see very often in communication is that people start out by giving long-winded context, and I'm left thinking "what is the point of telling me this?", unable to judge which of it is important and relevant to me.
But the basic idea is sound and useful.
Putting the most important fact first makes it much easier for the audience to understand the context and explanations that follow, and stop you when you're going on a tangent.
A problem that I see very often in communication is that people start out by giving long-winded context, and I'm left thinking "what is the point of telling me this?", unable to judge which of it is important and relevant to me.
That most significant byte first is only good in the context that the receiver already knows what they are expecting and waiting for. It's perhaps good update in an exising communication. It's not good communication in general or when opening a new context.
Though, maybe not. Opening a new context still wants some kind of summary opener.
If your message is short, you might just say it.
But if your message is even slightly long, you probably start with a heads up what the overall gist and point will be. "I have a question." rather than just the question. Or "Accounting just told us we have to..." and then all the stuff Accounting said and what you have do do about it.
Are those openers the most significant bit or the filler?
Definitely "I'm OK" or "You have to turn in your laptop." is absolutely the wrong way to start. It's even like going out of your way to find the worst possible choice out of all the bits in a particular situation. Random order would be better.
So maybe it's not wrong to start with the most important part, but the definition of most important part is apparently up for grabs.
If your message is short, you might just say it.
But if your message is even slightly long, you probably start with a heads up what the overall gist and point will be. "I have a question." rather than just the question. Or "Accounting just told us we have to..." and then all the stuff Accounting said and what you have do do about it.
Are those openers the most significant bit or the filler?
Definitely "I'm OK" or "You have to turn in your laptop." is absolutely the wrong way to start. It's even like going out of your way to find the worst possible choice out of all the bits in a particular situation. Random order would be better.
So maybe it's not wrong to start with the most important part, but the definition of most important part is apparently up for grabs.
Put the conclusion first and people will assume the context, stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you.
Put the context first and people will assume the conclusion, stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you.
It's just a matter of deciding what is worse.
Put the context first and people will assume the conclusion, stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you.
It's just a matter of deciding what is worse.
This is what consultants get taught when communicating to executives. Start by your conclusion/most important idea then support it
Even in lower-stakes communication it's a good practice, I figured this out early in my career when I was doing tech support.
In e-mails, I noticed a lot of customers didn't register much beyond the first couple sentences. Or they would react to some point of curiosity or contention about the explanation without taking the steps forward or providing the information we were asking for.
In real-time conversations it meant the machines were idle during the explanation of why we were going to do the next step, when often there would be plenty of time to explain why while we were in the process. (In the days of dial-up and RAM measured in megs instead of gigs, even "open a browser and go to our website" could take a minute)
It's a huge time-saver. You want that little excerpt in a pop-up mail notification to have the call to action displayed. Especially when you need them to take ten seconds to provide some information. Seeing the call to action immediately might bump you up in their multitasking queue whereas they're more likely to sit on it if they see the opening sentence of some exposition pop up.
In e-mails, I noticed a lot of customers didn't register much beyond the first couple sentences. Or they would react to some point of curiosity or contention about the explanation without taking the steps forward or providing the information we were asking for.
In real-time conversations it meant the machines were idle during the explanation of why we were going to do the next step, when often there would be plenty of time to explain why while we were in the process. (In the days of dial-up and RAM measured in megs instead of gigs, even "open a browser and go to our website" could take a minute)
It's a huge time-saver. You want that little excerpt in a pop-up mail notification to have the call to action displayed. Especially when you need them to take ten seconds to provide some information. Seeing the call to action immediately might bump you up in their multitasking queue whereas they're more likely to sit on it if they see the opening sentence of some exposition pop up.
[deleted]
I do this with my mom because of how much she worries.
A couple years ago, I sent her a message, "I'm OK, but I think I just totaled my car. Would you please come to [location of accident]? I'm going to need a ride home."
She still freaked out, because she does, but I really did only have some bruising, and I did, in fact, total the car.
A couple years ago, I sent her a message, "I'm OK, but I think I just totaled my car. Would you please come to [location of accident]? I'm going to need a ride home."
She still freaked out, because she does, but I really did only have some bruising, and I did, in fact, total the car.
danparsonson(3)
He compares it to the "academic approach" of starting with background etc. But that's not what an academic paper actually starts with - it starts with an abstract that very briefly lays out the whole thing.
Yup. And in CS papers, we are told to very early on (within the first 2 or 3 paragraphs, never later), to introduce our contribution. It may use some undefined terms and so on, but we should give the reader enough to go on. The "punchline" cannot be 3 pages in. Of course, the rest of the paper is to flesh out the details.
There's also the pragmatic advice given to most graduate students: read the abstract, then the conclusion, then the introduction, then the rest of the paper.
There's also the pragmatic advice given to most graduate students: read the abstract, then the conclusion, then the introduction, then the rest of the paper.
Funny, I usually find it best to jump from the abstract to the methodology. Or, maybe pass through the introduction in between if there's any word I do not understand.
The only papers I think the conclusion is more useful than the methodology are on the social sciences and software engineering.
The only papers I think the conclusion is more useful than the methodology are on the social sciences and software engineering.
If your job is to read the paper, sure, but if you're wondering whether it is even relevant to what you're looking for abstract is useful
Not in papers, but that is definitely the way a conversation goes when you're speaking with a typical researcher. Ask me how I know. Anyway, the abstract is sort of a metadata element, written precisely because the rest of the paper is not concise or succinct.
Yeah, that's true, a good abstract is usually similar to an executive summary, it's very short and easy to read.
In some disciplines, at least, the background also follows a separate introduction that briefly explains the problem and the paper's contribution. This follows an explanation->conclusion order, but only explains enough to understand their contribution, before diving more deeply into prior work in the background.
[deleted]
Don't bore us; get to the chorus.
> I was greatly impressed by Raj's succinct way of giving me the right information in the right detail without going into unnecessary explanations.
Did he though?
"I'm okay" is a good start, but then maybe "there has been an accident", followed by "the car is fine" or "I hit/got hit by a bull, which is now dead".
Did he though?
"I'm okay" is a good start, but then maybe "there has been an accident", followed by "the car is fine" or "I hit/got hit by a bull, which is now dead".
Maybe this is a cultural difference but I find this method of communication very confusing. Without context “the bull is dead” is so useless as to be meaningless. I’m OK and safe, there’s been a car accident, I am at this location, there’s no rush. This the most important and actionable detail for a parent. Bulls and their mortal status are irrelevant. This just reads like two robots trying to sound succinct but failing to communicate. Again might be a cultural difference.
Quite agree. The example given is bad because we don't know about the bull and we don't care about it. Lots more, we are not given the final details about the accident, so the report looks rather incomplete at the end.
The example is good storytelling, but bad reporting.
When telling a story you want to introduce the maximum meaningful uncertainty into your telling to attract the listener into listening attentively to try to resolve it.
"The bull is dead." immediately introduces clearly important information that tells the listener they need to focus, but at the same time makes it clear that more context is needed. i.e the subtext is "listen up important details to follow".
For status reporting you want to allow the listener to stop as soon as possible to free up his/her/its limited management focus "bandwidth".
"I was in an accident, but I'm fine" would fit his paradigm better. (But would make a less notable/memorable story)
When telling a story you want to introduce the maximum meaningful uncertainty into your telling to attract the listener into listening attentively to try to resolve it.
"The bull is dead." immediately introduces clearly important information that tells the listener they need to focus, but at the same time makes it clear that more context is needed. i.e the subtext is "listen up important details to follow".
For status reporting you want to allow the listener to stop as soon as possible to free up his/her/its limited management focus "bandwidth".
"I was in an accident, but I'm fine" would fit his paradigm better. (But would make a less notable/memorable story)
The example is brilliant and leaving it hanging for the reader is the intended purpose (e.g. a far-away third-party like me reading a team's report doesn't have a reason to care past that)
No it's not cultural, it's a truly terrible example.
It's actual quite ironic that a blog post about emphasizing clear purposeful communication, uses a main example that is anything but.
"The bull is dead" is indeed totally meaningless and irrelevant here. Assuming nobody else was harmed, the status of the car is the next important thing here.
It's actual quite ironic that a blog post about emphasizing clear purposeful communication, uses a main example that is anything but.
"The bull is dead" is indeed totally meaningless and irrelevant here. Assuming nobody else was harmed, the status of the car is the next important thing here.
Using “the” in this case almost seems (probably unintentionally) misleading or confusing. It is a definite article, it implies that there’s a particular bull that we’re talking about. Since there isn’t a bull already introduced in the conversation, I think most people would begin searching their memory for a bull that both parties are familiar with. It is discombobulating.
> Without context “the bull is dead” is so useless as to be meaningless.
It’s possibly because you live in a location where bulls wandering on the road doesn’t ever happen, and where the author lives it does happen?
If, for example, the call was instead “I’m okay, the deer is dead”, I wouldn’t find it confusing at all.
It’s possibly because you live in a location where bulls wandering on the road doesn’t ever happen, and where the author lives it does happen?
If, for example, the call was instead “I’m okay, the deer is dead”, I wouldn’t find it confusing at all.
> Bulls and their mortal status are irrelevant.
But it’s India where they are pretty big on bovines in general and their mortal status in particular.
But it’s India where they are pretty big on bovines in general and their mortal status in particular.
Is it India? The author was residing in California at the time of writing and the bull was a Texas longhorn [0]. Given those details and the fact that the author didn't bother specifying India as the location (even though he was writing for an American magazine), I would assume the United States as the location.
[0] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.a...
[0] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.a...
To be fair to Raj (the guy who had just accidentally killed a bull), from his perspective "the bull is dead" is a very important part of the story.
It's maybe a question of perspective. His ability to consider his parents' perspective might have been somewhat limited by the fact that he was 17, it was late at night and he'd just been in a car crash which resulted in the death of a bull.
I think he did a great job and it's a great story. Glad to hear he's ok, he's lucky! RIP the bull though :(
It's maybe a question of perspective. His ability to consider his parents' perspective might have been somewhat limited by the fact that he was 17, it was late at night and he'd just been in a car crash which resulted in the death of a bull.
I think he did a great job and it's a great story. Glad to hear he's ok, he's lucky! RIP the bull though :(
I didn't mean to criticize the kid, although I can see how it came out as such.
I'm criticizing the dads ability to showcase a great example of the "right information in the right detail without going into unnecessary explanations."
And I think a big part of the authors choice of example is exactly because it is "tantalizing" - it piques your curiosity because there isn't enough information to make sense of the situation.
I'm criticizing the dads ability to showcase a great example of the "right information in the right detail without going into unnecessary explanations."
And I think a big part of the authors choice of example is exactly because it is "tantalizing" - it piques your curiosity because there isn't enough information to make sense of the situation.
No he didn't, it was needlessly confusing and the fact that it introduced uninformed and unresolved intrigue for him and his wife goes entirely against the point he was trying to make. The reason being that: context is everything. When we structure a project status report this way, context is high and the audience desires new information over and above further context unless the balance changes.
Starting with "I'm okay" was the right thing to do in context: an unexpected call from a child at an ominous time of day is the context, and knowledge of their safety is therefore paramount. But following it with a riddle about bulls is useless nonsense in the same context.
Putting that aside, I didnt really appreciate this either:
>Though a bit angry
Angry at your son for being in a car accident? Was this before or after finding out the reason for the accident? Where is this context and why isn't it provided in the same structure you just outlined several paragraphs earlier?
Starting with "I'm okay" was the right thing to do in context: an unexpected call from a child at an ominous time of day is the context, and knowledge of their safety is therefore paramount. But following it with a riddle about bulls is useless nonsense in the same context.
Putting that aside, I didnt really appreciate this either:
>Though a bit angry
Angry at your son for being in a car accident? Was this before or after finding out the reason for the accident? Where is this context and why isn't it provided in the same structure you just outlined several paragraphs earlier?
Yes, the anecdote is not a good example. "The bull is dead" is tragic but irrelevant. It would be like "Milestone 4 missed. Joel is gone". Who's Joel? Is he on vacation? Did he quit? Was he fired for causing the missed milestone? Is he dead?
Yeah. You need to form a graph of pieces of information where edges are ‘X is a prerequisite for Y’ (or ‘without X, Y makes no sense’), and sort that topologically.
Agreed. Personally, I would have gone for:
> "I'm OK, my car hit a bull."
What happened to the bull isn't the most important information; the author wants to know why his son didn't come home. Saying "the bull is dead" kind of answers that question, but only via inference ("oh, the bull must have been killed by his car"), which is why the father was initially confused.
And then "the" should be "a" because the bull hasn't been introduced yet.
> "I'm OK, my car hit a bull."
What happened to the bull isn't the most important information; the author wants to know why his son didn't come home. Saying "the bull is dead" kind of answers that question, but only via inference ("oh, the bull must have been killed by his car"), which is why the father was initially confused.
And then "the" should be "a" because the bull hasn't been introduced yet.
He never said "I got hit by a bull"
It could be the case that he crashed into a farm and killed a bull and now the farmer is about to kill him with a shotgun.
Which according to the author is secondary information.
It could be the case that he crashed into a farm and killed a bull and now the farmer is about to kill him with a shotgun.
Which according to the author is secondary information.
Dad isn’t an insurance adjuster.
The point of the whole piece is to just get to the point. How the bull met his fate is a story, but who cares. All dad needs to know is Raj is fine.
The point of the whole piece is to just get to the point. How the bull met his fate is a story, but who cares. All dad needs to know is Raj is fine.
Why mention the bull at all then?
Exactly — by front loading the bull, it's saying that this is the next most important bit of info after "I'm OK"
It's fine.
The shorter the first sentence is, the sooner you can move onto the second sentence.
Neither party expected the conversation to end after "the bull is dead".
The shorter the first sentence is, the sooner you can move onto the second sentence.
Neither party expected the conversation to end after "the bull is dead".
What happened with the bull?! The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience hanging. The interesting bits have all been omitted. "James bond survived, foiled the villain's plot, and got the girl" is not a movie. I would hate to have to work or associate with someone who communicated like this.
Isn’t the exact point that some things are… not a movie.
I don’t think the author is proposing all communication should be in this style. When you’re telling a story, sure, it’s fine to keep people in suspense. But is suspense a tool you should use to communicate to a loved one when you’ve been in an accident?
Some work communications are more like the former and some are more like the latter. But most of us default to the narrative/suspenseful style 95% of the time.
But we should be more deliberate, and in some settings use the inverted pyramid structure to eliminate suspense from our communication.
I don’t think the author is proposing all communication should be in this style. When you’re telling a story, sure, it’s fine to keep people in suspense. But is suspense a tool you should use to communicate to a loved one when you’ve been in an accident?
Some work communications are more like the former and some are more like the latter. But most of us default to the narrative/suspenseful style 95% of the time.
But we should be more deliberate, and in some settings use the inverted pyramid structure to eliminate suspense from our communication.
How many romcoms take 90 minutes to say “boys are dumb”?
[deleted]
> The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience hanging.
Kind of. I thought the original advice from the author's boss at the top of the article (order of "punchline" with no adjectives, then current status, then next steps, then explanation) is great advice. The problem with the author's telling of his son's story is he basically completely left out step 4, the explanation.
I think the value in the original advice is not that any of the steps is more important than the other, but doing them in that order ensures you don't try to sugarcoat or obfuscate the actual thing that happened: it forces the team to clearly acknowledge the facts without bias.
But yeah, just telling the story without explanation is missing a big part of the detail to actually understand what happened.
Kind of. I thought the original advice from the author's boss at the top of the article (order of "punchline" with no adjectives, then current status, then next steps, then explanation) is great advice. The problem with the author's telling of his son's story is he basically completely left out step 4, the explanation.
I think the value in the original advice is not that any of the steps is more important than the other, but doing them in that order ensures you don't try to sugarcoat or obfuscate the actual thing that happened: it forces the team to clearly acknowledge the facts without bias.
But yeah, just telling the story without explanation is missing a big part of the detail to actually understand what happened.
Jumping in here since this has floated to to the top and I responded to a similar comment below.
Felt strongly enough about this that I actually took the time up write an actual literal paper letter (or maybe an email, don't remember... but paper letter , stamp, walk 20 miles uphill to post office works better for dramatic effect ) back in 2004 to ask the question.
The question was asked in the magazine and the answer by Mr. Kapur was published in the magazine.... but my google-fu cannot find the answer he had posted back then...
Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer so the cliffhanger continues.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa...
Felt strongly enough about this that I actually took the time up write an actual literal paper letter (or maybe an email, don't remember... but paper letter , stamp, walk 20 miles uphill to post office works better for dramatic effect ) back in 2004 to ask the question.
The question was asked in the magazine and the answer by Mr. Kapur was published in the magazine.... but my google-fu cannot find the answer he had posted back then...
Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer so the cliffhanger continues.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa...
OK, finally found the key words that let Google point me to the comment with Mr. Kapur's response giving a fuller explanation of what happened.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.a...
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.a...
It seems the author’s entire philosophy of communication is at odds with mine.
Would it hurt to communicate what happened? No, it adds important detail. Especially on a phone call, there’s much more bandwidth for explaining “I’m ok” without explicitly saying it through tone of voice. As a parent, the bull being dead is entirely irrelevant. So, “I hit a bull on the way home but I’m fine” would have done the trick without any annoying cliffhangers. Similarly for the author’s lack of explanation of what happened.
Would it hurt to communicate what happened? No, it adds important detail. Especially on a phone call, there’s much more bandwidth for explaining “I’m ok” without explicitly saying it through tone of voice. As a parent, the bull being dead is entirely irrelevant. So, “I hit a bull on the way home but I’m fine” would have done the trick without any annoying cliffhangers. Similarly for the author’s lack of explanation of what happened.
I disagree. “I’m fine, but I hit a bull on my way back home” is infinitely better because at no point is there any uncertainty about the condition of the person.
I don't think you're disagreeing to the extent that you think you are because the original post says "I'm ok, the bull is dead" like some sort of riddle.
Either way, the delivery on the phone is not limited to the order of the clauses, it's also in the tone of voice. Saying "I hit a bull" while sobbing conveys something entirely different than calmly stating "I hit a bull." Over the phone the entirety of the message can be heard and the order matters less.
Either way, the delivery on the phone is not limited to the order of the clauses, it's also in the tone of voice. Saying "I hit a bull" while sobbing conveys something entirely different than calmly stating "I hit a bull." Over the phone the entirety of the message can be heard and the order matters less.
If you improve your listening skills, it's the same
I think it's pretty clear from context what happened... his son was in a car accident where he hit a bull with the car, the bull died, the car was damaged, and the son is fine. Yeah it's not a James Bond movie plot but I think that's kind of his point. Not every event needs to have an action-packed narrative. Sometimes things happen and we need to convey the state of things in a way that avoids causing a strong emotional action, because that would distract from dealing with the situation. It's pretty much the opposite of a movie, where the the goal (generally) is to provoke an emotional reaction, rather than convey information.
Reporting the punch line first only works if your interlocutor knows what you are talking about. In this case there is no antecedent for "the bull" and so there is no way the person hearing this story could know what "the bull is dead" actually means, or even whether this is a literal bull who has actually died, or some metaphorical reference to something else.
The Right Way to report this is something like, "I'm fine, but I got into an accident. I hit a bull and killed it." But that doesn't make nearly as captivating a headline.
The Right Way to report this is something like, "I'm fine, but I got into an accident. I hit a bull and killed it." But that doesn't make nearly as captivating a headline.
I think the point of the story is that his son used the process instead of panicking.
It’s easy to say he said the wrong thing, but compared with a panicked phone call, it’s pretty good.
A process like this helps override the natural response to a situation. People often think they would be cool in a crisis. But panic makes you do weird things.
It’s easy to say he said the wrong thing, but compared with a panicked phone call, it’s pretty good.
A process like this helps override the natural response to a situation. People often think they would be cool in a crisis. But panic makes you do weird things.
Yes, but my point is that it's a really bad example, chosen to optimize for marketing rather than illustrating actual effective communication. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with marketing, but intentionally sacrificing effective communication in a piece whose topic is effective communication strikes me as particularly ironic, and it really rubbed me the wrong way.
His son literally didn't use the process. Status is supposed to be step 2 but he opened with "I'm ok". The correct report would be "I hit a bull but I'm OK". Which is boring, obvious, natural, and not a click bait style headline which leaves us wondering what it means. Whether the bull survived or not is also superfluous information which shouldn't even have been reported at all.
"I'm ok" is the punchline, not the status. The status is "police are on their way, car is operable, I can explain more soon (no rush)"
"I crashed the car" is definitely the punchline, it's what happened. "I'm ok" is reporting your status. "the police are coming" is also status. But if someone just texts to say that they're OK and the police are coming, I still have no idea what's happened.
No. You are grossly misinterpreting the point of both the story and this system of communication.
You don't need to know what happened. You do need to know your kid is okay.
Being so preoccupied with the "story" that you think it's more important than your kid being okay is unconscionable.
You don't need to know what happened. You do need to know your kid is okay.
Being so preoccupied with the "story" that you think it's more important than your kid being okay is unconscionable.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. From TFA:
> 1. Punch line: The facts; no adjectives, adverbs or modifiers.
> 2. Current status: How the punch-line statement affects the project.
The facts are: I crashed the car. The status is: I'm OK.
(The real lesson here is that this methodology is not always a good idea.)
> 1. Punch line: The facts; no adjectives, adverbs or modifiers.
> 2. Current status: How the punch-line statement affects the project.
The facts are: I crashed the car. The status is: I'm OK.
(The real lesson here is that this methodology is not always a good idea.)
I literally do this for a living. You fundamentally misunderstand the principle you're trying to apply.
This is HN, not StackOverflow. I encourage you to act in the spirit of intellectual curiosity instead of being self-satisfied with misguided attempts at language lawyering.
This is HN, not StackOverflow. I encourage you to act in the spirit of intellectual curiosity instead of being self-satisfied with misguided attempts at language lawyering.
> I literally do this for a living.
Is that supposed to impress me? Some people do feng shui for a living, or sell homeopathic remedies. Just because someone does something for a living doesn't mean it has any merit. The world is chock-full of wealthy charlatans.
Is that supposed to impress me? Some people do feng shui for a living, or sell homeopathic remedies. Just because someone does something for a living doesn't mean it has any merit. The world is chock-full of wealthy charlatans.
You are entitled to your opinion that effective communication has no merit. That reflects more on you than it does on me.
In any case, your opinions about specific methodologies in fields toward which you are outright dismissive... are of extremely limited value.
In any case, your opinions about specific methodologies in fields toward which you are outright dismissive... are of extremely limited value.
> effective communication has no merit
Effective by what standard? The titular quip is very effective click bait, and if you make your living attracting clicks then I suppose that has merit. But it fails abysmally by the standard of transmitting information clearly (which is made all the more ironic by the fact that it doesn't even follow the guidelines described in the article).
Attracting clicks and communicating clearly are fundamentally at odds because the whole point of click bait is to withhold the relevant information so that you have to click to find it. So you really do have to choose a side.
Effective by what standard? The titular quip is very effective click bait, and if you make your living attracting clicks then I suppose that has merit. But it fails abysmally by the standard of transmitting information clearly (which is made all the more ironic by the fact that it doesn't even follow the guidelines described in the article).
Attracting clicks and communicating clearly are fundamentally at odds because the whole point of click bait is to withhold the relevant information so that you have to click to find it. So you really do have to choose a side.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It sounds like you would prefer a reporting system where Status is the priority item. That's totally fine, especially if your child is in danger. I agree! I'm just pointing out that that is not the reporting system offered for consideration in this article, where Status is relegated to second place.
Even one of the parents in the story didn't find the communication method helpful.
While this is a fun read, I'm not sure adding "the bull is dead" is actually a good example of effective communication that strips out the fluff. "The car is damaged but operable" is, but adding that the bull (which hasn't been explained) is dead is actually fluff, given it is now irrelevant, and since it wasn't explained, leaves the person on the receiving end confused and focused on this bit of technically irrelevant information (while no more details are provided).
Nevertheless a nice read and the point of the piece still stands! Just think the example isn't perfect.
Nevertheless a nice read and the point of the piece still stands! Just think the example isn't perfect.
Like the author I immediately concluded he was in a car accident with a bull and that the bull was dead. It's like a 6 word story:
http://www.sixwordstories.net
*Unlike the author
>Thank God my son was fine, but the comment about the dead bull intrigued me. We didn't own a bull. Where was he? How did the bull die? And why was he telling me about it?
>Then he said, "The car is damaged but operable." All right. He had gotten into some type of accident, the car wasn't a total loss, and there was a dead bull (still a great puzzle).
>Thank God my son was fine, but the comment about the dead bull intrigued me. We didn't own a bull. Where was he? How did the bull die? And why was he telling me about it?
>Then he said, "The car is damaged but operable." All right. He had gotten into some type of accident, the car wasn't a total loss, and there was a dead bull (still a great puzzle).
That's fair - I mean that's what I concluded as well but my point was that I think adding in the bull is more distracting than just: "Car accident, I'm ok".
But, thinking back now if I were to arrive at the scene and not have known about the bull beforehand that'd be quite a shock, so I think I've changed my mind on this one!
But, thinking back now if I were to arrive at the scene and not have known about the bull beforehand that'd be quite a shock, so I think I've changed my mind on this one!
Surely noone would argue that communicating in a 6 word story style is a good idea?
If that’s the only six words you have, it’s not.
Am I the only one that feels like this article misses the final part? I need an explanation of how that bull died.
Definitely not the only one. What a cliffhanger. A punchline without the actual joke.
felt strongly enough about this that I sent them an actual literal paper letter (or maybe an email, don't remember....) back in 2004 to ask the question.
The question was asked in the magazine and the answer by Mr. Kapur was published in the magazine.... but my google-fu cannot find the answer he had posted back then...
Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer so the cliffhanger continues.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa...
The question was asked in the magazine and the answer by Mr. Kapur was published in the magazine.... but my google-fu cannot find the answer he had posted back then...
Unfortunately, I don't remember the answer so the cliffhanger continues.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567061/no-bull-approa...
For completeness sake, throwaway201606 linked to the resonse upthread: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2567290/no-more-bull.a...
Got to love that casual nepotism xD
Yeah, no. "I'm okay, the bull is dead", followed by "the car is damaged but operable" is not an effective way to communicate what happened. The goal of communication is not to force the other party to fill in a bunch of blanks and solve a puzzle to understand what you are talking about.
It is, as a blog post, an effective way of communicating the idea though (because it’s very emotionally charged).
I read this earlier today, liked it, and had a bit of fridge logic since. Obviously it’s dumb to communicate a datapoint upfront when you don’t bring it up again at all and follow up with “details later”. But it’s still very present in my mind because “the bull is dead” is so catchy.
I’m a big fan of BLUF (bottom line upfront) when writing emails and this is an extension of that.
I read this earlier today, liked it, and had a bit of fridge logic since. Obviously it’s dumb to communicate a datapoint upfront when you don’t bring it up again at all and follow up with “details later”. But it’s still very present in my mind because “the bull is dead” is so catchy.
I’m a big fan of BLUF (bottom line upfront) when writing emails and this is an extension of that.
TIL fridge logic
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fridge_logic
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fridge_logic
[deleted]
But it is the quickest way to communicate the current state.
"Car accident, I'm okay" is shorter and less vague.
There was no rush though
It seems fine for, like, project status reports (right to the point, very nice).
In life, I’m less sure. People tend to underplay their injuries when talking to others, right? So in the case of “I’m OK, I got in a car accident” “OK” could mean anything from “I’m totally fine” to “I’m going to have lifelong back problems and legal problems but I’m alive.” Meanwhile “I’m OK, my girlfriend has dumped me, want to go get a beer,” the range of possibilities is much lower.
And, if a person has decided to tell me that they are OK as the first thing, then clearly something pretty bad has happened.
So, I think I’d prefer “I got in a little fender bender, but nobody got hurt, I’m just going to be a little late.”
In life, I’m less sure. People tend to underplay their injuries when talking to others, right? So in the case of “I’m OK, I got in a car accident” “OK” could mean anything from “I’m totally fine” to “I’m going to have lifelong back problems and legal problems but I’m alive.” Meanwhile “I’m OK, my girlfriend has dumped me, want to go get a beer,” the range of possibilities is much lower.
And, if a person has decided to tell me that they are OK as the first thing, then clearly something pretty bad has happened.
So, I think I’d prefer “I got in a little fender bender, but nobody got hurt, I’m just going to be a little late.”
This reminds me of the following:
Of fictional crime investigators, mrs Marple collects all the clues and then invites everyone to the Great Summation at the end to reveal the murderer.
Episodes of Inspector Columbo start with the very act of murder, and the perpetrator is clearly visible. We then follow Columbo collecting clues and discovering the motive.
We tend to be like Mrs Marple when we should be more like Columbo.
We tend to be like Mrs Marple when we should be more like Columbo.
That sounds like an interesting and useful technique, but he never gets around to explaining how the bull dies.
That's a great observation. Though on the other hand, you can probably deduce that it was some kind of accident involving the car. Which begs the question; what happened to the car, which might even be more important than the fact that the bull dies. This question is of course answered, but IMHO not very well, and while leaving out more than a few questions that might help assess the damage.
“I’m okay, the car is damaged but repairable, I need you to come get me.” — doesn’t make as good a title, but a better status.
I don't use the whole reverse order thing, but I do start with the main point "I think we should prioritise refactoring the scheduling component", then build up the argument to justify it. I'm generally thinking about persuading though rather than just communicating.
The consultancy I used to work for called this Top Down Thinking but it's basically just the Barbara Minto Pyramid Principle.
The consultancy I used to work for called this Top Down Thinking but it's basically just the Barbara Minto Pyramid Principle.
I have seen this style work really well when it is practiced in a safe environment. By “safe”, I mean everyone is striving for transparency, you don’t shoot the messenger, and you support each other (not back stab).
This can go off the rails quickly if it collides with other groups that are not as safe and have serious issues. In these more common environments, successful people learn the delicate balance of what to say, what not to say, and what order to say it in.
This can go off the rails quickly if it collides with other groups that are not as safe and have serious issues. In these more common environments, successful people learn the delicate balance of what to say, what not to say, and what order to say it in.
This is nonsense.
Raj didn’t even tell his dad where he was.
The optimal:
“I need a lift, I’m at this address, no hurry, I’m okay, the car needs towing.”
By the way “I need a lift” is said, the other party will know you’ve crashed the cad, and that your ok.
This comes up again: Star Trek TNG S05E02 Darmok.
Something like, “Clive and James at Sleaford”.
I’ve ridden the Seaford to Wanna 4wd track on a dirt bike, so the implications of three consecutive nouns would be certain as the referent is the exact same scenario, only the names have been changed, different actors.
Raj didn’t even tell his dad where he was.
The optimal:
“I need a lift, I’m at this address, no hurry, I’m okay, the car needs towing.”
By the way “I need a lift” is said, the other party will know you’ve crashed the cad, and that your ok.
This comes up again: Star Trek TNG S05E02 Darmok.
Something like, “Clive and James at Sleaford”.
I’ve ridden the Seaford to Wanna 4wd track on a dirt bike, so the implications of three consecutive nouns would be certain as the referent is the exact same scenario, only the names have been changed, different actors.
I think putting the punchline first will be gamed to make the punchline sound worse than the situation is, so you sound better than you are for dealing with it.
What you need is a good culture rather than any reporting strategy in my opinion
What you need is a good culture rather than any reporting strategy in my opinion
Yeah a lot of companies have stacks of these kinds of rules then it gets tiresome. I rarely find a problem where people waffle on too much and if they do it can be addressed in an individual review.
What I take away from this anecdote is that great, succinct communication should leave you thinking "uh, wait, so WTF happened??".
A lot of people ask about the bull. But if you take it as a metaphor for status update, it does translate well.
Whether he explains the situation about the bull or not, does not matter, the next action is to have someone pick him up. That's the only thing they can do. The bull story is just extra information.
In the status update, when my devs tell me the new api failed, my role is to check the results and figure out if we need an alternative. The product owner and scrum master do not need to know those results, in fact they can move on to the next status update. The person who can help is informed.
The challenges I face in a daily stand up are:
1. The developer trying to over explain their current situation.
2. The non devs asking questions trying to fully understand a situation that is irrelevant to them. i.e. why is the bull dead.
3. The dev keeping their mouth shut for fear of being interrogated.
Whether he explains the situation about the bull or not, does not matter, the next action is to have someone pick him up. That's the only thing they can do. The bull story is just extra information.
In the status update, when my devs tell me the new api failed, my role is to check the results and figure out if we need an alternative. The product owner and scrum master do not need to know those results, in fact they can move on to the next status update. The person who can help is informed.
The challenges I face in a daily stand up are:
1. The developer trying to over explain their current situation.
2. The non devs asking questions trying to fully understand a situation that is irrelevant to them. i.e. why is the bull dead.
3. The dev keeping their mouth shut for fear of being interrogated.
> The non devs asking questions trying to fully understand a situation that is irrelevant to them. i.e. why is the bull dead.
That kinda shows that it isn't a good metaphor, because if the bull is irrelevant & dragging people off on a tangent it shouldn't be mentioned at all
That kinda shows that it isn't a good metaphor, because if the bull is irrelevant & dragging people off on a tangent it shouldn't be mentioned at all
Ngl sounds like it’s really boring to work there. No one ever learns from other sections? That’s boring.
John was asked to watch Bob's family home while the family was on vacation, included was the dog, the cat and Bob's Grandma.
After the first week, Bob called home and asked how things were going. John replied "Everything is okay, except the cat died." Bob says "Couldn't you be more diplomatic?" John asks "What do you mean?" Bob replies "Well, if I ask how the cat is, say the cat's on the roof" then the next time, you could tell me it died"
The next week, Bob calls, John answers and after a short discussion, Bob asks how his Grandma is doing.
John replies "She's on the roof"
After the first week, Bob called home and asked how things were going. John replied "Everything is okay, except the cat died." Bob says "Couldn't you be more diplomatic?" John asks "What do you mean?" Bob replies "Well, if I ask how the cat is, say the cat's on the roof" then the next time, you could tell me it died"
The next week, Bob calls, John answers and after a short discussion, Bob asks how his Grandma is doing.
John replies "She's on the roof"
This succinct style of reporting reminds me of how surgeons are taught to report on a patient (to colleagues):
1. name/age/gender
2. current problem (+ potentially relevant preexisting condition)
3. relevant clinical/laboratory findings
4. suspected cause
5. recommended actions
6. If an operation is planned: general health assessment (ASA)/allergies
7. prognosis/miscellaneous notes
Reading all the replies tells me communication is not taught well.
We're taught to read, write, and speak yet are not taught to be understood.
We're taught to read, write, and speak yet are not taught to be understood.
Don’t waste your time. Title is clickbait. Find the norms that work for you and your team.
I used to do this, however I have now reverted to the "traditional style".
Reason being this punchline-first style demands "great patience" from the reader or listener. The reason for delaying the punch-line is to make sure the proper context and information is available before the reader or listener starts inferring the reasons why.
Too many times the punchline carried enough punch to completely derail the conversation.
Reason being this punchline-first style demands "great patience" from the reader or listener. The reason for delaying the punch-line is to make sure the proper context and information is available before the reader or listener starts inferring the reasons why.
Too many times the punchline carried enough punch to completely derail the conversation.
This might be also a cultural difference and might cause some friction in the communication. If I remember correctly in general in the US it is preferred the style "what; why" while in Europe generally it is more "why; what". If the appropriate style works it's not used you might be perceived arrogant or condescending. Very high level generalization here but I think you get the point.
Yes, there is more on this in "The Culture Map" by Erin Meyer. If I recall, it is not all of Europe that does that, but mainly Latin Europe.
This is one of the things I learned moving to the UK working at an American company. Lead with the conclusion, not the problem statement.
The style I was more used to would say: "I am late because the car got hit by a bull. I stepped out, took pictures, noticed the bull was dead and someone local came to help out. The police is underway. I am fine but will be a little later. No need to worry."
This is one of the things I learned moving to the UK working at an American company. Lead with the conclusion, not the problem statement.
The style I was more used to would say: "I am late because the car got hit by a bull. I stepped out, took pictures, noticed the bull was dead and someone local came to help out. The police is underway. I am fine but will be a little later. No need to worry."
This reminds me of "military style communication" (https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-pre...) and BLUF (bottom line up front).
I have a different but related rule for emails: Only one important thing per email and it has to be as close to the top as possible. If you're sending a list of questions, put them in priority order and don't be surprised if only the first one gets answered.
Also avoid making statements on anything debatable if focusing on that will give them an excuse to ignore the rest. For example I was talking to my doctor's office asking if they could move my appointment to some time in the next two weeks rather than the 15th (8 weeks away at the time). The response I got was, "Your appointment is on the 12th." And then they stopped responding.
Also avoid making statements on anything debatable if focusing on that will give them an excuse to ignore the rest. For example I was talking to my doctor's office asking if they could move my appointment to some time in the next two weeks rather than the 15th (8 weeks away at the time). The response I got was, "Your appointment is on the 12th." And then they stopped responding.
I'm not sure of this specific example but it's a good policy when you are about to mention an accident/illness/school shooting or other situation where a loved one of theirs may have been badly injured or killed to preface that with "everyone (optional: that you know) is fine but..." to save them imaging the worst until you get to the details.
I think of it as the opposite of those clickbait headlines where they try to trick you into believing it applies to you or your family by leaving out details.
"Local school explodes" will get more clicks than clarifying it was empty at the time and/or giving the specific name.
I think of it as the opposite of those clickbait headlines where they try to trick you into believing it applies to you or your family by leaving out details.
"Local school explodes" will get more clicks than clarifying it was empty at the time and/or giving the specific name.
I used to do this with questions at work, but I realized nobody actually read to the end.
My format was: --- *Question.*
I previously thought the answer was X, but X is not working.
I have tried troubleshooting steps A, B, C, D, and E, with A1, B1 (etc.) results. ---
EVERY SINGLE TIME, the sequence of replies would be, "The answer is X."
No, it isn't. I thought it was, but it doesn't work, as mentioned in the initial post.
"You need to try A." I already tried A. My results are in the initial post.
"What about B?" I also tried B. My results are in the initial post.
"C? D? E?"
:facepalm: Please read the initial post. I wrote it for a reason.
My format was: --- *Question.*
I previously thought the answer was X, but X is not working.
I have tried troubleshooting steps A, B, C, D, and E, with A1, B1 (etc.) results. ---
EVERY SINGLE TIME, the sequence of replies would be, "The answer is X."
No, it isn't. I thought it was, but it doesn't work, as mentioned in the initial post.
"You need to try A." I already tried A. My results are in the initial post.
"What about B?" I also tried B. My results are in the initial post.
"C? D? E?"
:facepalm: Please read the initial post. I wrote it for a reason.
[deleted]
In my family the line is "The good news is, nobody got hurt."
In mine, calling home on the phone, it was "The good news is, I didn't fall on my head".
The irony here is that the authors example doesn’t fit his system.
The bull is completely irrelevant. It’s a root cause of the car damage.
Should have been: “I am OK. The car is not.” and continued from there.
The bull is completely irrelevant. It’s a root cause of the car damage.
Should have been: “I am OK. The car is not.” and continued from there.
Or even "I am OK, but I need a ride home."
I think in a wider sense this is good for writing as well. A lot of texts (including the linked one) start with some elaborate yet tangential anecdote and then takes a meandering path toward some conclusion.
I prefer to open with a single sentence that captures what I want to say, longer than the title but very much self-contained, and then to elaborate on why that is. It both serves to capture the reader and to turn away readers that weren't interested anyway.
I prefer to open with a single sentence that captures what I want to say, longer than the title but very much self-contained, and then to elaborate on why that is. It both serves to capture the reader and to turn away readers that weren't interested anyway.
[deleted]
Sound like the cow Elsa is dead.
https://youtu.be/TRZefNEfMgI
https://youtu.be/TRZefNEfMgI
This form should be the default for any async comms.
Expressing the core statement up front allows proceeding content to serve as an optional framing, if required. If the recipient already has context they can skip the cruft.
This structure is mirrored in larger org settings that use memo's. It's not a new idea, but definitely a well proven and effective one.
Expressing the core statement up front allows proceeding content to serve as an optional framing, if required. If the recipient already has context they can skip the cruft.
This structure is mirrored in larger org settings that use memo's. It's not a new idea, but definitely a well proven and effective one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don’t think you really owe people anything to put the punchline first like this. Sure it helps ease some people’s anxiety, but there have been times where I’ve purposely taken an opposite approach, meandering through various vivid details, dropping some callbacks and winding up a story’s tension to the point where people were on the edge of their seat waiting to hear what finally happened. Maybe it’s sociopathic to prey on emotions this way.
> Maybe it’s sociopathic to prey on emotions this way.
This is why greeks practised Rhetorics. Remarking on the practice, one philosopher said the exact same thing. He said, "You are using people's emotions to weigh in as against the facts of the case."
This is why greeks practised Rhetorics. Remarking on the practice, one philosopher said the exact same thing. He said, "You are using people's emotions to weigh in as against the facts of the case."
"You have to turn in your laptop."
Way better than "IT is upgrading everyone."
Way better than "IT is upgrading everyone."
In the four parts, surely “current status” is more important than “punch line” and should come first?
As for the bull being dead, that seems like the least important piece of information from that situation.
As for the bull being dead, that seems like the least important piece of information from that situation.
I’m ok the bull is dead? Maybe it calmed the author down but not me.
A much better punchline is “Im ok, I got into a car accident, I hit a bull and wrecked the car”
A much better punchline is “Im ok, I got into a car accident, I hit a bull and wrecked the car”
It's also called BLUF (Bottom line up front).
But the example isn't.
The bottom line is that something happened at all.
You at least have to say that much along with I'm OK.
The example is actually anti-communication.
It proves this itself by being the title, a curiosity-triggering title. That is the result of too much withheld context, and it's a thing that joke writers and newspaper editors do consciously for exactly that effect.
If it were actually the best way to communicate this message, it would be a less clickbaity title. You wouldn't feel as much need for more info. "What the hell? Since when and why was your OKness even in question? BULL???"
Article isn't as bad as the title claims it will be.
The bottom line is that something happened at all.
You at least have to say that much along with I'm OK.
The example is actually anti-communication.
It proves this itself by being the title, a curiosity-triggering title. That is the result of too much withheld context, and it's a thing that joke writers and newspaper editors do consciously for exactly that effect.
If it were actually the best way to communicate this message, it would be a less clickbaity title. You wouldn't feel as much need for more info. "What the hell? Since when and why was your OKness even in question? BULL???"
Article isn't as bad as the title claims it will be.
I really like that!
When I worked for a Japanese company, we submitted weekly reports in "QCD" form (Quality, Cost, Deliverable).
I like this format better.
When I worked for a Japanese company, we submitted weekly reports in "QCD" form (Quality, Cost, Deliverable).
I like this format better.
This is all very well, but not providing us with the details of why the bull was dead is just plain mean.
"The bull is dead" is completely useless information. This story seems to be an example of poor parenting to me...
There is a time and place for conveying information quickly and concisely, and there is a time and a place for storytelling and human connection. Seems the latter has been lost on this child's upbringing.
There is a time and place for conveying information quickly and concisely, and there is a time and a place for storytelling and human connection. Seems the latter has been lost on this child's upbringing.
I mean, is it useless? You crash your car into a bull in the road. Your okay. The car is damaged. The bull is dead.
The receiver of the information in this case already knew something was wrong. The most important detail came first: I'm okay. Nothing wrong with this.
Some folks might say the second most important piece of information is "the car is damaged" but really it doesn't matter. One might wonder how damaged. This detail doesn't reinforce the first piece of information. And the extent of the damage is important at that moment.
"The bull is dead" might seem unimportant, but it gets across the worst outcome from what's transpired. And in fact, it implies that the car is damaged. Maybe more relatable if you're in North America: if your child called you and says "I'm okay, but the deer is dead" that actually does a perfect job of summarizing exactly what happened. It's an unusual situation that a bull got hit by a car, but it's plausible.
When you've been in an accident, trying to explain everything over the phone often isn't the best thing to do, especially if the authorities are trying to take a statement or you're getting your vehicle towed. Arguably, it's bad parenting to dwell on really any other details besides "where are you?" or "do you need anything?"
Like I'm really struggling to think of another thing the kid could have said that would have been more efficient or would have made the outcome better. "The bull is dead" leaves you with questions but frankly none of the questions really matter, and the information that it conveys is exactly what I'd want to get across.
The receiver of the information in this case already knew something was wrong. The most important detail came first: I'm okay. Nothing wrong with this.
Some folks might say the second most important piece of information is "the car is damaged" but really it doesn't matter. One might wonder how damaged. This detail doesn't reinforce the first piece of information. And the extent of the damage is important at that moment.
"The bull is dead" might seem unimportant, but it gets across the worst outcome from what's transpired. And in fact, it implies that the car is damaged. Maybe more relatable if you're in North America: if your child called you and says "I'm okay, but the deer is dead" that actually does a perfect job of summarizing exactly what happened. It's an unusual situation that a bull got hit by a car, but it's plausible.
When you've been in an accident, trying to explain everything over the phone often isn't the best thing to do, especially if the authorities are trying to take a statement or you're getting your vehicle towed. Arguably, it's bad parenting to dwell on really any other details besides "where are you?" or "do you need anything?"
Like I'm really struggling to think of another thing the kid could have said that would have been more efficient or would have made the outcome better. "The bull is dead" leaves you with questions but frankly none of the questions really matter, and the information that it conveys is exactly what I'd want to get across.
This is an incredibly weird way to interact with people outside of work.
I'm ok, no one else is hurt.
I hit a bull, the car is drivable but sustained damage.
The bull is dead.
I hit a bull, the car is drivable but sustained damage.
The bull is dead.
If only our current new crop of journalists could relearn this.
Dad, good news! The airbags work!
This is why I always start with a tl;dr for all articles on https://bitecode.dev.
There is too much BS out there. Let's save everybody's time.
There is too much BS out there. Let's save everybody's time.
fun story. in general i find it preferable to have a brief TLDR section of 2-3 sentences before an email, and then use the more traditional approach below. i think it can be a bit jarring of a read otherwise -- having a summary on top still accomplishes the same thing
Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same way. Though I am not really convinced it is some positive character trait. It seems more like a anxiety problem. With the example of the article I would find it much more normal, and useful, to say. 'I hit a bull, I am okay, the bull is not'.