Ask HN: What people skills do you wish you learned earlier in your career? - <AUTHOR> For the past several years I've been putting in a lot of time into learning and sharing people skills (without the bullshit).
I'm interested in skills from dealing with your own emotions, through communication with close co-workers to high-stakes negotiating.
I'm curious: what are some people skills that you wish you had learned earlier in your career or that you wish your co-workers had easier access to?
Also: what are your favorite books and/or other resources that helped you? <comment><USER5> "How to win friends and influence people" is an absolutely wonderful book I wished I'd read 10 or 15 years before I did.

Some important ideas

\- Just, get along with people. A bit reductionist but if you don't place a high priority on getting along with people you certainly won't learn how. It really is a habit, and it's incredibly effective to remember the Cognitive Behavior insight that when you don't get along with someone, you are almost always choosing not to get along with them ... you know exactly what to do to get along with them and just don't want to do it.

\- Conversly, not everyone will like you and that's ok. You aren't everyone's cup of tea. Being ok with that is an important mental tool.

\- To crib from 12 steps or The Four Agreements, nothing is personal. DON'T TAKE ANYTHING PERSONALLY. Even if someone hates you, it's not YOU per se. It's their experience of you. It's not personal.

\- It may be fair to say that it's impossible to win an argument. Getting your way by "winning" an argument seems to come with an unacceptable cost attached most of the time. Try getting good at "yes and" style conversations where you run with the other persons point and build upon it creatively, it tends to make conversations more interesting than debating people. Truly, I find compulsive disagreement to be a boring conversational style.

\- Take personal appearance seriously, and view it as an ongoing project too. So many people fall in to the trap of thinking they can avoid dealing with signaling, which is silly, you always are signaling so best take a look at what you are sending out there. I think it is very psychologically healthy to care for yourself, the act is good for you, and you can change how you present yourself gracefully as you age, which people screw up all the time and it makes them look older, somehow, instead of younger.

<comment><USER6> Throw away for obvious reasons. I find almost everyone intensely boring. How am I supposed to get along with people without feeling like a complete fraud?

Small talk, feigning interest in kids, in sports, in wine, in whatever useless dull, pedestrian thing a coworker is into.

I find that anyone who isn't a PhD (or could easily have been if they hadn't gone into industry) might as well be a paper shell. I can put on a mask of civility and charm when needed, but all I really want is to talk to deeply self-aware people struggling with the boundaries of human knowledge.

It's like you try to peel back a single layer of why people believe what they believe and there's _nothing there._ No reflection, no relevant context, no mirror provided by an intimate knowledge of history or literature ... just nothing.

Nearly every time I work up the motivation to try to really get to know someone who I think I may have judged too quickly I find religiosity, passive consumerism, an unexamined life, something so distasteful that it takes ages before I can do it again.

How do people put up with it?

<comment><USER7> No offense, but I mean this, earnestly: get over yourself.

If you talk to a person, and the conversation is dull, they might be a boring person. If most of the people you talk to seem boring, _then you are the boring person_.

You bemoan that you find almost everyone a "paper shell". And yet you are the one who has restricted your opinion of interesting people and topics with a PhD attached to it. You dismiss pursuits that have spanned all of human history like sports, family, food, religion as "pedestrian". That is indicative of an incredibly shallow and one-dimensional person. If you "peel back" the layers of people and frequently find nothing, that doesn't mean their is nothing there, it means you don't have the perception or ability to find it.

You say "all I really want is to talk to deeply self-aware people struggling with the boundaries of human knowledge", and those with "reflection" or "relevant context", and yet you seem to have done little to no reflection, have limited relevant context outside your very limited definition of what is interesting, and have little to no self-awareness. You have constructed a fantasy where everyone else is inferior and uninteresting rather than accept the reality that you are likely a dull, uninteresting person who isn't nearly as intelligent as you believe.

I strongly recommend you take a step back, and seriously challenge your current beliefs about your relative intelligence and depth, and ask if the problem is not that others are dull, but rather you are a shallow, uninteresting person without the breadth of interests or life experience to relate to others. Doing so may open up avenues you have closed to yourself previously and help you relate to others more easily.

<comment><USER8> Not sure how this is helpful to the parent comment.

> If you talk to a person, and the conversation is dull, they might be a > boring person. If most of the people you talk to seem boring, then you are > the boring person.

And I don´t really understand how you can come to that conclusion. That´s like 2+2 = duck

In fact,

> have limited relevant context outside your very limited definition of what > is interesting

If the person in question has a limited (according to you) definition of what is interesting then asking him/her to "expand" the notion of what is "interesting" to match or be as "encompassing" as your own definition is not helpful. It isn´t even a viable solution really because you are not the same person.

And one more thing:

> You dismiss pursuits that have spanned all of human history like sports, > family, food, religion as "pedestrian"

Some people are not interested in those pursuits and they are, in comparison, very "pedestrian" in terms of complexity. Now I enjoy all things related to food for example, but I would stab myself in the ears if I had to talk to people about their eating habits for more than 30 seconds once every 13 years.

Some topics are simple, others are more complex. The parent comment clearly enjoys pursuits that are of higher complexity and feels as if people in general do not share that interest and hence to him they seem boring. Asking him to change his personality and what he "enjoys" just so that he can fit in is so absurd to me because it hints at the idea that you should surrender your individuality in order to fit in with the group. An idea that I don´t really appreciate all that much!

Edit: and adding no offense at the beginning of your post does not make it less offensive. It just makes seem passive-aggressive :P

<comment><USER9> > Some people are not interested in those pursuits and they are, in > comparison, very "pedestrian" in terms of complexity. Now I enjoy all things > related to food for example, but I would stab myself in the ears if I had to > talk to people about their eating habits for more than 30 seconds once every > 13 years.

There's no depth or complexity to non-PhD-esque pursuits and interests?

I moved from Reddit to HN because commentators here seemed more self-aware. It's threads like these that really make me question that decision.

<comment><USER8> I disagree with the PhD statement made by the original poster. I am a college- dropout and dont think that PhD means jack shit. I interpreted it as "highly specialized knowledge" rather than a piece of paper. if the original author meant the actual academic pursuit then he is just whacked in the head!

<comment><USER10> If you don't think a PhD means anything, then you're wrong.

<comment><USER11> Could mean something, might mean everything, might mean nothing, might be completely wrong... everything depends on context and perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Admitting I'm wrong or that I screwed up, and likewise praising others when they're correct or have ideas I agree with.

You would not believe how much smoother everything at work is when you learn to recognize early the signs that you're holding on to a bad opinion, or that you're headed towards a fuckup, and just saying it out loud.

The praising / agreeing thing is a bit more complex. I've noticed more recently that people tend to be quick to disagree but remain silent even when they agree with someones opinion.

Specifically calling out when you agree with an idea has some marvellous effects. The silent ones who also agree join in, people who disagree join the fray, and a rough consensus can be reached quickly.

<comment><USER13> This might sound strange but I wish I learned how to be more assertive and less apologetic/yielding.

When I was in a 50/50 debate/discussions, in many cases I leaned towards myself being wrong and the other being right automatically...and later would feel discontent with everyone when I turned out I was right and should have pushed harder. But I guess dont know how to be assertive without being offensive or overly brazen about my frustration.

<comment><USER14> I think these two flaws actually go hand in hand, despite seeming opposed:

1\. Avoiding acknowledging doubts or weaknesses in the position you're arguing for.

2\. Allowing a decision to be finalised when you remain unconvinced.

These two behaviours have different outcomes if you take 'outcome' to mean 'who won the debate'. But they're both flawed and they both come from underconfidence.

Confident engineers care about finding the best consensus. They openly entertain doubts in their own position (and happily change their position in front of others), and they also persist with the discussion until they're genuinely satisfied with whatever consensus is reached.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I hate to admit it but one of my bosses taught me that building consensus is a double edged sword and it can be used as weapon. Up until working with him I naively assumed we could all get in a room, hash out our technical differences and agree to a solution.

That only works when everyone is (from your perspective) not a bad actor. But how do you deal with an Executive Director who will bald-faced lie and say whatever he needs to say to ensure his deadlines are met and your needs are completely ignored?

My boss taught me how to pin that ED down and get what I need by documenting everything to exhaustion but also by building consensus _around_ the bad actor so his peers were on board with forcing him to comply. I hope to never find myself in that situation again.

<comment><USER16> Can you share more details of the situation? I'm curious what they were lying about and how you pinned them down.

<comment><USER15> Yes but it's 1 AM here. I'll reply in the morning when I can give a cogent answer.

<comment><USER17> When you wake - i'd love to read it too. I want to second the opinion that learning to build consensus is a very, very valuable skill. It's how a lot things really get done. I've never gone so far as to document things extensively or really need to, but it sounds like you learned some very interesting tactics on how to build consensus effectively because you were forced to. Not a fun position to be in, but if you could share the tips that would be valuable.

<comment><USER18> One advice I've read/heard is to make sure to give everyone a chance to give his/her input and address any concerns. It should be done individually so everyone has space.

Should a decision be made that was not favorable to one individual, at least it was discussed and was given the chance to give his/her opinion.

<comment><USER17> Yeah. It's definitely something that's worth remember is to ask the quiet ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not everyone responds the same. I _hated_ when people would use fluffy language: "would it be okay if you could do X?" Dammit...just tell me to do X. I know you're not really asking me you're just trying to be nice for something that has to be done.

Well... turns out just because I like to hear feedback or orders directly, doesn't mean everyone else does. Part of why your manager treads carefully is because they have to try and create a shared language across your whole team (and _really_ good managers know how to talk to each of their directs because they know exactly what kind of tone is effective for each of them).

Not everyone is the same. Understand that everyone likes to be treated well, but the way you do that is different. Empathy is an extremely underrated skill to have.

<comment><USER20> This is something I learned late as well. I like to think I'm thick skinned and can take instructions directly. Really I have my thin spots like everyone else.

I started examining the times when a boss or co-worker would really piss me off and realized it was because their tone was off. I also realized that the great managers were so good at tone that I wasn't even realizing they were telling me to do something, I just did it as if it were my idea without any of the rank-pulling that goes into being ordered to do something. I think the only way to learn this properly is to watch the reaction of someone when you ask them to do something like a hawk, then adjust your tone accordingly.

The fluffy language itself is just one of the more generic techniques to avoid pissing off your reports, but a great manager goes way beyond always fluffy. In particular, "I'm not too sure about this thing, can you take a look at it?" is like my big red launch button and several managers have found it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I learned the hard way to not underestimate how competitive and treacherous some people can be in the workplace. I was a long-term contractor in a large company and had an incident where I confided to another employee about some issues I was having negotiating my pay at contract renewal time. I never mentioned any numbers, just that a manager had previously promised me a pay- raise and was not honouring their word. Within two hours I was called into a senior manager's office to be reprimanded for discussing this matter publicly. In retrospect I can see the warning signs exhibited by this employee that I had ignored, and I now see that I should have kept this to myself, however I worked very closely with this employee and felt that this employee would keep what I had told them in confidence. After this incident I saw many other examples of how duplicitous this particularly employee could be when they felt threatened by the ability of others. Ultimately I was not disciplined, but I learned a valuable lesson in the process. For anyone wondering why this was an issue in the first place: It's generally a policy to keep pay and pay negotiations confidential. Employers fear the friction that can result if an employee discovers that they're being underpaid.

<comment><USER22> colleagues ARE NOT friends... they are competition. Don't tell a colleague anything personal you wouldn't tell an enemy. I've too have learned this the hard way.

<comment><USER23> yikes. you sound like a miserable person to work with

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> How to manage expectations.

That communication is incredibly important.

That the higher up the org chart someone is the busier they are. So what you spend 40 hours a week thinking about they might not spend 45 minutes thinking about. So over-communicate and remind them of important information about the project. Because they will forget lots of important details, and things that are glaringly obvious to you won't even show up on their radar.

How to sell.

<comment><USER25> > _That the higher up the org chart someone is the busier they are. So what > you spend 40 hours a week thinking about they might not spend 45 minutes > thinking about._

Respectfully, that's a proverbial crock of trite bullshit perpetuated to game the naive/inexperienced.

If the next level above me couldn't spend _at least_ 45 minutes thinking about the general problem I've been trying to solve in the past week, then that person:

a.) is stretched _way too thin_ (which should be pretty obvious); or

b.) seriously needs to GTFO for the sake of the rest of the team.

P.S. As a de facto (not even official) technical lead on a US$3mil+ project that I've been assigned to, I spend _at least_ 45 minutes a week sitting on a toilet bowl thinking of ways to improve the performance of my team while literally taking a _shit_. What's your project manager's excuse?

<comment><USER26> > If the _next level_ above me couldn't spend at least 45 minutes thinking...

Grandparent comment did not say "next level" above. People are often talking to people in different parts of a company, or more than one level up/down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The Four Agreements[0] is one of the best "user manuals" for how one should live life, both work and personal:

-Be impeccable with your word.

-Don't take anything personally.

-Don't make assumptions.

-Always do your best.

[0][https://www.miguelruiz.com/the-four- agreements](https://www.miguelruiz.com/the-four-agreements)

<comment><USER28> I liked this too. Also the sentence "You are entitled to your actions but not the results" from the Bhagavad Gita helps me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Not that far into my career, but this one really burned me. Understanding what people's unstated motivations are is really important IMO. I spent a job working tirelessly at something that I valued a lot, but others didn't seem to care too much about. After a bit of time, I realized that most people were looking at the work from how it hurt/benefited them based on a specific (but not widely publicized) bonus structure. People's actions started to make a lot more sense when I looked at them through this lens. I was still able to do the type of work that I valued, but fitting it into other people's frameworks of what is important made a huge difference.

<comment><USER30> This is very generic. You need to elaborate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is going to sound absurdly simple: empathise more often.

Everyone can do it, but not everyone does it. If you make an effort to actually imagine yourself in others shoes, your boss and your colleagues, and then feel it... Do this especially whenever any negative emotions or uncertainty appear in response to a colleagues actions or words.

I think all of the so called "people skills" are just side effects by comparison. If you empathise, it's genuine, and so called people-skills will emerge naturally. This also goes beyond the mere appearance of people skills, because it will make you better understand the needs behind the demands of others, and make it more likely they take the effort to understand yours when they see you understand theirs (subconsciously).

Like I said, as a premise, it's absurdly simple, but in practice it's a big deal.

<comment><USER32> This has been the hardest for me- Some people are truly incompetent. The VAST majority are not though. They are solving the problem in the most optimal way they see fit for the constraints given to them. Constraints that you may have no awareness of, and not understanding of. Some of those constraints may not seem rational- "We have to get this out the door by next week." What you may not have a full understanding of, is that feature is going to bring in an extra 50k a week of revenue, it makes a TON of sense in that case to just hack it together and throw it out the door. From a business perspective, you can go back and rewrite it later, the economics are there.

Its very difficult to understand the top down view sometimes, or the view of someone in a lateral position. I used to fight against decisions I thought were bad too much. I try really hard to understand their perspective these days- its still a struggle, I am not always successful. To be honest though, instead of getting emotionally invested (and pissed off), its super helpful to say "ok, this is not what you would do. Lets step back and try to understand their circumstances as to why they are doing this?" Immediately everything becomes depersonalized, and its just a system to model and understand how to put your input into it to try and get the outcome you want. My stress and emotional involvement go down, happiness goes up.

I personally found it very difficult to start actively empathizing, but its really helped, and I feel is what will take me to another level in terms of leadership.

<comment><USER31> > Constraints that you may have no awareness of, and not understanding of. > Some of those constraints may not seem rational- "We have to get this out > the door by next week." [...] that feature is going to bring in an extra 50k > a week of revenue, it makes a TON of sense in that case to just hack it > together and throw it out the door.

Yes, I've encountered many variants of this scenario coming from above.

My efforts to empathise then usually evolve into a one-to-one meeting to understand the reasons for such a demand and it's importance, and to explain the technical costs for a decision which seems like a technically bad choice. Usually the result is a shared understanding of this being something that does not improve the product or thing (especially long term), but is purely a short term business decision - With that understanding it's far easier between the two of you to decide if the cost is worth it, or, if there is an alternative, or, if there is a compromise, or, in the worst case if there is a long term strategy that can reverse the technical cost while satisfying the business demands in the short term.

... but it all comes from trying to understand each other, and it doesn't have to be about negative things, it's even better when applied to all interaction and requests coming your way.

Particularly when people ask for things, almost always you can suggest a better solution. It's the classic "but what do you really want", lost of good stack overflow answers come in this form, but it applies to more than just technical domains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Don't be an asshole. I can't stress this one enough. I don't care how smart you are, if you are an asshole, your career is not gonna work out.

Try really hard not to be negative, even when there is reason to be. Try not to be openly negative about the company or a particular employee. It's poison for you and your teammates and makes you feel worse.

Don't get defensive when someone makes suggestions to your code (I still battle this).

Don't base your self worth by other people's compliments. They're nice, but the company complements you every time they cut you a check.

When someone does compliment you, the best reaction is a simple, "Thanks!"

The people you work with are called colleagues, not friends. Sometimes it can hop over, but don't divulge personal information to a colleague that should only be shared amongst friends.

Keep your behavior professional, even if the company's culture isn't so much. Also, never get drunk at company parties.

<comment><USER34> So, what should self worth be based on? "I'm valuable just because I exist?" I'm not suggesting that's what you mean, but to me, that interpretation would be a bit arrogant. Isn't there some value in partially placing our self worth based on other's opinions-- so we can attempt to reproduce/be more of the things others find best in ourselves?

<comment><USER33> You should determine your own self worth and it should not be reliant on the compliments of others. The problem with being reliant on compliments is what happens if you are in an environment that doesn't give out compliments? Parents and teachers give you compliments to help you along, bosses usually don't or it's not often. On the flip side, what happens if you are in an environment that gives out half hearted, polite, or just plain fake compliments? Does your self worth get artificially inflated?

Your paycheck is the compliment and that's all your self worth should require outside of your own self assessment. (Wow this started to get philosophical quick).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> 1\. "Shooting from the hip" or saying exactly what's on your mind isn't always a virtue.

1b. Seize every opportunity to give an honest compliment

2\. Look for a way for everyone to win.

3\. Build people up and help them succeed.

4\. Pick your battles, and only engage in conflict when it's truly important.

5\. You may get upset, but the character you play doesn't.

6\. It only takes a moment to make a good impression but it can take years to overcome a bad impression.

Books:

\- Influence by Caldini

\- growth mindset

\- How to win friends and influence people

\- the war of art

\- 48 laws of power

\- 50 rules for aging

\- the like switch

\- what every BODY is saying (book on reading body language)

\- the prince (Machiavelli)

\- art of war (if you only get one idea from this book, it's that the great general wins without fighting a single battle)

</comment><comment><USER36> People are 100X more sensitive to negativity than positivity. So if you feel the need to say something negative, either wait for someone else to say it so you can laugh and agree, or say nothing at all.

Likewise, offer your opinion as little as possible unless it's positive or you've been explicitly asked for criticism. And even then describe how the thing could be improved, not how it sucked or how much.

<comment><USER37> If everyone followed that advice, nobody would ever express their opinion and nobody would ever say anything negative.

Being able to critique things is really important. It's essential for identifying problems, developing good ideas, and improving systems and products and well as people's personal development.

You say to explain how things could be improved rather than talk about the problems with them. The problem with that approach is it's usually important to first identify exactly what the problem is, before coming up with ideas for how to fix it. Sometimes it's not obvious how to improve things. It may take days or weeks to get to that point.

<comment><USER38> Pixar use a technique called "plussing"[1] where any critique given is framed as a positive constructive addition. Eg you accept something for what it is and suggest a way to improve it rather than saying it's bad or wrong. I've tried to use it, and continue to try, but it's hard work. When I manage to do it properly it works very well.

[1] [https://intenseminimalism.com/2015/pixars-plussing- technique...](https://intenseminimalism.com/2015/pixars-plussing-technique-of- giving-feedback/)

<comment><USER37> I addressed this kind of thing in my original comment: it is often important to first clearly identify the problems before trying to come up with solutions, and you may have to go days or weeks without being able to develop possible solutions.

<comment><USER38> That doesn't matter though. The point of plussing is about how you word your criticism so people don't feel the need to be defensive or antagonistic.

If there's a problem that can't be solved for a while there's world of difference between saying "Your code is wrong. This is a problem we can't solve for weeks." and "You've made a great start and this code is going to be really useful as a foundation to build on, but there's a new challenge we didn't foresee so we'll need to make a couple of changes when we have more data."

I've never met a technical problem that couldn't be solved better with good people skills. Knowing how to get good work from people is key for any tech business.

<comment><USER39> What if the code is absolutely terrible and needs to be scrapped ASAP?

<comment><USER38> Then your hiring process, the team lead's leadership skills, and whole team's requirements gathering and code review processes all need some attention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> After my PhD in physics, I learned starting a company that I needed such skills and devoted myself to learning them.

Now I teach the social and emotional skills underlying leadership, entrepreneurship, and initiative at NYU (student reviews: [http://joshuaspodek.com/this-is-one-of-the-greatest- classes-...](http://joshuaspodek.com/this-is-one-of-the-greatest-classes-i- have-ever-taken-it-was-engaging-thought-provoking-challenging-and-fun) and videos of them describing the courses: [http://joshuaspodek.com/nyu-students- speak-joshua-spodeks](http://joshuaspodek.com/nyu-students-speak-joshua- spodeks)).

I made book versions of the courses. Amazon makes the first chapters of each available free, which goes into more detail on what I learned and its value:

Leadership Step by Step: [https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Step-Become- Person-Others/...](https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Step-Become-Person- Others/dp/0814437931)

Initiative: [https://www.amazon.com/Initiative-Proven-Method-Bring- Passio...](https://www.amazon.com/Initiative-Proven-Method-Bring- Passions/dp/1733039902)

<comment><USER41> Cool! Will check out.

<comment><USER40> Let me know if you have any questions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> For everyone here recommending "How to win friends and influence people" (HWIP), I'd like to offer a counter point and recommend "The Art of Loving", by Erich Fromm.

The basic idea is that love and affection are not just feelings, but actual skills that need to be learned and cultivated.

It also introduces the distinction between being lovable and being loving.

HWIP largely teaches how to make yourself lovable, whereas the Art of Loving teaches the theory behind actively loving and embracing other people. I think it's a vital skill to have in any area of life, including business.

</comment><comment><USER43> 1\. Remember the person you are talking to does not have the same things in their head, and they are not looking at (or seeing) the same things you are....

So no matter how much you disagree with them, from their perspective it makes sense and is ethically correct.

2\. Most people are in perfect agreement on most things eg. Motherhood and Apple Pie are Good Things.

Most conflict arises from differing priorities being assigned to various "Good" things.

3\. There are precisely two things and ONLY two things you can change in this world.

What you do and how you react.

No matter how important it is, those are the only two things you can change.

</comment><comment><USER44> Being nicer to people. Earlier in my career I was too competitive with other people in team's I worked in. Trying to do all the work, exclude others. It was a function of insecurity maybe.

I've learned, you need to uphold your teammates, make friends and allies.

Lonewolf teams are only ever as productive as one person. Large companies, Intel, Google, want you to act as a multiplier, not an asshole. After all they are paying everybody, not just you. If you are perceived as individually great but rotten in a team, you are simply perceived as rotten in a team.

Learn to make your team and everybody in it look good and you will see your greatest successes.

</comment><comment><USER45> We were born with 2 ears and 1 mouth - listen more than you speak... I found that this drives all other areas of interpersonal interaction: you need to understand where someone else is coming from / what their motivations are before trying to "fix" things or "pitch" them... sometimes people just want to be heard above all else

Honestly and simplicity are the best policy. Don't bs, don't overpromise, own up to your failure, and follow-through on the things you say you'll do (and it will be easy to do this if you are honest about what you can / can't do)

Favorite book: 7 Habits of Highly Successful People; the title sounds like a business book but it's really about how to be a better person / friend / parent / colleague / etc

<comment><USER46> > you need to understand where someone else is coming from / what their > motivations are before trying to "fix" things or "pitch" them.

To extend upon that, I think listening is important in order to understand what people actually _mean_ by what they say. Just because what they are saying is imperfect doesn't mean that the actual point they are trying to get across is invalid. I've noticed that people spend effort coming up with the next response that they only bother to argue against the _surface_ of what the other person is saying without taking into account the actual substance and intent.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this perspective/skill is extremely powerful. It is also extremely hard.

I try to repeat to myself "find something to agree with" whenever I encounter a difficult situation. Sometimes I succeed.

Other questions I found useful are:

"In what circumstances does that make sense?" "What part of that might be useful?"

This is also a step in the "Five Secrets of Effective Communication" as described in the Feeling Good podcast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> An old saying among musicians: "Be careful how you treat people on your way up, because you'll meet them again on your way down."

Compliment other people and good ideas.

I've become conscious about things like mansplaining and talking over people.

Don't let technology get in the way of human interaction.

When you do something offensive (it happens, even if rarely), apologize.

<comment><USER48> > An old saying among musicians: "Be careful how you treat people on your way > up, because you'll meet them again on your way down."

Speaking of musicians, I wish I had learned to play music. Every place I've worked there have been some very talented musicians working there and I wish I had the skills to play with them.

I currently keep an electric guitar in my office and picking it up and playing (unamplified) is a great way to break my concentration when I'm stuck on a problem. I still can't really play though...

<comment><USER49> It's not hard to get good at an instrument, but _how you practice_ is the difference between accelerating skill and perpetual struggle.

Don't "noodle around" as a beginner, because practice makes permanent and good form is everything.

Do you want to be actually good and not just okay? Take weekly lessons, follow online tutorials carefully, and practice at least 30-45 minutes 6 days a week, giving it an absolute laser-like focus. (More practice is always better, and preferably in singular sessions, but that's the minimum and it's enough to make progress.) Focus on fundamentals, fundamentals, fundamentals. Treat good form like religious gospel and don't deviate from it, even if it's easier that way.

And since you already have played for a while, you're going to have to spend the first few months of practice painstaking unlearning the bad habits you've undoubtedly collected, which is not enjoyable because it will feel like you're moving backwards.

Do that for a year and people will compliment you on how much better you've gotten. After 3 years you'll be good enough for any semi-decent cover band in town. In 5-10 you'll be better than 95-99% of people who own a guitar and know how to make sounds on it.

tl;dr: it's totally possible to be good at an instrument, but it takes discipline and you have to be very intentional about it.

<comment><USER48> I bought my guitar in 1996 and have taken lessons 4 different times since then. The last stint of weekly lessons I had was last year for a few months. I've recently signed up for Fender's service and it's pretty good.

I'm decent at switching between the basic open chord shapes, can barre some of those shapes fairly consistently, know power chords on the low E and A strings, and know a couple of scales fairly well (pentatonic and major).

An enormous problem for me is a total lack of any sense of rhythm and a poor ear for tone. For example, I've learned a lot of Nirvana's About a Girl and if I try to play along with the CD I'm okay until the vocals start. At that point I start strumming the rhythm of the lyrics rather than following the beat. If I focus on my rhythm, then I start messing my chord changes and as soon as I focus on the chords, I lose the rhythm. A lot of my practice is with a metronome and I think I've developed a dependence on the click.

The only song I've learned from start to finish in over 20 years of playing (other than toy songs in exercise books) is a simple version of Dylan's Knocking at Heaven's Door. Oh - and I know 90% of The Breeder's version of Drivin' on Nine.

The lessons were a mixed bag. The Suzuki school was the worst because they made sure there was no fun to be had. The best was probably my first teacher that I met through a night school community college learn-to-play-guitar course I took in 1996.

In that time I've become a father and my kids have taken music lessons. Watching how quickly they learned their instruments and seeing how great their hearing is (one kid has perfect pitch the other has very good relative pitch) really makes it clear how poorly I've done with this.

<comment><USER49> Oh, also I believe we have the same taste in music. I've learned how to play both About a Girl AND Drivin' on Nine on guitar.

Also, I saw the latter song in some venue in San Francisco in 2008. It was sublime.

I almost got a chance to interview Kim Deal for my college radio show before the concert, but they backed out.

<comment><USER48> Since we like some of the same music, I'd love any suggestions you have for other easy songs that are fun to play.

<comment><USER49> Here are some songs that I find myself playing here and there:

Weezer - Mykel and Carli

The Shins - So Says I

Billy Bragg - Jailcell Blues (from Memaid Avenue)

Silver Jews - Random Rules

Silver Jews - The Wild Kindness (and a few others by them)

Radiohead - <USER2>

Hank Williams - Lovesick Blues

Willie Nelson - Redheaded Stranger

Johnny Cash - I guess things happen that way

\</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-

Here are some harder ones that are fun, but I've added them for completion:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-

Pixies - <USER3>

Radiohead - Street Spirit

Beatles - <USER4>

Modest Mouse - Styrofoam boots/it's all nice on ice

And what got me good at fingerstyle guitar was my brief obsession with Elliott Smith's music. Like, I've memorized how to play about 10 of them. (Primarily Say Yes, Waltz #2, and Angeles...)

Okay, I think that just about does it. I've given away my entire internal mental state of my twenties.

Good luck with your guitar practice!

<comment><USER48> Thanks for taking the time to write this out.

<comment><USER49> Sure! It was a nice walk down memory lane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> For the life of me, one thing I struggle with is pointing out issues that a non-technical person is causing. I think for the most part, engineers and the like are used to having their work critiqued and it's not a big deal to receive that sort of feedback; so being direct is the most efficient and frictionless path.

I continuously struggle with how to present that to a non-technical person. Being direct almost always invokes a self-defense response, usually redirecting towards a [legit] inadequacy of the speaker (which is fine, that needs to be received). But for the problem at hand, it is neither helpful nor my intention: I was trying to solve a problem in the best interest of everyone. It seems the response of most technical people in this situation is to just avoid it all together.

<comment><USER49> If you can find an answer to that that works you'll double the success rate of software projects.

Some stakeholders and managers don't understand software, the importance of clean code, and how insidious feature creep can be. They are used to a world where strict deadlines are necessary to keep people accountable.

There's no changing people like that. There's only choosing your battles and doing your best to (politely) contain them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Intertemporal decision making is really challenging. Future outcomes are undervalued relative to immediate ones. Further, we look to the future with rose-colored glasses that let us see a possible, yet unlikely future that we half-heartedly commit to today, without considering the reality that circumstances and motivations evolve over time and will influence future events from ever happening.

See the book,"The Economics of Self-Destructive Choices": [https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Self-Destructive- Advances-J...](https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Self-Destructive-Advances- Japanese-Business/dp/443155792X)

Research keywords: "intertemporal discounting"

</comment><comment><USER52> Accepting people as they are. I haven't found anything more powerful when it comes to interacting with people. I worked my way through personality types, influence, negotiations and a bunch of other so called soft skills.

Wholehearted acceptance of people; their motivations and fears; their habits and aspirations. When I am able to exercise this superpower (which does not happen often), I am able to open them up and change their trajectory. And in process, I myself learn and grow.

<comment><USER49> Man, that feels so true to me. If someone shows me that level of genuine kindness I'll go to the ends of the earth to help them. I'll give them my full, unwavering support.

I find often when I've been difficult and uncooperative it's because people have been not quite so accepting.

I guess I've typically felt like the "weird kid" (as many of us technical people have growing up) and if you make me feel like that again I really, really don't like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Minimize the amount of comflict at work by not holding grudges. You won't get a long with every one but that does not mean you have to add to the conflict by constantly bickering with the co-workers you don't get along with. Call a truce and focus on work rather than conflict.

Also get to know your boss' boss. Make sure they understand your value to the company. Don't be afraid of them.

Lastly we all fall into groups and many times it's a battle between dept a and dept b which is useless. Get to know people outside the group you identify with.

</comment><comment><USER54> No one is thinking about you as much as you are. At the end of the day, people are reacting to their own feelings, values, and ideas as much or more as they are to anything you said. Taking yourself out of the debate - no matter how personal it feels - is always a good first step.

<comment><USER55> I had to read this twice. But just to confirm what you mean: We should take our personal _feelings_ out of a debate -- but surely we must still remain in the debate?

<comment><USER56> If you're debating you've already lost the debate. The effective way to win a debate is not to have one. You either convince the other person the idea was theirs, which is easier than it sounds, or you get them to argue your point for you at which point it is their idea. Learning how to do this takes effort and a willingness to realize how little one truly knows about the art of effective speaking. You'll also begin to recognize when other people are manipulating you using this method. A really quick trick for this method is to start a conversation with something the person said and then say that what they said gave you your idea. Very few people won't take the compliment, you'll immediately validate their who ego and intelligence, and they'll immediately feel like you owe than something which means they'll want to be around you more. A good book as a primer for this is Influence by Cialdini.

Here's the kicker it even works when the person knows you're doing it. So it was good you brought this idea up, it allowed us to have a really good conversation about it and explore it more fully.

<comment><USER57> > You either convince the other person the idea was theirs

No. I used to read and follow advice like this. End result is that your ideas are considered other peoples ideas. They get credit and are rewarded, not you. Doing this regularly literally harms you and makes you to be perceived submissive, unsuitable for leadership positions.

Moreover, it makes you great target for bad actors.

<comment><USER56> As someone who used this very technique to get into a leadership position, there's a difference between using this to give other people credit and using this to get people into your side. The idea is to have a win-win situation where your needs and theirs align. You should have something to consider a win for yourself out of this. As an example, you have a customer who defines success as X. In order to get to X you need feature Y. By having a conversation with the product manager you use leading questions to get the product manager to suggest Y. You agree, the product manager gets a win in a new useful feature the customer loves, your workload goes down and the customer sees you as invaluable. Customer retention goes up and you get to celebrate that win for yourself.

It seems like a lot of work, but if you do this continually then you build trust with other teams, and you become more skilled with the process. Bad actors generally aren't smart enough to realize when you're giving them rope to hang themselves so this same technique can be used against them and they will look insane blaming others for their own bad ideas.

It sounds as if you could use a mentor to guide you through the technique and avoid the pitfalls you fell into. I'd also suggest learning how to effectively market yourself. I'm nothing special, don't have a bachelor's degree, and used to have terrible people skills. I'm now highly in demand and effectively can make my own roles wherever I go. It's definitely possible for anyone to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The hardest lesson for me is that, especially at large companies, things don't happen for good reasons. Meaning if you are used to the world making sense, you're in trouble. One example that jumps to mind is the flak I took for deciding to change my team from subversion to git. It sounds crazy even typing that!

<comment><USER56> Something I've had to learn with larger organizations is that the logic at the top isn't always conveyed to the bottom. Perverse incentives play heavily into this. An example of this is executive bonuses. Everyone knows that for long term health of a company short term gains should be subservient to long term gains. Bonus structures are typically structured for short term, which means that in order for an employee to get a bonus they have to do something that farms the company long term.

Another example is RIFs (reduction in force). An executive in IT gets a bonus for cost containment by not hiring appropriately. This leads to longer hold times, poorer service techs, and less training. Overall it costs the company more time lost and wasted effort, but this isn't tracked, only bottom line. The exec gets his bonus for cost cutting and the company gets less efficient and effective for it.

This is a major problem in large corporations and why CEOs are really useless employees in most cases, and almost universally overpaid compared to results. Generally a company could do without a CEO it choose one at random and get the same results.

<comment><USER17> This.

I have several mental models for this.

The first goes "most people are wrong about most things". You have to include yourself in that one or it just sounds arrogant, but it's true. Mostly we have a toy understanding of how anything really works if we are asked to scratch any deeper than the surface and the sheer amount of mental models required to begin to somewhat accurately map to reality vs. the search cost of finding those abstractions vs. the probability any individual is sufficiently motivated to pay the search cost. It's abysmal. So basically no one has truly good ideas. Yet some how the whole thing still grinds along.

You get what you incent. That would be another key model. Behavior follows incentives. Period.

Conflict of interest. That's another thing to watch out for. Loosely related to the idea of "subtext". People will say one thing but often mean the exact opposite of what they say. For example when someone says "I believe it is" this is a contradiction. The sheer timidity of the statement actually indicates that they harbor a hint of doubt. The subtext says "I acknowledge there is a possibility that it might not be and I cannot be 100% sure".

Power of ideas vs. Power of people. These are the fundamental two types of company culture that exist. If you're a thinker, you will be eternally frustrated in a power of people culture.

I'm probably rambling now, but there are a good many "human factors" that make companies awfully questionable at times.

<comment><USER56> I actually say I believe specifically when I want to convey I may have doubts, usually followed with "please correct me if I'm wrong" but I have worked hard to foster an environment without blaming my team. If there's a need to correct an action after it's been done we correct the action and define it within the process documentation. We've also worked very hard to solidify expectations so that if decisions need to be made without guidance they are clear on the intent of what their actions should be and respond accordingly. It's not a perfect system but it allows us to respond quicker to customer needs without waiting for management decisions.

<comment><USER17> Sounds exactly like the kind of thing I like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I wish I had learned to call out frauds early on. There are those occasional few developers in the corporate world that are hired but can not write any code. They spend most of the day being social and generally delightful but contribute nothing to the work. They are frustrating in meetings when they inject uninformed opinions in order to justify their existence, to themselves mostly, as thought leaders.

I also wished I had learned to be assertive to sensitive people. In the military world honesty is king. If you hold on to sensitivity in conflict to honesty you absolutely will not advance. In the corporate world kindness is far more important, even if that means lying to people. This is sometimes understandable in purely social contexts, but not in product or engineering discussions. Bad ideas are bad ideas. I wish I learned to take the kid gloves off and simply be more honest about really bad decisions in the corporate world instead of being tacit or accepting. It's hard when you really want to be a team player but some people's number one priority is face-saving behavior and find disagreements grotesquely disgusting.

</comment><comment><USER60> Maybe not skills, but habits:

\- Give glowing, public praise to the work and behavior I want to see more of, rather than complain about what I want to see less.

\- Perform the necessary rituals with a smile, and not reveal any worry about their lack of purpose / fitness for purpose.

\- Use videoconferencing only for presentations, never for substantial interactive discussion. (Travel, make the decision locally, or write documents).

\- Be away from my desk when I cannot tolerate interruption, rather than risk a curt or dismissive response to a tap on the shoulder.

\- Do not mention small problems to people who overreact (but do mention big problems when you need airstrikes).

<comment><USER61> >\- Perform the necessary rituals with a smile, and not reveal any worry about their lack of purpose / fitness for purpose.

This as a habit explains a lot of unsavoury corporate behaviour. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I wish I could figure out how to evaluate a team while being interviewed. Signing up with a bad team has proven to be a costly mistake.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure if it's possible during an interview (the same way typical interviews suck at predicting the job performance of the employee) but I heard someone suggest using the question "What is something that could only happen on this team?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> \- How to understand people and present ideas and opinions to them in a manner that they will respond to positively. Or judge how they will respond to an idea and make an informed decision about whether to present it based on your judgement of both the person and situation.

\- Understanding that emotions drive people often much more than logic. And that many people already know this and temper their communication based on the emotions it will provoke. And that participants in a conversation can know this about others and infer more than what is said by them.

The first time I was able to read into a conversation between a few others and see that their (apparently irrational) discussion was really a different form of communication built on top of theory of mind was mindblowing for me.

\- The corollary of the above is learning how to use a sense of people / theory of mind to more effectively disagree. Either focusing on not creating a barrier when disagreeing. Or focusing on effectively convincing the other party based on pathos in addition to logos.

I found the following most helpful while learning this:

1\. Podcast: Career Tools / Manager Tools.

2\. Book: "Secrets to Winning at Office Politics: How to Achieve Your Goals and Increase Your Influence at Work" \- Note, she quickly redefines 'winning' as 'benefiting both yourself and the organization'. I thought it sounded slimy at first before I read that.

</comment><comment><USER55> I was homeschooled from grades K-12 (for those outside the U.S. essentially from age 5 to 18) which in and of itself leads to poorly developed social skills.

But I also have ADD. One of the symptoms of ADD is poor impulse control and rejection sensitivity which leads to issues with "emotional intelligence." So I would advise anyone, if you suspect you may have adult ADD, talk to a physciatrist and figure it out. Fixing underlying mental health problems will improve your professional and personal life!

<comment><USER64> I'll second this. I spent roughly 2/3s of my life in a terrible ADD vortex of self loathing, hiding, and genuine depression. My sense of self had diminished to a scary degree towards my thirties because I was convinced I was a broken person but had this job to upkeep, kids to raise, a relationship to maintain. I had given up on understanding what was wrong with me.

Then I realized my kid had an attention disorder and decided to research it. I realized I fit the description as well. I discovered this is often passed from parent to child and I had no idea how to navigate this myself or how to help my kid... Who I gave this thing to in the first place.

In the short years since I figured this out, talked to professionals about it, and generally started setting myself up for success instead of living moment to moment running from failure... Things have changed such an incredible amount. ADD will never go away, I'll always be like this, but now I have some sort of foundation and understanding to work from. I'm motivated to overcome it so I can help my kid, too. There's no way he can have the experience I did.

It's so worth talking to someone. I suspected something was wrong for 10-15 years and never did anything and I seriously regret it. What if I had an extra ten years of being aware of this thing? Would my family be happier? Would I own a home already? Would I be happier and have better self esteem? Probably yes to everything. Don't delay, take care of yourself.

<comment><USER65> What changed after you talked to professionals? Is it the same, but now you just know what it is and what to expect, so it feels better? Have you learned how to manage it better? Found some chemicals that can make your experience better?

<comment><USER64> It's a bit of all of those things, but I think the most helpful thing has been awareness.

When you make mistakes that creep up over and over, it can be easy to feel hopeless and helpless. Over time it's appealing to want to avoid accountability because trying to be aware and engaged to solve the problem is... Understandably difficult and seemingly impossible. You think of things like, hey I know, I'll plan around this happening again or structure my activities such that it can't occur, but the reality of ADD is that intentions often fail and consistency can be incredibly hard to maintain. You have a good month and resume thinking you're fine.

So, pretending things are fine tends to be a common solution that gradually wears at your psyche. Without having a clear answer as to why the hell you keep messing up you figure you're somehow broken or stupid or whatever. You have no excuses. That's hard to face so you try to keep it out of sight and out of mind. I think when people hit this point it becomes very destructive.

So, talking to a professional opens you up to this realization that yep, you're really bad at functioning in a certain way. However, now you know why, and you realize you have tools (sometimes) that others don't. You're not at an advantage, but you're not purely damages goods either. You can work with this. You've made it this far despite disadvantages, and if you're sensible, you can maintain this or even begin to make some headway.

I began the cliche bullet journal thing, regulating my sleep like crazy, drastically reduced smartphone use, and generally began trying to set myself up for success. It has made a huge difference in practice. Simply understanding myself better has put me more at ease, otherwise.

An important parallel I think of in my life and software is setting yourself up for success. I like to try to write code which, even if (when) it really fucks up, the consequence won't be so terrible. I try to set up my days the same way now. Before I just pretended everything was fine until it wasn't, because I had no idea why it wasn't.

Unfortunately my life is really hectic at the moment, but armed with an understanding of how I'm likely to totally blow it, I've managed to do an alright job working from home and being a stay at home dad for quite a while now. I'm pretty sure that without understanding my condition it would be looming over me constantly like it did before. Now I'm prepared, I guess. I don't live in hiding from a part of myself and there's a lot less shame.

That's a verbose answer but hopefully it makes sense! In a way I'm still making sense of it too, and thinking through it is helpful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Never never never ask someone at work when she's due unless she mentions it first, I don't care if she looks like she's about to deliver a basketball.

<comment><USER67> I'm having trouble remembering the quote, but it was something like: "Don't ask a woman if she's pregnant unless you see a baby is coming out of her right then."

<comment><USER68> I believe that's Dave Barry.

"You should never say anything to a woman that even remotely suggests you think she's pregnant unless you can see an actual baby emerging from her at that moment."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Cut toxic people out of your life asap. they can't be fixed or reasoned with. Avoid like the plague.

<comment><USER70> second this one

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> There's lots of freedom and flexibility in things that are okay:

\- Being trustworthy and getting along with workmates is sometimes more valuable than being a favorite / teacher's pet to a manager. You ideally want to be amicable with both.

\- Say nice things about your colleagues when they accomplish things

\- It's okay during interviews to ask for time to show and tell projects, talk about your experiences. There's no rule written in stone to follow their format to the point you can't showcase strengths directly related to the job description.

Things that you can do that don't help you always:

\- Being proactive: Taking responsibility for preventative things when not asked to. I fixed / averted many headaches that have gone totally unacknowledged over the past decade+. Here's the thing: I'd feel dishonest / unprofessional to _not_ be proactive if something is breaking CI loops, typings, etc. It's hard for colleagues / managers to see the value until you wait for it to be a blocker.

This is frustrating to me, because I haven't found the solution to reasoning about it. I don't like the idea of waiting for a problem to rear it's head and all developers are blocked by a problem.

Things to not do:

\- Don't bring up _any_ political discussion with colleagues, _including outside work_. No matter how moderate, harmless you think your viewpoint is. It can only do damage to you, never help.

\- Even in unfair situations, e.g. it's untenable and you need to end the relationship, to take the route to ending it amicably as possible. Say you're moving to the next place.

Whenever in doubt / under stress: default to being professional as possible.

</comment><comment><USER72> \- get to know your bosses boss, and develop relationships. Your boss might eventually hit his limits, or might get in the way, but one way to resolve is having that connection.

\- if your bosses boss doesnt understand/know of how to resolve a conflict that is making a fleet of people unhappy, and they are backing the person causing the conflict (in my case, a person that takes credit for everything everyone did by frontrunning their work to them), just leave. Dont wait too long, it doesnt get better.

\- your career is important, and make it align with your boss'. If you do, he'll back you up. If he feels threatened, he will wear you down. If your boss is not a competent person, this is the only way to survival in such an org.

\- you cant usually change people, the ones that are willing to admit their mistakes and want to improve wilk usually be very obvious. Lean on them, learn from them. Run away from the ones that wont ever change.

\- things usually dont get better, be careful, learn to move on.

</comment><comment><USER73> Being skilled or competent at something doesn't necessarily make you popular. One of the most important lessons I believe.

Aside from picking my battles, I am just myself. Never read a book about it and I am pretty skeptical about them in general. We have several psychologists, mostly training sales people, but I wouldn't say most of them are very proficient in being "people persons", only for people that fail to notice a lack of authenticity. That is a self reported assessment by themselves.

We connect some arbitrary skills for being in a leadership position. In an American culture a leader has to be confident and that fact is pretty much treated as a dogma. But how can you have respect for anyone that dances like a monkey may be a question that comes up in other cultures.

It seems to be often just about your character traits being fashionable. Many people can read a person after a while, so disguising your character won't always help you anyway.

</comment><comment><USER57> 1.) Assert yourself more against peers. A lot of advice around is a lot about how to be pleasant (listen, admit mistake, cooperate).

There is very little advice on what to do when you have not done mistake but someone is still trying to convince you or others so. Or when difference of opinion is casted as your mistake. How to recognize that situation.

2.) How to recognize when people bluff and pretend knowledge they don't have.

3.) How to promote yourself without becoming asshole. Again, I read all that be humble advice and it fired back.

4.) All in all, I would like to have more realistic advice about communication and not the overly naive "be humble, nice and admit mistakes and everything will be rosy".

5.) Right now, I would like to know how to deal with manipulative sociapath/narcissist.

</comment><comment><USER56> Learning to effectively communicate with others is the single most important skill you can learn. It will help you improve your relationships with others, clearly communicate your own ideas, and address areas for improvement in ideas and others in a way that is constructive. There's been quite a few great books on this thread already. Here's some I haven't seen.

* The Ultimate Sales Machine - Chet Holmes - good even if you're not in sales

* The Effective Executive - Peter Drucker - Great book overall

* The Phoenix Project - good for understanding project flows and silos.

* Thinking in Systems - good for how to set up processes so that even if you step away the job still gets done. Essential for getting promoted, no one can promote you if you're impossible to replace.

</comment><comment><USER74> That it is very important to communicate the strength of an opinion, and moreso the higher up in an organization you go.

If you say everything like a Gospel truth, even when you're just brainstorming, the two end-states I've found are constant argument or constant acquiescence, and neither one is healthy for collaboration.

Conversely, if you always hedge your opinions, even ones that are against your moral code, you may end up unhappy, doing some unsavory stuff, etc.

A book that goes through this in detail is "Opening Doors To Teamwork and Collaboration". They have a very jargon-heavy approach to it ("notion", "stake", "boulder", "tombstone"), which I don't agree with, but the concept is important.

</comment><comment><USER75> I wish I learned to apologise earlier. It is the right thing to do in most situations. It effectively defuses disagreements and arguments, it shows that you are no longer an immature and obstinate teen.

You always come out ahead when you apologise.

</comment><comment><USER76> To be myself in public. I still haven't learned. I had an uncle who was like that.

He didn't give a shit what anyone thought, he was such fun to be around even if it embarrassed the hell out of you sometimes.

<comment><USER77> Alternatively, it is possible to be yourself while still caring a great deal about what other people think, but not letting it influence your behaviour. Only your emotions.

I think "not caring what others think" gets too much credit, honestly. It's fine to care, because that also brings joy, for example I bet your uncle was damn proud that you liked him so much for whom he was :) that only works if you care. Which I'm sure he did.

Allowing yourself to be vulnerable in public is a laudable skill.

<comment><USER76> Thank you, yes he definitely had people he cared about and I was lucky enough to one.

 _but not letting it influence your behaviour. Only your emotions_

That sounds really really hard!

 _Allowing yourself to be vulnerable in public is a laudable skill._

Absolutely, it requires a lot of courage imo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Spoken English, it's not my first language and communication is a struggle. This wasn't much of a hindrance on my career as I've mostly worked within my country and can read technical English just fine, but now that I'm working remotely for a foreign company I'm kicking myself for not having paid more attention to it earlier in my life. I'm a disaster at conference calls.

Lately I've been extracting audio from YouTube videos and shadowing, this helps. Spoken fluency is mostly muscle memory, I think.

<comment><USER49> FWIW, if you didn't say you weren't a native speaker here I wouldn't have known you weren't. Your grammar is totally fine (other than a few minor mistakes, but your grammar is better than most native speakers).

<comment><USER78> That's definitely not the case, but thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Showing up on time.

I spent way too much of my early career being that prima donna asshole who would show up when they felt like it.

I'm a bit older/wiser now, I apologize to anybody who had to work with younger me.

</comment><comment><USER80> Embrace being proven wrong. It's the foundation of the scientific method, but very difficult to do in reality.

I now genuinely love being proven wrong. Smarter everyday and all that :-)

<comment><USER81> and realize that not being proven wrong doesn't mean one is right.

A lot of times I just don't even debate with whoever doesn't want to listen.

<comment><USER80> "and realize that not being proven wrong doesn't mean one is right"

That's the other foundation of the scientific method. A thousand times yes!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Salary negotiation. (Not great at it now, but I don't feel embarrassed to ask for more).

</comment><comment> blaser-waffle Technical: I wish I learned Perl and Python earlier. Scripting is powerful.

Non-Technical: Learning to speak the Will-to-Power language of executives; coded Power-Talk and all that. Once you start getting to the Senior Manager / Director / VP level whole battles are won and lost based on being able to play their games. I got burned a couple of times before I caught on, and lament not picking it up sooner.

<comment><USER83> Any suggestions or recommendations for those attempting to improve those nontechnicals at earlier stages in their career?

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> These are the books and resources that have been of the most use to me:

# Assertiveness:

Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. (1995). Your Perfect Right. San Luis Obispo, California: Impact Publishers.

Paterson, R. J. (2000). The assertiveness workbook: How to express your ideas and stand up for yourself at work and in relationships. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

# Anger Management:

McKay, M. & Rogers, R. (2000). The Anger Control Workbook: Simple, innovative techniques for managing anger and developing healthier ways of relating. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

# Social & Emotional Intelligence:

Bilsker, D., Gilbert, M., & Samra, J. (2009). Antidepressant Skills at Work: Dealing with mood problems in the workplace. Retrieved from [http://www.comh.ca/antidepressant- skills/work/workbook/pages...](http://www.comh.ca/antidepressant- skills/work/workbook/pages/worksheets-01.cfm).

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (2009). Messages: The Communication Skills Book. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

# Some High Level Take Home Messages

\- negotiate your own behavior

\- everyone is doing the best they can

\- communication is goal oriented

\- humans make more sense when we understand the hidden variables

\- it's possible to use social skills and to be authentic

I built [https://socialarts.club](https://socialarts.club) as a side-project for my own use; it might someday be useful to others once I have added privacy measures.

</comment><comment><USER85> Learn to relax. It was Bill Murray who was talking about this in an interview. If you relax, people are more relaxed, everything becomes easier.

<comment><USER86> This is my top feedback from everyone. I am always relaxed and it makes other people feel relaxed. Little do they know that my laid back attitude comes from underlying lack of caring whether or not my projects succeed.

If I could have learned one thing earlier on, it's how to be more serious. It's hard to be the chill, no worries guy and also the guy to be taken seriously and not be crossed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> Marshall Rosenberg nonviolent communications

<comment><AUTHOR> I found NVC super valuable for opening my eyes to new concepts but challenging to implement in real life. When I tried it for the first time the other person got super angry because they thought I was making fun of them by asking about their emotions.

<comment><USER88> It does take some practice, and best not to overuse it. The book 'Words That Work In Business" by Ike Lasater is a very good guide to NVC in the business world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> If there were any I would list - and I learned these early on (long before I even started my career) - it would be these (and they apply in general, not just the workplace):

1\. Taking responsibility for one's mistakes.

2\. Knowing how to actually apologize for a mistake, and when to do so.

3\. Actually learning and improving from those mistakes.

The ability to say "That was my fault, I apologize for it, and I will correct it and make sure it doesn't happen again" is something that is seemingly lost on a lot of people.

Instead, most will tend to deny responsibility, deflect blame, put it on someone else, argue that other's do the same thing so why can't they, and more.

It's a child's strategy, and is very transparent to the adults in the room. It is also maddening to see people, especially those in positions of power who should set a better example, get away with it on a daily, if not hourly basis.

</comment><comment><USER90> I would recommend watching GroundHog day with Bill Murray. The key takeaway from this film I think, was be the brightest light in the room, be your most attractive self, and everything/everyone else will sort itself out.

</comment><comment><USER91> "The truth will set you free" Despite the cliche, I found the quicker you admit you've made a mistake, the quicker someone with more knowledge can jump in and resolve the problem before it gets worse.

</comment><comment><USER92> I've really enjoyed using [https://www.createcapsule.com/](https://www.createcapsule.com/) for this. Has been helpful with everything from practicing better CBT, to relationship communication in both personal and professional settings.

They do an amazing job of condensing down a lot of material into very succinct and digestible lessons (aka missions). Everything is also referenced so if you want to deep dive into a specific topic you can.

The whole course is short enough to finish in an afternoon, or can also be broken down in 20 minute slots.

</comment><comment><USER93> I wish I had acknowledged the fact that I suffer from severe anxiety disorder instead of believing that everybody else was wrong.

For most of my work life (20+ years) I suffered from severe anxiety that led to fits of anger, resentment, self pity.

After facing enough consequences (being fired, quitting in anger) I finally looked at myself hard in the proverbial mirror and asked for help and went to therapy.

My favorite books are from Jocko Willink: \- Extreme Ownership \- The dichotomy of leadership \- Discipline Equals Freedom

Mainly leadership books that I use to be better at leading myself.

</comment><comment><USER94> Three things...

1) The purpose of talking to people is not to figure out the right answer. The purpose is to figure out the next thing we can all agree is a decent idea.

2) Almost no one has bad motivations. When I think someone is trying to be a jerk, I now realize that I am probably misunderstanding a person who doesn't know how to be nice in a way that works for me. Probably, the person thinks he or she is doing the best they can.

3) Everyone is fighting battles, internal and external, that I cannot see. It is always right to be generous and sympathetic.

</comment><comment><USER95> How to deal with a-holes. Even better, how to make higher ups realise who the a-holes are and deal accordingly (which might not happen for a couple of reasons)

<comment><USER96> How do you make the high-ups realize who the a-holes are

<comment><USER97> It can be tricky when the high-ups are a-holes.

<comment><USER56> Sadly the higher up you go, the higher the likelihood you'll be dealing with sociopaths and psychopaths. While sociopaths can be very effective executives, psychopaths should always be watched it for as they thrive on the drama and power. Sociopaths just lack empathy which makes them highly useful in making emotionally difficult decisions. For a Star Trek reference sociopaths act like Vulcans when it comes to empathy. Psychopaths act like Romulans in nearly every situation. Don't get emotionally invested in either.

<comment><USER76> I thought that sociopaths and psychopaths behave identically. The difference is that one was born that way while bad life experiences made the other that way.

<comment><USER56> No, but there's definitely been a muddying of the definitions so it's understandable. Sociopaths actually have a purpose in society. Psychopaths are a detriment. Sociopaths can be very good and productive members of society. There's evidence to suggest that it's both a gene that needs to be present as well as the correct conditions during upbringing to trigger it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Mindfulness / awareness meditation.

Seriously, if there's one thing I could tell my 18 year old self, it would be to learn to meditate and trust in the process. I tried very unsuccessfully to start a few times (guided meditation really isn't my jam), but quickly formed a habit once I found what works for me. It has been seriously life changing and has improved my relationship with myself and others at work and at home.

<comment><USER99> Could you expound on what worked for you?

<comment><USER100> Not parent commenter, but what helped me was to track my daily meditations on a big calendar by marking them with an 'X'. My meditations started at 20 minutes. I would listen to some meditative bowl music or rain sounds and set it to end after 20 minutes. Alarms are startling and could ruin a good session.

I also had a little corner of my house with a pillow to sit on. I would change into comfortable sweatpants and pop in my headphones and start just counting my breaths.

I hope this helps you start!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> The two things I've been working on most, recently:

Giving credit where due, particular to more junior colleagues when they have made a good contribution to a team effort.

Speaking in a more straightforward way - I'm English, and it's common for us to speak indirectly and suggest stuff, rather than say it outright, but I'm working in a mostly non-native English environment, and it has lead to issues once or twice.

</comment><comment><USER102> Everybody in life will have their own goals, own dreams, things that they want to do, the way they want to do. You cannot define it for someone else. What you can instead do is help them with their goals, the way they want to get help. The best kind of things are organic, you can push someone to do better, but only if you know that they need the push. Not if they are okay wherever they are.

</comment><comment><USER103> Dang, what a mess this thread. Anyway, the first one is to never speak of what one does not know. I always get into trouble when I open my fat stupid mouth.

So always think twice before speaking, and if so, speak wisely.

The other one, tho related, is to never lose your temper. Never ever. This can get you in so much trouble that it is basically suicidal.

The satisfaction of a little rage is never worth the cost.

</comment><comment> throwaway-q2232 Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma problem and the Evolution of Trust - see Managing Your Manager by Ken Kousen. Essentially, Ken uses game theory to illustrate what behavior prevails in various situations and surveys various ways to deal with different personal. Also, the Game of Trust, as reviewed by Ken in his trainings.

Also, Robert Greene's The Laws of Human Nature.

</comment><comment><USER70> Soft skills - how to deal with anxiety, stress and how to stop procrastinating such that is causes problems down the road.

</comment><comment><USER104> Some people use anger as a way to manipulate others and get what they want. This means that if you're never annoying _anybody_ you're probably a chump.

(Now, if it's more than a rare occurrence that's a problem, but sometimes, some people will be angry at you. And that's OK).

</comment><comment><USER105> How to listen to people: Realizing that there is something all people need, and that is to be heard. You can use the skill of listening to people to have an advantage in any situation.

I think I learned this best in workshops on effective communication, where we could role play.

</comment><comment><USER106> Virtually everybody consider what they are familiar with to be normal or standard (often based on the country where they got their education). That was a big lesson to learn for me. Being in an international working environment makes you extra aware of that.

</comment><comment><USER107> Active listening. Empathy Collaboration mean compromise All decisions have emotions behind them

</comment><comment><USER108> I wish I had internalized this truth:

"Each person you are talking to or walking by is as important to themselves as you are to yourself. Everyone is the hero of their own story."

It is easy to get intellectually, but to really internalize this leads to empathy and understanding.

</comment><comment><USER109> understanding people group dinamics from a social psychology perspective has been eye-opener for me. Rekommended reading - social identity theory and then a book: Social Groups in action and interaction. 2nd ed. Charles Strangor.

</comment><comment><USER110> I was always "overly social", wanted people to be happy, worried about what others think. As it turns out, knowing what you want, having a vision for yourself and sticking to it and being able to respectfully say "No." actually makes you an even more pleasant person to be around. More predictable, dependable and interesting. It will cost me some Karma but for me the first step in this change was reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I don't agree with everything but her vision on rational self interest stuck with me and made me feel like a more balanced person. I still have my struggles though. I recently experienced a lot of stress negotiating 2 job options. But a coach (provided by the company I worked for, very nice) helped me see the benefits of clearly and respectfully communicating my own interests in that situation. You are the only one in such situations who has his own interests as a top priority, don't think for others, especially not in a business setting.

</comment><comment><USER111> Ability to listen when people talk and pick the best ones. Then apply the best ones slowly and permanently so that it becomes a habit. Make sure the tip is positive and constructive.

</comment><comment><USER112> I wish I had learned to disagree politely, convincingly, and respectfully. The trick is listening and really understanding the "opposite" view

How to Win Friends and Influence People

</comment><comment><USER28> I wish I had learned better how to listen and observe without my own insecurity getting in the way. Also being able to ask for something without apologizing or justifying.

</comment><comment><USER113> Don't be afraid to acknowledge what you don't know. Feel free to point it out and that anything you may be speaking to is an educated guess and estimation only.

</comment><comment><USER114> The ideas in Getting More, by Stuart Diamond.

And many others...in particular books written in foreign languages, which I cannot share here due to linguistic barriers.

</comment><comment><USER115> Talk less and listen more. Learn to ask good questions. You can have an interesting conversation with anyone and life won't be boring.

</comment><comment><USER116> Understanding that I can ask people senior to me directly for things I want and they would do everything they can to help me

</comment><comment><USER117> Just care less.

Don't worry too much about doing the perfect thing or building your product the right way. Whatever organization has hired you and your peers is by definition less knowledgeable, critical, and aesthetically sensitive than you are. Their goal isn't the "A-to-B" thing that you might think it is, because they don't really know what "B" is. Their goal is more like: hire some people, keep them happy, do some things that have a chance of bringing in money, and hopefully keep the lights on long enough to hire more people and take more chances at bringing in money.

However valuable "B" might seem, it's still finite. Comparatively speaking, culture and morale are infinitely valuable because they can get to so many other places than just "B." Whatever shortcomings you perceive in your implementation of "B" are at the end of the day are shortcomings of your team, and if there was a shortcut to get a perfect result out of imperfect people then capitalism as we know it would have already collapsed into something else. The only way to improve "B" (or "C" or "7" or "^" or whatever you do next) is to improve the team that's already there.

So relax. Have fun with the people you're stuck with. Try to do things better, sure, but don't blow out the engine trying to win the day's race.

Read Finite and Infinite Games by James P. Carse.

</comment><comment><USER118> That I could EASILY make A LOT more money if I would not use my favorite programming language :(

</comment><comment><USER119> Came here for tips on improving people skills. Saw mostly 'self inspect' mechanisms.

</comment><comment><USER120> Ask for help and communicate your concerns. Number one thing I wished I learned a lot earlier.

</comment><comment><USER121> Approach every conversation with an attitude of wanting the other person to be happy.

</comment><comment><USER122> Hiding contempt behind a smile.

</comment><comment><USER123> How to convince other people that what you're doing is worthwhile and valuable.

</comment><comment><USER124> Always be constructive with your feedback or don't give any at all.

</comment><comment><USER125> Some important things to remember when dealing with humans:

\- If people under you on the org chart are being friendly with you, laughing at your jokes, etc., it is partly due to their desire to get ahead in their careers.

\- Every person is the hero of his/her own personal struggle. This self perception explains a lot of human behavior.

\- If you are managing people and you don't think you can fire someone because your own boss would not be supportive, then you will never succeed as a manager in that company. Find a new boss.

\- The more a startup becomes successful, the more it will attract Slytherins and the more hostile it will be to Gryffindors and Hufflepuffs. This is not a value judgement about the different houses, just an important reality to keep in mind.

\- When hiring, the "weekend test" works very well. Would you want to spend a weekend in the office working alongside this person?

\- Be upfront with people about their own personal goals and time horizons. Collaboration can exist when everyone's incentives line up, but that doesn't entail that everyone's incentives will always line up. Being honest about this will make people feel respected.

Trust your gut feelings about people, they are usually right.

Figure out what kind of work culture you want to work in, and do your best to make your job match this culture, or find a new job that is a better match.

Invest in your friendships, and develop habits and hobbies that let you continue to make new friends even once you start to settle down a bit.

Read books like "How to negotiate anything" and "Impro" to better understand the way interpersonal dynamics influence negotiations and the perception of a person's behavior.

If you are a thinker, spend time cultivating the ability to listen to your own feelings and to use your emotions and hunches as valuable input into your more rational decision processes.

Realize that your mind and body are one and that you will be more complete if you treat your body well (food, exercise, sleep).

Leadership is a force, not a title. Regardless of the situation or who is officially in charge, bring leadership to the world wherever you go. This does not mean bossing people around, it can mean many things depending on the context.

edit: not sure why this got downvoted, maybe something I said struck a nerve. I'd be curious to find out what it was rather than just have this downvoted.

</comment><comment><USER126> Be yourself not who you think they want you to be.

</comment><comment><USER127> Photoshop and other Adobe editing features.

</comment><comment><USER128> Admit mistakes, and acknowledge if someone is right(even if you hate that person, or he or she is below you in the ladder)

Don't yell and judge the fuckups, unless someone does the same mistake over and over again. The only one kind of person does no mistakes - the one who dosen't do anything.

Try to help people around you, sharing knowledge etc. It makes everything go smoother.

Tl;Dr Be professional, keep calm, and leave your prejudices at home.

Work shouldn't affect(nor care) about your private time, and vice versa.

</comment><comment><USER129> Recursion. I see it everywhere

</comment><comment><USER130> Touchtyping

</comment><comment><USER131> keys open doors

</comment><comment><USER132> Protect yourself from

        Machiavellianism(manipulate/deceive others)
        Psychopathy(lack of remorse/empathy)
        Sadism(pleasure in suffering of others)
        Narcissism(egotism/self-obsession)

</comment><comment><USER133> Assertiveness. Seriously, you can be the best programmer in the world, humble, caring and even able to understand other people needs but if you're not assertive you gonna get screwed BIG time, especially if you are good</comment>


S4 – Super Simple Storage Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.supersimplestorageservice.com <comment><USER2> Write only? How do you use it after writing to it?</comment>


Charity: Who Cares? A Visual Guide to Giving - <AUTHOR> http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/charity-who-cares/ <comment><USER2> I have two quibbles with their numbers. First, if WalMart gives 1% of revenues, and they have $400 billion in revenues, they give $4 billion to charity. They say $13 billion is given to charity by corporations. Note that U.S. GDP is $14 trillion (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States>), so WalMart takes in under 3% of that. It seems off that 30% of all charitable giving by corporations is high for one organization.

Also, it says that public charities "collect a total of " more than $1.4 trillion. But we only give $300 billion to charity. Where does the other $1.1 trillion come from?

</comment><comment><USER3> If giving to charity includes supporting the local church to promote prop 8 like laws, then I'm not impressed. And given that religious donation make up for 35% of all, it is actually kind of scary.

Countries like France are much less religious so it makes sense that donation there (to religious institutions and in general) are lower, plus, if you take out the few US billionaires there, I wonder if the French actually give less than the Americans. Also note that French and Italians and most European countries pay much more taxes than the Americans do, and donation are not as tax deductible in Europe as in the US. You can also consider taxes to be some kind of charity, in France, minimum wage is huge and people who are unemployed get almost minimum wage like compensation + health care. So you can consider that in Europe, the state takes care of charity while in the US, it is taken care of by the people (with little success for health care).

<comment><USER4> A donation to Catholic Charities would count as a religious donation although 0% if it will go to the Church's political activities.

A great deal of the aid to the needy in the US is provided by religious- affiliated charities. Heck, even the Salvation Army is a religious charity.

But I think you're right that the structure of a country like France allows it to run on less charitable giving. I would imagine that the welfare state eliminates the need for a lot of food kitchens and shelters, for instance.

American numbers are also inflated by a large number of organizations operating as 501c3s and collecting contributions that would not be considered "Charities" by most people. For instance, the second largest 'purpose' grouping for 501c3s is "education".[1] Is Harvard University really a 'charity?'

Notice that the largest purpose grouping (by revenue) is health care. I know that Advocate Healthcare -- one of the largest hospital chains in Chicago -- is a 501c3 which has been attacked by health reform advocates for being very stingy with charity care and engaging in aggressive billing practices.

The "healthcare" segment is over 52% of the 501c3 sector by revenue. Some of that may be charity clinics, but I imagine the vast majority of it is institutions like Advocate. If you combine the healtchare and education segments, they account for over 71% of the entire sector.

[1] [http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/nonprofit-overview- sumR...](http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/nonprofit-overview- sumRpt.php?v=nteeFilers&t=pc&f=0)

<comment><USER5> _"Heck, even the Salvation Army is a religious charity."_

Yes, and they have been known to use donated funds to support political causes (specifically, prop 8).

I support religious charities (currently a Buddhist one), but absolutely oppose any who will use their influence for political ends. I also oppose any who count proselytization as one of their primary goals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting that this broke out the religious and secular giving. I've always heard the statistic that religious people giving more, but I always wondered if most of that was in tithes. Apparently it's not.

<comment><USER7> _I've always heard the statistic that religious people giving more_

The statistic they showed was religious people _being more likely to give at all_ : this doesn't say anything about how much they give, or the distribution of giving.

It's dangerous to extrapolate too much from limited data.

<comment><USER8> There is the part that says "religious people give more to secular causes than secular people do." Then the stat: 71% of religious give to secular causes while 61% of secular people do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Really wish they'd stop lumping in tithes in with legitimate charitable causes. It completely distorts the data.

<comment><USER10> My church feeds the homeless in Toronto, helps run a rehab clinic in Russia, and sends food and medical supplies to Haiti. Yes we do spend money on keeping on the lights and teaching our congregation about lessons from the Bible, but I've never even heard of the Pastor ever supporting a particular bill or politician. Maybe its because I'm Canadian.

<comment><USER11> Your church may or may not be a great example, I'm not sure.

In part, the issue revolves around if people know what their tithes are going for and why they tithe. E.g. if they know the money is going to help starving kids (or whatever charity) and they give for that reason, then it makes sense to count tithes (or a percent of tithes?). If they would give tithes no matter what because they are supposed to, then it probably doesn't make sense to count them (at least if you are trying to analyze who is the most giving based on money spent or percentage of income, whatever).</comment></comment></comment>