Talking to students and colleagues like children

[apl68]

Yeah. larryc was a total dick entirely out of the blue

I never liked that guy.

This surprises me. larryc was always one of my favorite posters on the old CHE fora.

Although they had very different personas, larryc was kind of like polly to me--knowledgeable and well worth paying attention to, but could sometimes be really hard to take.

[Parasaurolophus]

Yeah. larryc was a total dick entirely out of the blue

I never liked that guy.

This surprises me. larryc was always one of my favorite posters on the old CHE fora.

My guess is that first impressions matter a lot. If the first time someone responds to us, they agree, we probably tend to look on them favourably afterwards. If they disagree, and maybe with a bit of sarcasm, then we are on guard from then on.

I'm sure that's true. For me, it wasn't really a question of disagreement. He just picked up on a self-description I offered in passing while responding to something and insisted on arguing at length that it was inaccurate, while inferring conclusions about whether I belonged on the CHE Fora.

My subsequent interactions with him have been fine, but yes, the way a community first responds to your presence has a big impact on your subsequent perception of that community.

But, as you know, I don't really mind a knock-down drag-out fight.

[ciao_yall]

One supposes the ticket to surviving the fora is having a short memory.

Someone I know in another online community figured out who I was on the fora and apologized profusely for being a schmuck to me at one point. I barely remembered the username, much less remembered it with any negative frisson.

[mamselle]

I should clarify, I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone else, but feeling as if I'd been a bit too pointed in a couple of exchanges myself.

It was my own tone I was apologizing for, I wasn't trying to make observations about any other posters.

Apologies if that wasn't clear.

M.

[little bongo]

With regard to the OP and their petulance--yes, it's pretty clear that they stopped seeking advice and just chastised everyone who gave the "wrong" advice. My advice probably would have been pretty similar in this case. Once the seeker of advice becomes, well, like the OP, it seems the only two choices are to continue to engage or to sign off with something like, "I see you've made your decision, then. Best of luck to you" (or to not sign off at all, of course).

If one continues to engage, then it pretty much becomes a baiting contest, which is what happened on the previous thread. Then one has to decide if it's worth it to attain the title of Master Baiter.

As for larryc, well, I didn't think he was the Mayor of Condescension Town, exactly, but probably served on the Board of Selectmen.

[Parasaurolophus]

Then one has to decide if it's worth it to attain the title of Master Baiter.

*snicker*

[Anselm]

I noticed this problem with grade school teachers.  Some of them can't "turn it off" after work and then talk to others like their little children, especially when they are angry or serious. Anyhow, virtually any teacher I have known as a student myself or a colleague at work has been pleasant with me.  I have only met a handful of difficult people. 

As for "soft skills", well I got a few things to say about that.  When somebody says "I have people skills" then I translate that as "I can't handle rigorous academics and for that reason I have a chip on my shoulder".  These are usually the rudest people I have met.  These are the people in HR and management who have held back my career ambitions.  They are looking for clones of themselves and can't comprehend or value the "hard skills".   They are paid too much money for knowing how to work a room, shake hands, talk sports and BS their way through life.  If I ever become dictator, I will send them back to the farms like Mao once did.   To understand what I am saying then just pick up any bestselling book about job hunting.  They never will tell you to learn a foreign language, higher level mathematics or computer algorithms.   It's all about marketing yourself and telling people what they want to hear.

OK, rant over.

[apl68]

I noticed this problem with grade school teachers.  Some of them can't "turn it off" after work and then talk to others like their little children, especially when they are angry or serious.

I knew a daycare worker (later junior high teacher) who was like this.  In gatherings of adults she would instinctively begin issuing orders and trying to "organize" things.  It wasn't just force of habit from work, though.  She was very domineering person by nature.  In relatively casual social situations she could usually get away with it by turning on the charm.  But if anybody tried telling her what to do, or even offered unsolicited advice, she would get very angry indeed.  Her life consisted largely of a long series of altercations and quarrels with others.  She fought with every boss she ever had, and seldom lasted more than a year or two at any one job.

[mamselle]

Mary Wesley's book, 'A Sensible Life,' has a character like that.

She's seen at the beginning organizing things for an ex-pat community of vacationers in France, just across the channel.

Thirty years or so later, she turns up again, master-minding a barbecue being given by the book's protagonist, from her wheelchair.*

No-one knows her name, she's just called "The Born Leader" throughout the book.

M.

[mleok]

I guess the flip side is whether there are some, through their behavior, cause people around them to treat them like children...

[lightning]

I noticed this problem with grade school teachers.  Some of them can't "turn it off" after work and then talk to others like their little children, especially when they are angry or serious. Anyhow, virtually any teacher I have known as a student myself or a colleague at work has been pleasant with me.  I have only met a handful of difficult people. 

As for "soft skills", well I got a few things to say about that.  When somebody says "I have people skills" then I translate that as "I can't handle rigorous academics and for that reason I have a chip on my shoulder".  These are usually the rudest people I have met.  These are the people in HR and management who have held back my career ambitions.  They are looking for clones of themselves and can't comprehend or value the "hard skills".   They are paid too much money for knowing how to work a room, shake hands, talk sports and BS their way through life.  If I ever become dictator, I will send them back to the farms like Mao once did.   To understand what I am saying then just pick up any bestselling book about job hunting.  They never will tell you to learn a foreign language, higher level mathematics or computer algorithms.   It's all about marketing yourself and telling people what they want to hear.

OK, rant over.

Oh, that's where those people end up.

This is the time of the year when underclassmen computer science and engineering majors decide to change their major. They profess to have "people skills" and move into our STEM programs that focus on user interfaces, user experience, requirements engineering, front-end development, and design research. The track has less STEM and more "people skills" courses. Sadly, even with the lower computer science requirements, these people can't hack it. But, the real reason they fail, has less to do with the remaining STEM requirements, and more to do with the fact that they don't really like dealing with people (end-users). This does not deter them from their delusion, however, because once the STEM program kicks them out of the program because they can't pass the basic programming and data science courses, they go over to the business school and major in marketing, in order to develop their "people skills." But over there, they can't handle the micro and accounting courses. And, as the business professors tell me, the "people skills" flunkies don't like selling either. The "people skills" students are really surprised & dismayed when they find out that marketing is really sales. Sooooo, they end up in HR / higher-ed management. It figures.

OK, my rant is over.

[ergative]

I noticed this problem with grade school teachers.  Some of them can't "turn it off" after work and then talk to others like their little children, especially when they are angry or serious. Anyhow, virtually any teacher I have known as a student myself or a colleague at work has been pleasant with me.  I have only met a handful of difficult people. 

As for "soft skills", well I got a few things to say about that.  When somebody says "I have people skills" then I translate that as "I can't handle rigorous academics and for that reason I have a chip on my shoulder".  These are usually the rudest people I have met.  These are the people in HR and management who have held back my career ambitions.  They are looking for clones of themselves and can't comprehend or value the "hard skills".   They are paid too much money for knowing how to work a room, shake hands, talk sports and BS their way through life.  If I ever become dictator, I will send them back to the farms like Mao once did.   To understand what I am saying then just pick up any bestselling book about job hunting.  They never will tell you to learn a foreign language, higher level mathematics or computer algorithms.   It's all about marketing yourself and telling people what they want to hear.

OK, rant over.

The saddest part is that there is such a thing as genuine people skills. I've met people who have them. They listen, they make you feel respected and heard (and not just in the moment, but because they follow through and remember what it is that you need), they take care to balance multiple conflicting requirements and explain their reasoning so that their decisions feel justified, not arbitrary. They have humility to change their minds rather than holding onto their decisions for the sake of maintaining power; they support the people who depend on them. Departments that include these sorts of people are miles better a place to work and study than departments that lack them.

The problem is not that people with people skills are bad at the rigorous content and make up some bs fake skillset to compensate. The problem is that people like those you describe are giving a bad name to the genuine, valuable skillset that they've decided they must claim as their own, when in fact they actually lack it. Because actual people skills are hard to do right, and easy to do badly.

[Caracal]

I noticed this problem with grade school teachers.  Some of them can't "turn it off" after work and then talk to others like their little children, especially when they are angry or serious. Anyhow, virtually any teacher I have known as a student myself or a colleague at work has been pleasant with me.  I have only met a handful of difficult people. 

As for "soft skills", well I got a few things to say about that.  When somebody says "I have people skills" then I translate that as "I can't handle rigorous academics and for that reason I have a chip on my shoulder".  These are usually the rudest people I have met.  These are the people in HR and management who have held back my career ambitions.  They are looking for clones of themselves and can't comprehend or value the "hard skills".   They are paid too much money for knowing how to work a room, shake hands, talk sports and BS their way through life.  If I ever become dictator, I will send them back to the farms like Mao once did.   To understand what I am saying then just pick up any bestselling book about job hunting.  They never will tell you to learn a foreign language, higher level mathematics or computer algorithms.   It's all about marketing yourself and telling people what they want to hear.

OK, rant over.

The saddest part is that there is such a thing as genuine people skills. I've met people who have them. They listen, they make you feel respected and heard (and not just in the moment, but because they follow through and remember what it is that you need), they take care to balance multiple conflicting requirements and explain their reasoning so that their decisions feel justified, not arbitrary. They have humility to change their minds rather than holding onto their decisions for the sake of maintaining power; they support the people who depend on them. Departments that include these sorts of people are miles better a place to work and study than departments that lack them.

The problem is not that people with people skills are bad at the rigorous content and make up some bs fake skillset to compensate. The problem is that people like those you describe are giving a bad name to the genuine, valuable skillset that they've decided they must claim as their own, when in fact they actually lack it. Because actual people skills are hard to do right, and easy to do badly.

You're right that those things are hard. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to just not be a jerk. In fact, in most professional contexts, its much easier to be a reasonable, pleasant person who doesn't actively cause unnecessary problems for everyone else with weird vendettas, ego trips and rigid ideas.

[mahagonny]

You're right that those things are hard. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to just not be a jerk. In fact, in most professional contexts, its much easier to be a reasonable, pleasant person who doesn't actively cause unnecessary problems for everyone else with weird vendettas, ego trips and rigid ideas.

I tried having a big ego but it didn't suit me. I'm just too fine a person.

[marshwiggle]

You're right that those things are hard. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to just not be a jerk. In fact, in most professional contexts, its much easier to be a reasonable, pleasant person who doesn't actively cause unnecessary problems for everyone else with weird vendettas, ego trips and rigid ideas.

In the sense of "best for your mental health and relationships with others", then it is indeed "easier".
In the sense of "automatic reaction for most people", it's definitely NOT "easier".