I don't have an habit of making posts about my personal life, but I thought
it would be nice for a change to hear people's thoughts about the subject.
I think it's a problem which not many people are aware of, or pay much
attention to, because it doesn't afflict nor concern them. Basically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loneliness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love-shyness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy

  I think there's at least one person here who I can relate to.

  Some selected quotes from the above pages:

  "Chronic loneliness [...] is a serious, life-threatening condition. At
least one study has empirically correlated it with an increased risk
of cancer, especially for those who hide their loneliness from the
outside world. It is associated with increased risk of stroke and
cardiovascular disease. People who are socially isolated also report
poor sleep quality and thus have diminished restorative processes.
Loneliness is also linked with depression, a risk factor for suicide."

  "In 2005, results from the U.S. Framingham Heart Study demonstrated
that lonely men had raised levels of IL-6, a blood chemical linked to
heart disease. A 2006 study conducted by the Center for Cognitive and
Social Neuroscience at the University of Chicago found loneliness can
add 30 points to a blood pressure reading for adults over the age of 50."

  "A news article reporting on the study indicated that involuntary
celibacy can lead to anger and depression. [...] Involuntary celibacy
may also result in an affected individual experiencing an existential
crisis."

  "A minority of the younger love-shys had some feelings of optimism in
getting their problems fixed while all of the older love-shys felt
very pessimistic about their problems and also felt cynical about
women and the world in general. The older men expressed more anger in
their interviews while the younger men were calmer."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

You forgot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anxiety_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I don't have an habit of making posts about my personal life, but I thought
> it would be nice for a change to hear people's thoughts about the subject.

It is a very complex subject to be sure.  At least two logical 
entanglements come immediately to mind.

One is deciding when it is valid to view loneliness as an affliction 
that happens somehow *to* the person and when solitude is actually the 
preference of the person and the result of their own decisions.  And 
then how to arrive at a coherent 'view' of the condition that can be 
shared by the affected person, subjectively, and at the same time by an 
'objective' or at least 'outside' observer.

Another entanglement comes with the moving target of social involvement 
in modern life which seems to allow for a greater commoditization of 
social interaction.  Everything from television personalities as 
companion to online sex-rooms.  I can hire a therapist or hire a sex 
worker with equal facility and both can provide a kind of human 
interaction that I am in control of and requires far less commitment and 
creates less stress than an actual friendship.  Or I can have a job that 
requires I interact with people, such as classroom teaching, but which 
has clear and stress-reducing delimitation.

I think your idea that people are generally unaware of the condition is 
wrong though.  I do think that many may substitute various standins for 
social involvement which may mask or disguise a state of loneliness.  In 
this case you might argue that the person is seduced by forces at little 
beyond his understanding and so the idea that he is lonely by choice may 
not be such a clear thing.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

count me in!  Not that I care...

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> You forgot
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anxiety_disorder
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder

  Not my case, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> One is deciding when it is valid to view loneliness as an affliction 
> that happens somehow *to* the person and when solitude is actually the 
> preference of the person and the result of their own decisions.  And 
> then how to arrive at a coherent 'view' of the condition that can be 
> shared by the affected person, subjectively, and at the same time by an 
> 'objective' or at least 'outside' observer.

  It is a problem when the afflicted person suffers from the situation
(in other words, the loneliness is not a conscious decision) and feels
that he is unable to fix the problem even though he would want to.

  One reason for the latter may be lack of social skills and experience
at socializing. This can be a self-sustaining problem: Lack of experience
and skills stops the person from getting them through experience because
he is unable to properly socialize, get new acquaintances, and so on.
The person may be unable to reach out to others, and even if sometimes
others reach out to him, he may be unable to reciprocate, and the social
situation might not go anywhere beyond just a short and formal conversation.

  (It often feels like people just give up too easily. Maybe they think
"that guy clearly doesn't want to get involved, I'll just let him be",
even though it might not be anything like that. It's not necessarily that
he wants to be left alone, it may be that he doesn't know how to express
himself in such a social situation, giving the wrong impression that he's
not interested.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

My new idea-- forgive me if this is too trite of advice-- is that "internet"
socialization feeds "real world" loneliness.

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> My new idea-- forgive me if this is too trite of advice-- is that "internet"
> socialization feeds "real world" loneliness.

yes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook

But it's because:
http://www.feedmeastraycat.net/uploads/dilbert071024.gif
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-21/

and also:
http://www.mattcutts.com/images/duty_calls.png

:D

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:14:28 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   One reason for the latter may be lack of social skills and experience
> at socializing. This can be a self-sustaining problem: Lack of
> experience and skills stops the person from getting them through
> experience because he is unable to properly socialize, get new
> acquaintances, and so on. The person may be unable to reach out to
> others, and even if sometimes others reach out to him, he may be unable
> to reciprocate, and the social situation might not go anywhere beyond
> just a short and formal conversation.

Very much so - I used to have problems like this myself; it is possible 
to break the cycle, but it's not easy to do.  What I did was forced 
myself into situations where I had to socialize; I ask people in the 
office if they want to grab lunch (that's a big one for me), went to my 
5th high school reunion, and also got involved in doing presentations at 
trade shows and eventually into teaching classes. 

From the reunion, well, that was a disaster, actually; I ended up talking 
to a girl who was in my English class and she asked what I'd been up to.  
My first book had just been published, and I told her that; she was 
interested and asked what it was about.  Rather than say "it's about 
troubleshooting Novell's NDS" (which she clearly wouldn't have 
understood), I said it was about computers.  Her response was "Oh.  I 
hate computers." and that killed the conversation.  In retrospect, I 
wasn't the one lacking social skills in that situation.

But I also realised how few people I went to high school with that I 
actually knew.

I still struggle with it from time to time.  I've never been diagnosed as 
having any sort of social "disorder", but I was always a loner and had a 
very small group of friends.  When I was in elementary school, it was bad 
enough that I had some sessions with the school therapist (which I had 
actually forgotten about until just now).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Very much so - I used to have problems like this myself; it is possible 
> to break the cycle, but it's not easy to do.

  As for me, I don't think I'm very shy. Not anymore at least. (Well, it
depends on the definition of "shy", but if we define it as getting nervous
about interacting with people, I don't have a problem with that.)

  In the past I was much shier. I used to hate eg. making telephone calls
to unknown people. Not anymore, as I have got completely over that. Nowadays
I don't have the slightest problem in calling anybody for whatever reason,
especially if it's about something I need (for example calling my ISP to
ask something, or whatever). In fact, rather ironically for a computer nerd
like me, I often even *prefer* calling by phone rather than writing an email
because many things are much faster to resolve by phone because the
necessary conversation can be performed in real-time. (Part of this is that
I have grown tired of people, especially ones working for companies, not
actually reading the email and replying with completely useless generic
answers, often ones which I have already specifically mentioned in the
email; when you actually *tell* the person it's much harder to ignore.)

  Likewise if I need to go in person somewhere, I haven't had a problem with
that in a long time (even though in the past I was shier about it). Eg. if
I have to go to some office or whatever to deal with something in person
(eg. sign papers or whatever), I just go, no problem.

  However, all that is completely different from actually being able to
socialize and engage in small talk. And it's enormously different from
going to an unknown person with no specific reason, just to socialize.
And yes, especially if that other person happens to be female.

  I don't know why, but for some reason it seems that people have stopped
approaching me as well, in social situations. When I was much younger
(early 20's or such) people were much eager to start sporadic small talk
for no specific reason than to socialize. Nowadays that just doesn't happen.
I don't even remember when was the last time that someone wanted to socialize
out of the blue with me in a social situation.

  I wonder if it's the age. Is looking well over 30 some kind of natural
repellent for people? They are not interested in a mid-aged man as much
as they are in a younger one?

  If there is indeed such a psychological phenomenon, it only aggravates
the chronic loneliness problem.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

I used to have all those problems too, yah.

>   However, all that is completely different from actually being able to
> socialize and engage in small talk. 

Here's something you may be missing. (I didn't read the whole thread, I 
fear, so this might already have been said.)

Small talk works *way* better when you listen instead of speak. Everyone 
likes to talk about themselves. So until you find common ground, simply ask 
the other person questions about themselves, let them talk about whatever 
they want, and listen for something you can contribute.  Don't be thinking 
about what you're going to *say* next, but instead think about what you're 
going to ask them next.  Of course, once you've talked to the person long 
enough to get past the "I never met you before" stage, it's easier, but you 
want to get past that initial awkwardness of not having anything to talk 
about. But for some it takes a conscious effort to learn to do this.

When you think about it, it's kind of like being a salesman. "Tell me all 
about yourself, and I'll listen until I hear something in common, namely a 
problem you have that our products can cure."

Also, I've found it's amazingly helpful to look people in the eye during a 
conversation. It's something nerds tend not to do. Not only watch the 
person's face, but actually peer directly into one pupil or the other. It's 
a little creepy the first time or two, but it really makes a difference.

>   I wonder if it's the age. Is looking well over 30 some kind of natural
> repellent for people? They are not interested in a mid-aged man as much
> as they are in a younger one?

I think part of it may be that you're getting to the age where most people 
have children, and if you don't have children, there's less to talk about, 
because children pretty much fill up your entire life.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> In fact, rather ironically for a computer nerd
> like me, I often even *prefer* calling by phone rather than writing an email
> because many things are much faster to resolve by phone because the
> necessary conversation can be performed in real-time.

I really hate making phone calls - but I have to agree with you that 
it's usually far, far more efficient for sorting out anything that 
requires some kind of complex negotiation.

(Alternatively, for something that requires conveying intricate 
information, writing tends to be better...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:25:23 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Very much so - I used to have problems like this myself; it is possible
>> to break the cycle, but it's not easy to do.
> 
>   As for me, I don't think I'm very shy. Not anymore at least. (Well, it
> depends on the definition of "shy", but if we define it as getting
> nervous about interacting with people, I don't have a problem with
> that.)

I don't know that it's "nervous" per se - more "hesitant".  I tend to 
dislike using the phone (I often will send my phone to voice mail rather 
than take a call - though usually that's because I'm in the middle of 
something and don't want to lose my train of thought).  Personally, I 
prefer written communications because I have a chance to think about what 
I'm going to say and to research my answer.

I really hate when people leave me a voice mail that is nothing more than 
name, number, and "call me".  I tend to reply via e-mail to those if I 
know the person's e-mail address.

>   Likewise if I need to go in person somewhere, I haven't had a problem
>   with
> that in a long time (even though in the past I was shier about it). Eg.
> if I have to go to some office or whatever to deal with something in
> person (eg. sign papers or whatever), I just go, no problem.
> 
>   However, all that is completely different from actually being able to
> socialize and engage in small talk. And it's enormously different from
> going to an unknown person with no specific reason, just to socialize.
> And yes, especially if that other person happens to be female.

It really is a different situation, absolutely.  It's like a coworker of 
mine said to me back when I was teaching - he described himself as an 
"extroverted introvert" - because when teaching, his personality actually 
changes pretty significantly.  I found that as well for myself - I often 
am a completely different person in front of a class or when doing a 
presentation.  I think it's about control, really, for me.  I always had 
trouble getting people back from break when teaching, but once I got in 
my groove, I could just teach and people would listen to me and interact 
in the class.

I even intentionally developed labs that involved discussion only; the 
guy who taught the class after me dropped them because he wasn't sure how 
to run them, but they worked very well for me - I think partly because I 
had significant hands-on experience with the technology I was teaching - 
that always helps with that sort of situation.

>   I don't know why, but for some reason it seems that people have
>   stopped
> approaching me as well, in social situations. When I was much younger
> (early 20's or such) people were much eager to start sporadic small talk
> for no specific reason than to socialize. Nowadays that just doesn't
> happen. I don't even remember when was the last time that someone wanted
> to socialize out of the blue with me in a social situation.

I don't remember the last time that happened to me either, but that could 
largely be because I don't do that kind of social activity very often.  
If I'm out now, it's with my family and not by myself (or with coworkers 
and not by myself if it's a work-related function).

>   I wonder if it's the age. Is looking well over 30 some kind of natural
> repellent for people? They are not interested in a mid-aged man as much
> as they are in a younger one?

As Darren said, it might be children-related, because they do take up a 
lot of time.  I started late with my stepson (he was 9), and it's still 
amazing to me how much of my time was involved in school and other 
activities - and I didn't mind it at all.

>   If there is indeed such a psychological phenomenon, it only aggravates
> the chronic loneliness problem.

I could see that, yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:20:01 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Warp wrote:
> 
>> In fact, rather ironically for a computer nerd like me, I often even
>> *prefer* calling by phone rather than writing an email because many
>> things are much faster to resolve by phone because the necessary
>> conversation can be performed in real-time.
> 
> I really hate making phone calls - but I have to agree with you that
> it's usually far, far more efficient for sorting out anything that
> requires some kind of complex negotiation.
> 
> (Alternatively, for something that requires conveying intricate
> information, writing tends to be better...)

One of the things I find a lot of geeks do, though, is tend to go into a 
lot of unnecessary detail.  I've long had people joke about my inability 
to write a short e-mail - and have made jokes about it myself.

I had an e-mail earlier today from a developer I work with who wrote a 
single run-on sentence about a two-line code change he was making; it 
wasn't clear to me what it was he was intending to accomplish with this 
(though I could - and did - guess, I've found it's best to be clear up 
front before coding begins with this developer), so I restated it back to 
him with "do I understand that this will [....]" and he sent me a one-
word reply:  YES.

My point is that sometimes it's more effective to say less.  I've even 
had someone ask for input (as part of a group discussion) about becoming 
an executive (long story there and the topic isn't really relevant to 
this discussion).  He'd composed a long e-mail to the CEO of the company 
in question and posted it in a private discussion area for comment.  He 
acknowledged that it was long, but he was trying to decide between 
brevity and explaining his ideas fully.  When talking with executives, 
especially in writing, brevity is important.  They're busy people (or 
they believe they are), so getting to the point quickly is critical.  If 
they want more detail, they'll ask.

That's something I find is generally true about people, executive or not.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:09:37 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Small talk works *way* better when you listen instead of speak. Everyone
> likes to talk about themselves. So until you find common ground, simply
> ask the other person questions about themselves, let them talk about
> whatever they want, and listen for something you can contribute.  Don't
> be thinking about what you're going to *say* next, but instead think
> about what you're going to ask them next.  Of course, once you've talked
> to the person long enough to get past the "I never met you before"
> stage, it's easier, but you want to get past that initial awkwardness of
> not having anything to talk about. But for some it takes a conscious
> effort to learn to do this.

I have a very good friend in the UK who made a comment about this, and 
it's absolutely true.  People LOVE to talk about themselves, because it's 
what they know the best.  Ask a couple of questions - "So, what do you 
think about this weather we're having?" or "Did you catch the game last 
night?" or anything starting with "What do you think about ..." will 
generally get a conversation going.

Even if you don't care about the answer, that's a great way to get people 
to start talking.

And I agree with your comment about looking people in the eye while 
talking to them; maybe not a constant thing (that gets creepy after a 
while), but people do respond to being looked at.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b67555e@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:25:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

> I really hate when people leave me a voice mail that is
nothing more than
> name, number, and "call me".  I tend to reply via e-mail
to those if I
> know the person's e-mail address.--Jim

I do that too...
I can't answer the phone while I'm
programming or working on a server...

~db

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Even if you don't care about the answer, that's a great way to get people 
> to start talking.

I think perhaps it's better to say "even if you only care about the answer 
to the extent that it gives you something further to ask about."  Asking and 
then ignoring the answer is off-putting as well.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> They're busy people so getting to the point quickly is critical. 

Him: "That's good, but can you make an executive summary?"

Me: "You really want an executive summary of three sentences?"

Him: "I think it would be a good idea."

Me: "Then it's probably not worth presenting at all."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I really hate making phone calls - but I have to agree with you that
> it's usually far, far more efficient for sorting out anything that
> requires some kind of complex negotiation.

The main problem I see with email exchanges is this:  people don't like to read.

Nerds like you and me, yes, general population, no.  Doesn't matter if you have
a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in minute detail:
people just won't read and will eventually phone you to talk "about the email".

Hate the phone.  Hate dumb people.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:25:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Personally, I
> prefer written communications because I have a chance to think about what
> I'm going to say and to research my answer.

Precisely!

Despite being quite verborragic on the web/newsgroups, I'm a pretty silent soul
on the physical side.  I don't know, I think it's the lack of a blinking
cursor...

> >   I wonder if it's the age. Is looking well over 30 some kind of natural
> > repellent for people? They are not interested in a mid-aged man as much
> > as they are in a younger one?

Yes.  Young ladies want young, muscular fellows or rich middle-aged folks.
Older women want youngsters.  People with kids only care for the kids to care
for the aged weirdo at the next cubicle.  Only geeks care for geeks.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> When talking with executives,
> especially in writing, brevity is important.

It's important because the dicks can't read.

I can be brief when cursing.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:05:55 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> When talking with executives,
>> especially in writing, brevity is important.
> 
> It's important because the dicks can't read.

Actually, in my experience, that's not the case.  It is the case that 
when you're a highly-paid person on staff (executive or not), time is 
money, so wasting time is wasting money.

I'm sorry you've had bad experiences, as you've clearly had, or you 
wouldn't have felt it necessary to phrase it like that.

> I can be brief when cursing.

I can too, but I find that also is not particularly constructive if 
you're trying to effect positive change.  If you're trying to affect a 
change of employer, that is a very effective tool.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:54:11 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> They're busy people so getting to the point quickly is critical.
> 
> Him: "That's good, but can you make an executive summary?"
> 
> Me: "You really want an executive summary of three sentences?"
> 
> Him: "I think it would be a good idea."
> 
> Me: "Then it's probably not worth presenting at all."

LOL, I have run into that a couple times as well.  Becomes an excuse to 
do something else. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:53:02 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Doesn't matter if you
> have a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in minute
> detail: 

That's often the problem, though - people don't *want* the minute 
detail.  They want the overall high-level picture.

Most people don't care about the details.  Take my example from earlier; 
I don't particularly care that he's adding two lines of code.  I care 
about what the result is - and the result that was explained to me was in 
such minute detail as a single run-on sentence as to be completely 
incomprehensible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:21:57 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:53:02 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> Doesn't matter if you
>> have a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in
>> minute detail:
> 
> That's often the problem, though - people don't *want* the minute
> detail.  They want the overall high-level picture.
> 
> Most people don't care about the details.  Take my example from earlier;
> I don't particularly care that he's adding two lines of code.  I care
> about what the result is - and the result that was explained to me was
> in such minute detail as a single run-on sentence as to be completely
> incomprehensible.

Dang, hit send too soon.

The rest of my thought here is that I found the explanation 
incomprehensible, and I actually understand tech-speak.  If my director, 
VP, or CEO had received it, they'd have likely binned it because the 
language would be completely foreign to them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:51:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Even if you don't care about the answer, that's a great way to get
>> people to start talking.
> 
> I think perhaps it's better to say "even if you only care about the
> answer to the extent that it gives you something further to ask about." 
> Asking and then ignoring the answer is off-putting as well.

True, and a fine distinction.  You do have to have some interest in the 
answer even if it's a passing interest in order to carry on the 
conversation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:02:42 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:25:23 -0500, Warp wrote: Personally, I
>> prefer written communications because I have a chance to think about
>> what I'm going to say and to research my answer.
> 
> Precisely!
> 
> Despite being quite verborragic on the web/newsgroups, I'm a pretty
> silent soul on the physical side.  I don't know, I think it's the lack
> of a blinking cursor...

Could be.  I sometimes do catch myself running on when talking - I did it 
last week in a presentation, actually, and gave details that I thought 
were useful at the time, but in retrospect were just adding on to 
something to "sell" it, and my audience had already been sold on the idea.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:00:44 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> I do that too...
> I can't answer the phone while I'm
> programming or working on a server...

Yep, it's so difficult to get your train of thought back (and some 
studies show it can take a half hour to get back to the frame of mind you 
were in when you were interrupted).

I love working at home for this reason - far fewer distractions.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Only geeks care for geeks.

Makes me think of this:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/geeks

:)

Post a reply to this message

>>> When talking with executives,
>>> especially in writing, brevity is important.
>> It's important because the dicks can't read.
> 
> Actually, in my experience, that's not the case.

What I've found is that in my company, the people at the top find this 
obsessive need to feel in control of *everything*. They will not 
deligate even the tiniest, most insignificant task to anybody else, 
because then they wouldn't be "in control" of that task, and that would 
make them less important.

The result is where every time anybody anywhere in the company wants to 
buy something IT-related that costs more than $100, the IT Director 
himself has to personally approve it. If anybody in IT wants to take a 
few hours off work, the IT Director has to personally approve it. If a 
printer anywhere in the company is low on toner, the IT Director has to 
be personally notified. And so forth.

The net result of this is that the IT Director receives roughly 900 
emails *per day*, most of them nothing to do with anything. And the 
result of *that* is that if you send the IT Director an email of more 
than about six syllables, he'll read the first sentence and send a reply 
to that - which usually result in him asking a question which is 
answered two lines further down the email you originally sent.

This is severely exasperating.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> One of the things I find a lot of geeks do, though, is tend to go into a 
> lot of unnecessary detail.
> 
> My point is that sometimes it's more effective to say less.

I like to delude myself that this is one of the things I'm good at.

I've seen computer policy documents that are full of technobabble. I've 
seen procedure documents that have a list of definitions that looks like 
a geek's guide to TCP/IP. It's really not necessary. These aren't 
technical documents, they're *policy statements*.

I get the impression that a lot of the people who write these things 
can't think abstractly. Like, they're so obsessed with individual 
technologies, and even where individual buttons are on a specific piece 
of software, that they can't see the big picture of what they're trying 
to do. It doesn't *matter* to an auditor if you use RAID1 or RAID5. They 
don't give a ****. What they want to know is that you're using RAID, and 
what exactly that means. They don't want to know about stripe sets and 
mirroring and parity computation hardware. All they need to know is that 
you've got multiple drives, and if one breaks the system can continue to 
function. That's one sentence. That's all you need to say.

Now that the IT Director is gone, I'm going to make a serious attempt to 
get permission to take my disaster recovery plan home with me. 
(Obviously, being written as part of my job, my employer owns the IP for 
that, so I need written permission to disclose it outside the company.) 
I think it's a damn fine piece of writing - and I have the likes of 
Roche and Pfizer agreeing with me.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The main problem I see with email exchanges is this:  people don't like to read.

> Nerds like you and me, yes, general population, no.  Doesn't matter if you have
> a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in minute detail:
> people just won't read and will eventually phone you to talk "about the email".

  With regular people that might be understandable, but with people whose
*job* is to read emails and respond to them (eg. technical support) I think
it's inexcusable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> The main problem I see with email exchanges is this:  people don't like to 
> read.
>
> Nerds like you and me, yes, general population, no.  Doesn't matter if you 
> have
> a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in minute 
> detail:
> people just won't read and will eventually phone you to talk "about the 
> email".

IME this is usually because the person you sent it to has other things to do 
that they consider more important.  So many times I have called someone and 
asked if they read the email - "oh, i glanced over it but haven't taken it 
in yet".  If you understand this concept then you understand why a lot of 
things in the world work the way they do.

> Hate the phone.

Me too, but I know when it needs to be used.

> Hate dumb people.

Only if they are trying to a job which they are not skilled enough for, and 
then I really don't hate them, just the manager that put them there.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:21:57 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:53:02 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> >
> >> Doesn't matter if you
> >> have a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in
> >> minute detail:
> >
> > That's often the problem, though - people don't *want* the minute
> > detail.  They want the overall high-level picture.

yes, but I was not talking about money-saving exec bastards in particular, but
about people in general.  In any case, I agree with your points.  But still
think they'd save a lot of time by actually reading it... :P

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b67b77a@news.povray.org...
> Yep, it's so difficult to get your train of thought back
(and some
> studies show it can take a half hour to get back to the
frame of mind you
> were in when you were interrupted).

Having several source files open, making global changes is
the worst time. There have been times where someone walks
in, blabbing about this or that, and I'd just close all the
files and start over. And it's not like I have all these
buddies coming in to talk, no, it's always some idiot who
can't configure a browser to allow popup windows to open...
It's always best to ask a programmer those questions, you
know... Don't call the help desk... :)

> I love working at home for this reason - far fewer
distractions.
> Jim

After 20 years, I finally got an unlisted work phone number.
The phone I have doesn't ring and goes immediatley to
message. But I'd much rather work at home and could do that,
but I drive the wife to work (same employer) every day. When
I retire...

~db

Post a reply to this message

>> I can be brief when cursing.
> also is not particularly constructive 

"Profanity is my primary debugging tool."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I can be brief when cursing.
> > also is not particularly constructive
>
> "Profanity is my primary debugging tool."

funny.  Dilbert?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> I can be brief when cursing.
>>> also is not particularly constructive
>> "Profanity is my primary debugging tool."
> 
> funny.  Dilbert?

No, one of the blogs I follow.  (I don't remember which.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:08:57 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b67b77a@news.povray.org...
>> Yep, it's so difficult to get your train of thought back
> (and some
>> studies show it can take a half hour to get back to the
> frame of mind you
>> were in when you were interrupted).
> 
> Having several source files open, making global changes is the worst
> time. There have been times where someone walks in, blabbing about this
> or that, and I'd just close all the files and start over. And it's not
> like I have all these buddies coming in to talk, no, it's always some
> idiot who can't configure a browser to allow popup windows to open...
> It's always best to ask a programmer those questions, you know... Don't
> call the help desk... :)

Yeah, I have that problem as well in the office.  I don't mind helping 
coworkers with things that are a little more involved (like walking them 
through data manipulation, which I do a lot of anyways), but often it's 
just someone stopping by to chat.  Or me getting up to stretch and 
stopping by to chat with coworkers in a way that I know is distracting to 
them.

So it works better for everyone if I'm home most of the time. :-)

>> I love working at home for this reason - far fewer
> distractions.
>> Jim
> 
> After 20 years, I finally got an unlisted work phone number. The phone I
> have doesn't ring and goes immediatley to message. But I'd much rather
> work at home and could do that, but I drive the wife to work (same
> employer) every day. When I retire...

That's cool.  I have an extension from the office that rings here, but 
very often it's set to forward to voicemail.  I figure if it's important, 
they'll leave a message, and if they don't leave a message, then they 
probably should've called someone else first.

Occasionally my wife or stepson will interrupt, but they're learning that 
when I'm working, I'm working.  The fridge is less than 10 feet from my 
desk, though (my "office" is just outside the kitchen and isn't 
enclosed), so I do occasionally have people wandering through.  Or cats.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:57:16 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:21:57 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:53:02 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doesn't matter if you
>> >> have a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in
>> >> minute detail:
>> >
>> > That's often the problem, though - people don't *want* the minute
>> > detail.  They want the overall high-level picture.
> 
> yes, but I was not talking about money-saving exec bastards in
> particular, but about people in general.  In any case, I agree with your
> points.  But still think they'd save a lot of time by actually reading
> it... :P

Only if they understand it, that was my point. :P

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:22:41 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> The net result of this is that the IT Director receives roughly 900
> emails *per day*, most of them nothing to do with anything. And the
> result of *that* is that if you send the IT Director an email of more
> than about six syllables, he'll read the first sentence and send a reply
> to that - which usually result in him asking a question which is
> answered two lines further down the email you originally sent.
> 
> This is severely exasperating.

Yep, I see that myself on occasion.  That's one of the reasons that I've 
started shortening my communications (over the past several *years*).  No 
point in answering a question at the outset when you're going to be asked 
it later and make the person asking feel stupid by saying "if you read 
the first message on this topic, that question is answered".

My director has started having me do more staff presentations lately, and 
generally asks me to do 3-4 slides to summarize the point.  The end 
result (which is what she was really going for) was that I get much more 
concise in my explanations and don't drag the discussion out.  That's 
been a very useful tool.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:29:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> I like to delude myself that this is one of the things I'm good at.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that is the case.  What you wrote 
after this quoted sentence confirms it, actually.  You understand your 
audience, and that's the most important thing to any writing one does.

People who write and don't know their audience frequently miss the mark, 
and it shows in the reactions to what they've written.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I like to delude myself that this is one of the things I'm good at.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me to find out that is the case.  What you wrote 
> after this quoted sentence confirms it, actually.  You understand your 
> audience, and that's the most important thing to any writing one does.
> 
> People who write and don't know their audience frequently miss the mark, 
> and it shows in the reactions to what they've written.

Sometimes the hardest thing is figuring out why you're actually writing 
something. Like, I mean, I *know* I have to write this policy. But *who* 
is actually going to read it, and why?

But, IMHO, *the* hardest thing is figuring out all the stuff your 
audience doesn't know that happens to be trivially obvious to you. Like, 
I've read *so many* projects on SourceForge that tell you about all the 
fantastic features this software has but doesn't actually say... what... 
it... does! >_<

It's like describing The Gimp by saying "This program is 100% free and 
has powerful features such as Gaussian blur, edge detection and supports 
multiple colourspaces". Yes, but... WHAT IS IT FOR??

The person writing this is so busy trying to tell you all the cool stuff 
that they're completely missed the fact that an outsider might not have 
even the vaguest clue what the software is for. This is so trivially 
obvious to them that they've completely forgotten about it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> Hate dumb people.
> 
> Only if they are trying to a job which they are not skilled enough for, 
> and then I really don't hate them, just the manager that put them there.

Even if they got there by pretending to know stuff they don't?

Actually, wait - any half-decent manager should still be able to spot 
this one. OK, you win the point.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> The main problem I see with email exchanges is this:  people don't like to read.
> 
>> Nerds like you and me, yes, general population, no.  Doesn't matter if you have
>> a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in minute detail:
>> people just won't read and will eventually phone you to talk "about the email".
> 
>   With regular people that might be understandable, but with people whose
> *job* is to read emails and respond to them (eg. technical support) I think
> it's inexcusable.

My favourit is when you email (say) the technical support for your ISP, 
saying "I know you offer features X, but I'm looking for something 
similar but slightly different" and they reply with "hey, have you heard 
about feature X?" And you're like "um, did you even ****ing READ what I 
wrote?"

Then again, these poor people are usually being paid peanuts to handle 
thousands of emails per hour. So I guess we shouldn't be too harsh on 
them. It's not their fault that ISPs and similar companies don't invest 
in hiring the propper number of staff and training them adequatly...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Then again, these poor people are usually being paid peanuts to handle 
> thousands of emails per hour. So I guess we shouldn't be too harsh on 
> them.

  Yeah, it's impossible to know whether the answer was generic and useless
because the technical support guy was just being lazy, or because he is
honestly trying to help but is so busy with the hundreds of emails he is
getting that he simply doesn't have the time to scrutinize all the minor
details in every single one of them.

  In the latter case responding harshly is certainly not going to help his
day to get better.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b6893de$1@news.povray.org...
> Sometimes the hardest thing is figuring out why you're
actually writing
> something. Like, I mean, I *know* I have to write this
policy. But *who*
> is actually going to read it, and why?

Last year, my boss ordered me (in a very nasty tone) to
write something he couldn't define. When I asked him who was
going to read it, he told me it was none of my business... I
asked him why he needed such a document. He again said it
was none of my business. We went round and round on it... I
never wrote it... He hasn't spoken to me in over a year now.

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle wrote:

> Last year, my boss ordered me (in a very nasty tone) to
> write something he couldn't define. When I asked him who was
> going to read it, he told me it was none of my business... I
> asked him why he needed such a document. He again said it
> was none of my business. We went round and round on it... I
> never wrote it... He hasn't spoken to me in over a year now.

Sounds like you got a good deal out of it!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b689c97$1@news.povray.org...
> DungBeatle wrote:
> > never wrote it... He hasn't spoken to me in over a year
now.
> Sounds like you got a good deal out of it!

I don't like problems like this. I much prefer easy, open
discussion. I love doing my job, it's people that suck...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> fantastic features this software has but doesn't actually say... what... 
> it... does! >_<

I like the ones that say "use this feature just like the way it was three 
versions ago, only with a new name!"

Sort of like if POV 3.6 was documented in terms of differences from POV 3.1.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message