A Philiosophical Question: Is it Better to Be Honest or to Be Nice?

[Nadine Schaeffer]

Hello Geeks,

Last night's thread brought up a long standing cultural question for me, and I would like to ask the group their opinions - is it better to be honest or to be nice?

I am a big fan of honest, and I really want to know if for example, an employer does not pay employees. I have been in burned and not paid by start-ups before, and frankly, it is one of the most bitter of experiences. It's why I will not work with startups for the most part today. It is also why Jason and I at Cloudforest Design make paying people who work for us on time and at market rate a top business priority.

However, there is a strong belief in American culture and Santa Cruz in particular, that you should always be nice, polite, and not say anything negative about anyone ever. "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.'

I do believe these are cultural belief systems. When I lived in Germany, brutal honesty was the preferred cultural norm. In China where I also lived, inter-personal harmony was the higher cultural value. Interestingly enough, in the Silicon Valley tech culture, honesty and being right are also strong values, which leads to the engineering culture having a deserved reputation as surly poor communicators ... who make the most innovative technology on earth.

As Andrew said, this is a community, and a community defines it's shared values - so I must ask, what are the values of this community - honesty or politeness?

Not trying to stir the pot here, but I am sincerely curious as to people's responses. 

--
Nadine Schaeffer

cloud...@gmail.com

www.cloudforestdesign.com

831.600.8929 (office)

831.588.4509 (mobile)

[Sean Tario]

Nadine, great questions.

As most who know me will agree, I tend to fall on the honesty over nice spectrum... but I've tried to evolve and change over the years as 7 years of marriage has taught me that there is always a right and wrong way to phrase and say something. Bad news, or honest opinions, can always be delivered tactfully with regard to coming across overly emotional or simply hurtful and hence being tuned out or written off as an emotional angry rant.

Sometimes... NO response is also the best response. You only give a person or situation more power by engaging it with your thoughts and words... and such if you would prefer to move on with your life in a different direction, sometimes walking away and letting things go is the best way to keep your Karma positive and pushing forward.

As someone who's been screwed royally in the past a few times by employers who say one thing and deliver another, I sympathize with the anger and regret that comes with standing in the shoes of someone who feels used.  As an entrepreneur fighting to close deals and capital to keep the doors open and my team paid, I also understand the overwhelming stress of being an entrepreneur who demands a lot from his team every day with no guarantee long term success will occur.

I speak more in depth about this topic in fact here --> http://blog.openspectruminc.com/2012/03/hard-decisions-are-the-most-personal/

Nutshell, as stated above, it is precisely how we phrase things and handle these tough situations that define us. Do we let our emotions control us or do we take control of our emotions to ensure we are trying to push the situation forward in a positive way... or as positive a way as it possibly can be pushed.

Anywho, my 2 cents.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Santa Cruz Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to santacr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to santacruzgeek...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/santacruzgeeks?hl=en.

[Reesa Abrams]

Bottom Line is this problem is NOT just the American Culture

It is the history of this planet with the culture of majority

If you are a person of the majority some of you think you can say anything – just watch the politicians embarrassing our country right now worldwide

If you are a person of difference then talking is suicide – even if you are telling your Truth

Learn from the Native Americans, Blacks and Hispanics – they have spent most of their life in the last 300 years unheard / disrespected in this country

The first time the US Congress did not vote to abolish slavery was in the 1700’s after publishing “All people are created equal”

 

Also it is important to remember just because you see it that way it may not be relevant

So I vote for

1.       The only true victory is over yourself

2.       Pick your battles

3.       Use tact and politeness in your honesty

4.       Judgment or anger that you feel is your issue – get over that before acting

5.       Increasing compassion and diligence

6.       Try to work it out with the person offline instead of ranting online

 

 

Reesa Abrams

COO  TechCycle3

408 512 7217

www.techcycle3.com

reesa....@techcycle3.com

 

Environmentally Sound

Computer Recycling

 

--

[Fan Zhu]

I think being honest is more important than being nice but I also think that what you choose to do should also depend on the specific context. Letting people know that you had a history of not being paid by an employer IS appropriate for this forum but I think it could have been done more tactfully.

My personal experience working with start-ups is that the risk of not getting paid or getting paid late is just something you have to accept - if that is an issue for you, IMO you shouldn't be working with a start-up.

Fan Zhu 

Business Catalyst

Open Spectrum Inc.

Phone [831.768.9015]

Mobile [408.763.7558]

Connect via [Linkedin]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Nadine Schaeffer <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jason Wehmhoener]

Tact is important. It enables difficult communication where it would otherwise be impossible. 

I feel it is a truism that working with a start-up necessarily requires the risk of not getting paid. These decisions of how much risk you are willing to accept on behalf of your employees are expressions of values. It is possible to choose to place a high priority on obligations to your employees. 

I'm also concerned about the "take it offline" perspective here. While I still feel tact is important, some of these issues are not necessarily personal, and can impact the community as a whole, which would seem to make them worthy of discussion. Perhaps it is better to leave out personal details while continuing to have a discussion about issues such as risk tolerance, attitudes towards fair market rate, etc. Then again, it's not as if these issues are abstract. We are concerned about them because of real events in real lives.

-Jason

[Rob Knight]

Thank you for bringing this up, Nadine. I was feeling a little strange about last night's thread and I think you are right to invite a little more discussion (and a new thread) about it.

As much as possible, I try to remove my personal emotions from business agreements.

If I work for someone and I don't like the way they treat me personally, that is between me and that person. If someone has clearly broken a business agreement (or moreover, a business contract), then it's good to be honest when it is appropriate to bring awareness to the community.

I think honesty is the most important, but I agree with Fan...it should be done tactfully and as respectfully as possible. As with all public discussions, what you say -- AND how you say it -- leaves a lasting impression with the group and the community.

I agree with Jason in that I hope we can continue to have honest discussions in this forum. But the impact of those discussions (positive or negative) rests entirely on the tone in which we have them.

-rob

[pro...@silcon.com]

100% in agreement - especially #5

Bottom Line is this problem is NOT just the American Culture
>
> It is the history of this planet with the culture of majority
>
> If you are a person of the majority some of you think you can say anything

> -

> just watch the politicians embarrassing our country right now worldwide
>

> If you are a person of difference then talking is suicide - even if you
> are
> telling your Truth
>
> Learn from the Native Americans, Blacks and Hispanics - they have spent

> most
> of their life in the last 300 years unheard / disrespected in this country
>
> The first time the US Congress did not vote to abolish slavery was in the
> 1700's after publishing "All people are created equal"
>
>
>
> Also it is important to remember just because you see it that way it may
> not
> be relevant
>
> So I vote for
>
> 1. The only true victory is over yourself
>
> 2. Pick your battles
>
> 3. Use tact and politeness in your honesty
>

> 4. Judgment or anger that you feel is your issue - get over that

> before acting
>
> 5. Increasing compassion and diligence
>
> 6. Try to work it out with the person offline instead of ranting
> online
>
>
>
>
>
> Reesa Abrams
>
> COO TechCycle3
>
> 408 512 7217
>
> www.techcycle3.com
>
> reesa....@techcycle3.com
>
>
>
> Environmentally Sound
>
> Computer Recycling
>
>
>

[pro...@silcon.com]

Actually, especially #6.

=========================================

[Wjhonson]

You can't "work out with the person" a warning to the general public.

 

Watch out! Danger ahead! Is not something to "work out offline", it's something to broadcast generally.

Isn't it.

[Kevin Miller]

Contrary to what you see on reality TV, I don't believe that being nice and being honest are mutually exclusive.  I have no issue with negative feedback, as long as it's factual and constructive.

[chris arkenberg]

One person's subjective experience does not necessitate nor validate a

warning to the general public.

Chris

[Wjhonson]

But it's not a necessity to issue a warning, it's a choice.

A choice I think the working middle class very much appreciates.

Employers of course... sometimes do not.

The internet is a wonderful place, where we can warn others about bad pizza and crummy car repairs.

Not because we must, but because we wish.

 

This is just another aspect.

-----Original Message-----
From: chris arkenberg <chrisar...@gmail.com>
To: santacruzgeeks <santacr...@googlegroups.com>

> wrote:
> You can't "work out with the person" a warning to the general public.
>
> Watch out! Danger ahead! Is not something to "work out offline", it's
> something to broadcast generally.
> Isn't it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Santa 
Cruz Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to santacr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to santacruzgeek...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/santacruzgeeks?hl=en.

[Robyn McIntyre]

There are definitely a lot of business/cultural traditions affecting our perspective of discussions such as these. Jason mentions that tact enables difficult communication where it would otherwise be impossible. The reason it would be impossible is because, without tact, emotions would be more readily on display. To be unwillingly exposed to Nick’s feelings of anger and hurt is at the bottom of our discomfort. It makes us feel as though we have seen something intimate and private that was not meant for us and we are embarrassed.

 

Had Nick used more formal and less inflammatory language we would have been able to view his testimony more objectively. In our society, the person who communicates their pain passionately in public is often viewed as untrustworthy; perhaps because they have created a condition in which strangers have been forced to be witnesses to it. Being embarrassed is uncomfortable and we tend to avoid those who embarrass us or who remind us of our embarrassment. This is one of the dangers of emotional language in a public forum, though only as relates to such ‘private’ feelings. Anger or passion related to other types of matters, such as politics or social justice, don’t generally have the same capacity to instill embarrassment because we understand we are all involved and affected.

 

From my perspective, the real problem lies not in whether to be honest or nice but in how to be honest without imposing our private feelings onto others. This is generally the point of more formal language. I find it really unfortunate that the group’s perception of both parties has likely been affected by this discussion, which may make future interactions more difficult.

 

Robyn McIntyre

Social Communicator

Follow me on Twitter: robynmcintyre

Connect on LinkedIn: robynmcintyre

Google+: robynmcintyre

 

From: santacr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:santacr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Wehmhoener
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:10 AM
To: santacr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [santacruzgeeks] A Philiosophical Question: Is it Better to Be Honest or to Be Nice?

 

Tact is important. It enables difficult communication where it would otherwise be impossible. 

[Jason Wehmhoener]

Well said!

-Jason

[Rob Knight]

Very well said, Robyn.

[Jane Pinckard]

+1 Robyn

-jane

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Rob Knight <robdot...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very well said, Robyn.

--
jane pinckard
http://www.gamegirladvance.com
510.332.8145
skype: miyukijane
yahoo: miyukijane
twitter: http://twitter.com/janepinckard

[Wjhonson]

I tend, in email to be blunt to the point of being offensive (so lily-livered people tell me).

In person, *most* people get a different impression.

Maybe I could hire you to be my filter to the E-world :)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robyn McIntyre <robynm...@sbcglobal.net>
To: santacruzgeeks <santacr...@googlegroups.com>

[Fred Mindlin]

One of the most important tools for addressing difficult communication topics that I know, and now recommend whenever I get the opportunity, is one of the norms we developed for our Writing Project activities, in which we often get into touchy personal background issues and opinions: "Assume positive intent." I find it especially helpful in deconstructing those communications from others that elicit a negative reaction. If one really makes the effort to see the situation from the other's point of view, and to search for what might have been a constructive purpose behind the remark that the hearer reacted to negatively, many pitfalls can be avoided.

I bring this up because I can see how forming a clear idea of what is one's intent in initiating the communication could help strike a balance between honesty and niceness. If the truth would be so wounding as to cause real distress or harm to another, then perhaps there's a good reason to soften the blow by finding a version that would lessen the injury. But usually the person who has decided to "play the nice game" is not really thinking of the other, but rather fears that the truth would elicit a response from the other that the speaker doesn't want to deal with....

--
Fred Mindlin
Associate Director for Technology Integration
Central California Writing Project
http://ccwritingproject.org/

Technology Liaison to the National Writing Project

fmindlin.wordpress.com

thedigitalstoryteller.com

Intelligence is knowing what to do when you don't know what to do.
–John Holt

[Wjhonson]

What if the intent *is* to cause distress or harm?

I mean seriously, if someone owed me a back month's pay, I might very well want to cause them distress.

And I'd want that to be broadcast where I could, and I don't feel like a forum is inappropriate.

Telling a wounded animal, to just go die elsewhere, stop messing up my beautiful carpet, is equally callous.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Mindlin <fmin...@gmail.com>
To: santacruzgeeks <santacr...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:24 am
Subject: Re: [santacruzgeeks] A Philiosophical Question: Is it Better to Be Honest or to Be Nice?

[Fred Mindlin]

Now we're getting really philosophical...
;>}

In this, and all the other communities of which I am a part, I always try to assume that some positive intent can be found. That there may be those so wounded themselves that they do sometimes intend harm to others I cannot deny. To protect myself in such situations, the only recourse I can think of is to forgive and then avoid...Won't bring in any cash, but at least it preserves one's own mental health.

[Darren]

There is a venue for that… The court system. If you were to take other manners to manifest your retribution, you might be looking at an actionable action. If this was your decided course of action, I would recommend first and foremost conferring with a legal advisor to find out if you could be exposing yourself to criminal or civil liabilities.

and Will I realize you just love to stir the pot, but something to consider is that this a small community and we all know each other or know of each other. If we were just to throw grenades and burn bridges and at some point needed someone in the community where do we then turn. Being a grown up and being tactful is going to help our personal brand and get us much further in the world and keep our personal brand positive. We all have a brand or how we are perceived by others. Destroying our personal brand is the same as if Coca-Cola was known for being a porn peddler because of others brand abuse.

and yes they confer with their lawyers constantly about their branding.

With warmest regards,

Darren Odden Sr. Developer & Creative Odden Creative Media Development | Design | Photography Tel: 831.515.8597 | Fax: 831.515.5124 OddenCreativeMedia.com

My profiles:

[Spencer Lindsay]

Hey guys,

Personally, I'm stoked to know others experiences with business dealings in our little community.  The way it was worded could have been a little more... um.. tactful, but as a contractor, I'm grateful to others in the community pointing out rocks and sandbars as I plot my course.

My nautical $0.02

Spence.

[Wjhonson]

When you say the court system is the venue, you're missing part of my point.

 

The court system is the venue for redressing a *personal* affront between you and They, but YELP and elsewhere, is the venue for informing *others* of your issue.  Aside from a giant newspaper ad I suppose saying "Domino's pizza tastes like cardboard"

Is this forum appropriate for warning others of a situation which may be fraught with pitfalls?  That's the issue really.

Is there a YELP for businesses or business people?  And do people use it when seeking employment?
LinkedIN doesn't work for that, because you can't post "this company stinks and here's why" on LinkedIn, just in the forums, but not on the company's page itself.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say I love to stir the pot (but you can say that).  But I can't stand avoidance strategies and suppression.

To me that's downright un-American.

[Darren]

Tact is how to best way to get a person's opinion out there. The key is to remove emotion from the statement. Attacking with menace and emotion hardly ever works out well in the end. It was well said at the beginning of the thread. Remove the emotion and approach the subject with tact. It will get one further

There are many venues to push venom if that is what is being looked for, but I would say that it is not the healthiest manner to get your point across. The most obvious manner is to create a blog that is about how awful the company is, but that manner is likely going to get notice and lawyers likely will be getting involved. 

There have been employer grading systems out there for over a decade, Monster had one. The thing is that they boil it down into a manner that removes the emotion with 1-10 or 1-5 rating systems. This removes the grading and comments from looked at for corporate brand management purposes. 

Smaller once-upons may show up in these reviews and attacking a person that was involved in the running of the business is likely not going to be found, lest someone is again looking to be a target that could likely incur legal retribution for defamation of character or other such litigious manners.

With warmest regards,

Darren Odden Sr. Developer & Creative Odden Creative Media Development | Design | Photography Tel: 831.515.8597 | Fax: 831.515.5124 OddenCreativeMedia.com

My profiles:

[pro...@silcon.com]

Another word for it is Slander my friend!

=====================================================

> Darren Odden Sr. Developer & Creative
> Odden Creative Media
> Development | Design | Photography
>
> Tel: 831.515.8597 | Fax: 831.515.5124
> OddenCreativeMedia.com
>
>
>
>
> My profiles:
>
>
>
>
>

[chris arkenberg]

Zing!

Chris

--
chris arkenberg | http://twitter.com/chris23 | http://urbeingrecorded.com

[Wjhonson]

Slander must be factual, and must be wrong.

 

Saying garbage stinks is not slander.

And saying I hate garbage because it stinks is not slander :)

 

Of course that won't stop people from trying to suppress information yelling "slander! slander!"

I'm an old Wikipedian, I've been round this block eighty two times already

-----Original Message-----
From: proreps <pro...@silcon.com>

[Wjhonson]

That's confusing let me try again.

Slander must be both a "Statement of fact"

And also "Incorrect", and you know offensive or malicious in some way (no one sues over flattery)

 

Saying that Will Johnson murdered five people yesterday is a statement of fact.  It's also wrong, I only killed one.

So I sue you for slander.

 

Saying that Will Johnson is an obnoxious twit who should be driven out of town tied to the front of a train.

Is not slander.  Why? Its obviously your *opinion* which is quite important.  You cannot be sued for your opinion.

 

Saying that Will Johnson eats mammals, is a statement of fact, and possibly offensive

HOWEVER it's not WRONG.  It's correct.  You cannot be sued for correct statements of fact

(Well you can, but they would lose)

 

Saying that Will Johnson is the fattest person in Santa Cruz is slander.

It's a "statement of fact" and its "wrong" and its offensive as well.

 

Now educate, don't propagandize.

You've been schooled.

[pro...@silcon.com]

It is actually Libel, not Slander.

"Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime,
having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation
are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and
therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by
the person harmed. ** Words spoken over the air on television, the
internet or radio are treated as libel** (written defamation) and not
slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much
if not more than printed publications and is hence much more damaging".

Bottom line is that to be VERY careful of what one says on line - the
words had better be 100% factual or be ready to face the music. Far from
suppression ... it is simply taking care before making reputation damaging
(or destroying) comments.

=================================================================

> ruz Geeks" group.

> o post to this group, send email to santacr...@googlegroups.com.

> o unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> santacruzgeek...@googlegroups.com.

[Wjhonson]

Nonsense.

Just more attempts to suppress free speech.

 

By the way you quoted something without citing the source, probably some anonymous blog :)

I constantly insult and ridicule people online and point out their general failings and lack of fiber, morals, characters, and sense.

I've yet to be sued, because these are all obviously my own opinions, and not meant to be taken as "Fact"

 

You do not have to be factual, provided it's clear you are giving your *opinion*.

Can you imagine how many hundreds of thousands of people could get sued for YELP reviews?

Clearly I'm correct :)~~~~~

[Claire]

Geeks,

There's a great book by a local Santa Cruzan "Don't be Nice be Real"
by Kelly Bryson that I can recommend highly. He comes from the world
of NonViolentCommunication and breaks down the mechanics of really
effective communication. If you like understanding the meta level of
human dynamics, you'll enjoy this book.

For me, understanding the mechanics of great communication is just as
important as knowing the mechanics of HTML5, imho.

[pro...@silcon.com]

Simply a Legal dictionary, no more no less.

> Nonsense.
> Just more attempts to suppress free speech.
>
> By the way you quoted something without citing the source, probably some
> anonymous blog :)
> I constantly insult and ridicule people online and point out their general
> failings and lack of fiber, morals, characters, and sense.
> I've yet to be sued, because these are all obviously my own opinions, and
> not meant to be taken as "Fact"
>
> You do not have to be factual, provided it's clear you are giving your
> *opinion*.
> Can you imagine how many hundreds of thousands of people could get sued
> for YELP reviews?
> Clearly I'm correct :)~~~~~
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: proreps <pro...@silcon.com>
> To: santacruzgeeks <santacr...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:55 pm
> Subject: Re: [santacruzgeeks] A Philiosophical Question: Is it Better to
> Be Honest or to Be Nice?
>
>
> It is actually Libel, not Slander.
> "Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime,

> aving a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation

> re treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and

> herefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by

> he person harmed. ** Words spoken over the air on television, the

> nternet or radio are treated as libel** (written defamation) and not

> lander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much

> f not more than printed publications and is hence much more damaging".
> Bottom line is that to be VERY careful of what one says on line - the

> ords had better be 100% factual or be ready to face the music. Far from

> uppression ... it is simply taking care before making reputation damaging

[Wjhonson]

Apparently written by a person who has no idea of what they are speaking.

Several court cases against sites like badbusinessbureau have made clear that you cannot be sued for opinions.

 

At any rate, you'll be self-represented because no lawyer is going to advise you to do something so foolish.

[pro...@silcon.com]

Interesting ... since I am an attorney. You should stick to what you know.

[Wjhonson]

I challenge your claim to be an attorney.

Claims made without citations are worthless.

Identify yourself, and let us all see if your statements are baseless or not.

Anonymous persons can say whatever they wish can't they.

[Rob Knight]

If we take a moment to remind ourselves this started as a philosophical  rather than a legal question (it's right there in the subject line), I think it is worth noting the damage one can do to their reputation, public image, perceived trustworthiness and other "personal brand" attributes based solely on how one addresses people in online venues.

It's been said more than once in this thread that being respectful, assuming positive intent, and removing emotion from criticism help keep the discussion honest and healthy. I agree with those sentiments. Thank you to everyone who reflected those values in their words here. I think this thread has provided us with examples from both sides of the coin.

Thanks again to Nadine for opening the discussion.

[Margaret Rosas]

I've used my discretion as moderator to remove Mr. Johnson from the geeks list.

Keeping it professional, positive and real,

Margaret

--
productOps
Margaret Rosas
Architect and Community Evangelist
http://twitter.com/mrosas

[John Haskey]

Boo.

[Anne Sullivan]

Thank you. While I enjoy an interesting debate as much as the next
person, trolling is just tiresome.

-Anne

[Darren]

You are a rawk stawr

With warmest regards,

Darren Odden Sr. Developer & Creative Odden Creative Media Development | Design | Photography Tel: 831.515.8597 | Fax: 831.515.5124 OddenCreativeMedia.com

My profiles:

[chris arkenberg]

Agreed. This is not his first offense. It's quite tiresome to debate
with confessed agitators, as if their confession excuses their
disrespect.

[Iris Kavanagh]

Thank you Margaret! The heartfelt discussion Nadine sought to begin and several others sought to contribute to in a meaningful way in was unfortunately hijacked by one individual who enjoyed listening to the sound of his own voice more than he wanted to have an honest dialogue.

As Darren pointed out, this is a public forum and this is part of the public brand of Santa Cruz. The tough decision as moderator to remove him from this list had to made for the good of the Geeks and the good of Santa Cruz as a whole. 

Warmly,

~ Iris

---

Iris Kavanagh
Community Curator + Chief Community Officer
NextSpace Coworking + Innovation, Inc.
www.NextSpace.us
+1 831 420 0710

http://twitter.com/iriskavanagh

Whoa! NextSpace now has four locations to work from! You can find us downtown in Culver City, San Jose, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz. Stop by any of our fabulous spaces for a tour! Or learn more virtually: http://www.nextspace.us

[Barry A Dobyns]

Final accounting

Margaret: +1 Strength, +1 Courage, +1 Wisdom
Geeks:  -1 Troll.

[Robyn McIntyre]

LOL. Anytime. Please note I am also a trained mediator.

 

RMc

 

 

Follow me on Twitter: robynmcintyre

Connect on LinkedIn: robynmcintyre

Google+: robynmcintyre

 

From: santacr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:santacr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wjhonson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:50 AM
To: santacr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [santacruzgeeks] A Philiosophical Question: Is it Better to Be Honest or to Be Nice?

 

I tend, in email to be blunt to the point of being offensive (so lily-livered people tell me).

In person, *most* people get a different impression.

Maybe I could hire you to be my filter to the E-world :)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robyn McIntyre <robynm...@sbcglobal.net>
To: santacruzgeeks <santacr...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:30 am
Subject: RE: [santacruzgeeks] A Philiosophical Question: Is it Better to Be Honest or to Be Nice?

There are definitely a lot of business/cultural traditions affecting our perspective of discussions such as these. Jason mentions that tact enables difficult communication where it would otherwise be impossible. The reason it would be impossible is because, without tact, emotions would be more readily on display. To be unwillingly exposed to Nick’s feelings of anger and hurt is at the bottom of our discomfort. It makes us feel as though we have seen something intimate and private that was not meant for us and we are embarrassed.

 

Had Nick used more formal and less inflammatory language we would have been able to view his testimony more objectively. In our society, the person who communicates their pain passionately in public is often viewed as untrustworthy; perhaps because they have created a condition in which strangers have been forced to be witnesses to it. Being embarrassed is uncomfortable and we tend to avoid those who embarrass us or who remind us of our embarrassment. This is one of the dangers of emotional language in a public forum, though only as relates to such ‘private’ feelings. Anger or passion related to other types of matters, such as politics or social justice, don’t generally have the same capacity to instill embarrassment because we understand we are all involved and affected.

 

From my perspective, the real problem lies not in whether to be honest or nice but in how to be honest without imposing our private feelings onto others. This is generally the point of more formal language. I find it really unfortunate that the group’s perception of both parties has likely been affected by this discussion, which may make future interactions more difficult.

 

Robyn McIntyre

Social Communicator

Follow me on Twitter: robynmcintyre

Connect on LinkedIn: robynmcintyre

Google+: robynmcintyre

 

From: santacr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:santacr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Wehmhoener
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:10 AM
To: santacr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [santacruzgeeks] A Philiosophical Question: Is it Better to Be Honest or to Be Nice?

 

Tact is important. It enables difficult communication where it would otherwise be impossible. 

 

I feel it is a truism that working with a start-up necessarily requires the risk of not getting paid. These decisions of how much risk you are willing to accept on behalf of your employees are expressions of values. It is possible to choose to place a high priority on obligations to your employees. 

 

I'm also concerned about the "take it offline" perspective here. While I still feel tact is important, some of these issues are not necessarily personal, and can impact the community as a whole, which would seem to make them worthy of discussion. Perhaps it is better to leave out personal details while continuing to have a discussion about issues such as risk tolerance, attitudes towards fair market rate, etc. Then again, it's not as if these issues are abstract. We are concerned about them because of real events in real lives.

 

-Jason

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Fan Zhu <f...@openspectruminc.com> wrote:

I think being honest is more important than being nice but I also think that what you choose to do should also depend on the specific context. Letting people know that you had a history of not being paid by an employer IS appropriate for this forum but I think it could have been done more tactfully.

 

My personal experience working with start-ups is that the risk of not getting paid or getting paid late is just something you have to accept - if that is an issue for you, IMO you shouldn't be working with a start-up.

Fan Zhu 

Business Catalyst

Open Spectrum Inc.

Phone [831.768.9015]

Mobile [408.763.7558]

Connect via [Linkedin]

 

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Nadine Schaeffer <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Geeks,

 

Last night's thread brought up a long standing cultural question for me, and I would like to ask the group their opinions - is it better to be honest or to be nice?

 

I am a big fan of honest, and I really want to know if for example, an employer does not pay employees. I have been in burned and not paid by start-ups before, and frankly, it is one of the most bitter of experiences. It's why I will not work with startups for the most part today. It is also why Jason and I at Cloudforest Design make paying people who work for us on time and at market rate a top business priority.

 

However, there is a strong belief in American culture and Santa Cruz in particular, that you should always be nice, polite, and not say anything negative about anyone ever. "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.'

 

I do believe these are cultural belief systems. When I lived in Germany, brutal honesty was the preferred cultural norm. In China where I also lived, inter-personal harmony was the higher cultural value. Interestingly enough, in the Silicon Valley tech culture, honesty and being right are also strong values, which leads to the engineering culture having a deserved reputation as surly poor communicators ... who make the most innovative technology on earth.

 

As Andrew said, this is a community, and a community defines it's shared values - so I must ask, what are the values of this community - honesty or politeness?

 

Not trying to stir the pot here, but I am sincerely curious as to people's responses. 

 

--
Nadine Schaeffer

 

cloud...@gmail.com

www.cloudforestdesign.com

831.600.8929 (office)

831.588.4509 (mobile)

 

 

--

[Robyn McIntyre]

I found him rather amusing.

Follow me on Twitter: robynmcintyre
Connect on LinkedIn: robynmcintyre
Google+: robynmcintyre

-----Original Message-----
From: santacr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:santacr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris arkenberg
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:03 PM
To: santacr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [santacruzgeeks] A Philiosophical Question: Is it Better to Be
Honest or to Be Nice?

--