So, there are two reasons folks are mad here. I wanna acknowledge the first one even though this thread is really about the second one, so let me do that.
1. The quote talks about legislation that will be life-and-death for some with 'my sports team lost' level of urgency.
Why is that a big deal? It's not an unusual error of perspective for someone like Psaki to make because that's about the stakes for a well-off (wh*te, and I'd also add het) person.
BUT, this administration won on the promise to this country that they WOULDN'T make this error.
On to the second error, and the one this thread is about.
2. The Press Secretary of the administration currently in the seat of power is, rather than delineating what they're gonna do about this situation, telling US what WE should do about it.
Why is this so off-pissing? WELL:
See, there are two kinds of help:
1. Advice, and 2. Backup.
And it's EXCEEDINGLY common to offer #1 to people who need #2.
This quote does it. But I (and probs you) have also done this.
I've got a room-temp take and a hot take on this phenomenon. We'll do 'em in that order.
THE ROOM TEMP TAKE, which I think most folks agree with: it's really annoying when someone who COULD improve your situation ABSTAINS from doing so and instead gives YOU homework.
It looks selfish, and honestly it is.
Similar to dogpiling 'in the name of social justice', offering advice gives people a dopamine hit that they can rationalize with "I'm doing a good thing" before they have to consider how it's actually impacting someone else.
Advice is easy. It doesn't require you to stick your neck out or spend social capital (or, besides a little time, really ANY resources) to give it.
Plus, giving advice strokes the ego. It makes you feel smart and knowledgable. It makes you feel, maybe sometimes, a bit superior.
And let's face it, we've all been cooped up for 2 years with relatively few people around to adjust our self-image, so our negative self-talk has dragged most of us to this point where the prospect of a little validation sounds ESPECIALLY attractive—maybe even NEEDED—right now.
I've watched many an insecure, insufferable tech bro turn into an absolute ANGEL when a junior asks him a question he knows the answer to.
He's not a shitty person. He's just defensive about not being an omnipotent wizard, and for this MOMENT he gets to actually look like one.
That's exciting, freeing, blissful. Folks leap at it. And when someone asks for "help" and THIS option is available, honestly, the temptation to offer advice is MASSIVE, MASSIVE MASSIVE.
In my estimation, even more so in this moment in history for the aforementioned reasons.
SO MASSIVE, in fact, that it's hard to resist even when we don't really have any validated advice to offer.
"I haven't actually ever done anything even remotely similar to what you're asking for help doing, but EYE think..."
We sometimes call this 'mansplaining,' but I've seen all kinds of people do it.
It's probably EXACERBATED by dudes' social conditioning to believe everything they have to say is something the world would benefit from hearing.
But they definitely don't have a monopoly on it.
It's SHOCKINGLY easy to catch oneself doing this, once you're looking for it. It's not even THAT weird to catch oneself doing it to a relative expert.
It's not about them. It's about the dopamine rush. "Oooh, I've got an answer! Pick me!"
But from an impact perspective, it's often not helpful. If the "advice" isn't verified, it's speculation, not advice. The original help requester can speculate just as well as the advice giver can.
So how do we temper this urge, and how do we know when/whether to give advice?
This is where my takes start warming up.
Because I've heard "Ask the person if they want advice or backup."
Pragmatically, this only works if the person either a) actually truly wants advice, b) has significantly more power than you, or c) like, PRETTY DARN trusts you.
Why:
Why asking whether someone wants advice or backup usually doesn't work:
1. It's often awkward to ask for backup. It feels presumptuous. 2. Without either a NOTICEABLE downward power gradient or a SOLID foundation of trust, a person isn't gonna admit they don't want your advice.
So, how do?
I'm not claiming to be an expert, but what has worked for me is to ASSUME they want backup.
Backup can look like
- Sitting down to work alongside someone on a task
- Advocating on their behalf in rooms they are not in
- Introducing them to people who can help them
Then, when I give advice, it is most often in the context of "here is how I recommend making the most of the backup I am offering you."
Believe it or not, this has been helpful for me to think about EVEN in situations where the person has explicitly requested advice.
Why?
This is my rule of thumb, and the hotter take I said I'd put in this thread:
If I don't have the skills, network, or influence to provide backup to someone who needs help,
I'm probably ALSO not qualified to offer advice on this topic.*
And if I were to offer advice in the absence of the ability to also provide backup, that's an indicator that I'm doing the advising for my own ego and not for the person I'm helping.
*I asterisked the rule of thumb. Lemme explain the asterisk.
If someone asks me for advice using the literal word "advice,"
AND I have experience that lines up with what they're doing,
but for confidentiality or territorial reasons I can't provide backup,
I might share how I'd make a decision. I still try not to tell them what to do.
Am I perfect? Jesus, lol
I'm SURE I mess this up
But the framework helps me mess it up LESS. And I'd like to gently offer the framework, unsolicited I know, to help other folks maybe mess it up less, too.
The Framework In Short:
GIVEN: Someone asks for help
THEN I ask myself:
1. CAN I provide backup? If so, offer it. 2. DO I have advice how to maximize the backup? If so, offer it.
Number 3 is too long so I'll put it in the next tweet.
3. If I CANNOT provide backup:
3a) did the person ask me for advice? If NOT, stfu.
3b) If SO, do I have experiences that directly translate to what they're doing? If not, stfu.
3c) If so, walk through my thought process with them.
4. And basically always validate, to the strongest degree that I authentically can, that I believe in this person and that I think they totally have all the positive qualities at their disposal to do whatever it is they're trying to do.
That's the whole framework but I figured I'd mention some more backup examples:
- Offering them resources at my disposal like books/sites/examples (note the 'offer' and not 'recommend.' Telling someone to buy something is still assigning them homework)
NOTA BENE: when I do offer backup or advice, I don't hold the person accountable for using or following it
If a person asks for help, I don't automatically inject them into a binding agreement to use my help. If I would have to do that to offer the help I don't offer that help.
Why? It's annoying to get homework assignments from someone who could offer backup, but TRIPLY so for that person to then GRADE me.
Esp if the advice was straightup not good
I'd never go to that person again, and I've had this happen, and I don't go to those people anymore.
...And I'll also say, it's easier said than done to not do this.
I even have to be careful if I end up, apropos of nothing, following up with the person later to find out even just how they're doing in life, because that can get INTERPRETED as 'did you follow my advice'
Anyway that's my contribution for today to the Twitter bazaar of half-baked ideas
Idk I wrote about mentors and sponsors one time and that piece feels related to this topic
I grew up through this in the '90s & 2000s. I went with my mom to the Y to elliptical for an hr/day. ~Half my dinners in high school were Lean Cuisine.
But I'm not here to talk about that (the article does it better than I could).
See, I didn't have the greatest school experience. For a number of reasons outside the control of my well-meaning parents, I went to seven schools between K5 and 12th grade. This meant that in addition to all the...
NORMAL struggles of making friends as a kid, ADDITIONALLY every 2 years or so my hard work on that got wiped, I showed up a stranger at another school, and I started all over.
This was one of maybe 3 things that contributed to me waiting till I was almost 25 to come out, btw
I realize this take is white hot (I anonymized the OP to minimize my blast zone), but if this is you, the vast majority of the time, you probably shouldn't have gone CEO.
Lemme explain why (and it's possible the OP is NOT one of the people I'm talking about).
When you're an eng-gone-CEO who feels this way, a lot of things have happened to you.
1. You probably got rewarded for being good at coding by being promoted out of it. Then you were in a job you were LESS good at. This doesn't feel great.
2. Turns out CEO isn't the same as monarch or president-for-a-day at most companies. It's a lot of delegating decisions you'd like to make yourself, and when you fail to do the delegating step it tends to blow up in your face.
So my FIRST hot take is that, in the 6 days I spent on blind, I saw some of the most insufferable, elitist drivel I have ever seen techies say behind closed doors, and that bar is not low
LOLOL at this Blind rant where the person signs off "TC: 400" like it's fucken "Esq"
Lotta devs are convinced that their total comp means something about their intelligence, skill, value, or impact
When really it's mostly execs' success convincing VCs that they'll make money someday
Leading w your TC is the "peeling out in a muscle car" of engineering
This take responds to a tweet re: the CDC's reduction of the time guideline from positive test to return to work, with more cuts foreshadowed "[to address] staff shortages."
I've heard this clarion call before. There's something that I think the people who make it are missing.
So, I'm not saying that the take is wrong or bad.
I WILL say this: I have answered this clarion call before. I have showed up to DS meetings for 3 different orgs. I have showed up to trainings and movement-building meetings in this vein of various kinds.
In them...
...my experience at socialist organization meetings has been that they are universally, consistently, and by a wide margin some of the most uppity, sneering, un-empathetic, yell-over-each-other-y spaces I have ever visited.
For me and my low caucus score, it's an immediate nah.
Tech books exhibit a strange cost bell curve relative to quality.
Expense-it-to-prodev priced books are consistently fair-to-middlin'. Accessibly priced books, a standard deviation above or below that. Free books, either TRULY shite, or the best tech writing I've ever read.
My hypotheses on why come from my experiences:
- planning books with big publishers
- hearing from published author colleagues
- getting pitched on self-publishing
- self-publishing for reasons totally unlike the pitches
Here they are, in all their half-baked glory:
1. Books from big publishers
I won't name names, but if you've been around tech, you know who this is. These are the places with the highest price point. It's that high because they expect people to expense it to their employers. These places have a lot of name recognition, and