I was interested in reading this article but then I saw a link to the video which was titled something like "How the top 1% communicate". And that sort of communication made me not want to read the article.
I understand the YouTube titles have to be kind of clickbaity but that to me doesn't indicate confidence that I'm going to be reading or watching something worthwhile. Just my two cents.
the context for "How the top %1 communicate" here is: "in our current media environment".
I made it all the way down, and I think it's not a bad way to start. If you're allergic to fluff, here's the core separated into three levels of skill (OP's levels, not mine):
Beginner:
- Problem – state a relatable problem that you’ve observed or experienced before.
- Amplify – illustrate how that problem leads to a negative outcome if it is not solved.
- Solution – state the solution to the problem.
Intermediate (kinda like the high school 3-pronged essay):
- Start with the main idea (the key conclusion or recommendation)
- Support it with key arguments (usually 3-5 key points)
- Provide detailed evidence (data, examples, analysis)
Advanced:
- Problem and amplify – your introduction should state a relatable problem
- Cross-domain synthesis – note patterns or concepts from your other interests that help support your argument.
- Unique process or solution – give a list of ideas or steps that best solve the problem you introduced at the beginning, solidifying the transformation.
If I had to sum it up, it's this: beyond knowing your audience, people like stories. Stories are the affordances of information, like the handle of a door. Stories have arcs, and in many domains they go something like this:
- Here's a problem.
- Why it matters.
- Here's addressing your objections.
- Here's a solution.
All the different levels have an arc. It's not the only arc out there (hero's journey is another one), but this one is pretty typical. All in all, it's pretty basic advice for communication and storytelling. But it's the basics that are so crucial that most of us don't practice. I meet lots of people who don't really have a structure when articulating anything, even topics they know well. A bit of structure, and can probably go a long way to help them in their careers. Anyway, this is a nice reminder. Just ignore the preamble fluff.
I gave the author a bit more benefit, made it through the part where he describes how some guys impressed him by talking in a way that sounded smart, straight to the interjection that many people subscribed to his whatever in the last years.
Then finally I was convinced enough that this did not sound in any way like what I think intelligently articulated communication sounds, and I also gave up.
Not a biologist but I don't think it has to do with how much the genes get expressed but rather that they do get expressed and in bad times (pesticide) they're really good and look like they dominate (in that you only need one copy to get the expression/benefits) but in good times (pesticide free) they don't introduce that much negative cost and so you need two copies for adverse effects.
This looks like it could be really cool. However there are obvious mistakes pointed out by other comments which makes me distrust the content. I'm sure there are still good ideas in there, I just don't think they would be as creative as I would likr
This focuses on what managers should do differently, but not what engineers could do differently to make the relationship better. Improve their communication skills, document and evangelize their work, etc.
When I have a poor manager who doesn’t improve quickly, what I do differently is get a different job. I understand that’s a privileged position to be in, and also that one needs to have a fair bit of experience to identify whether the manager really is the issue. Nevertheless, trying to fix a relationship one-sidedly when someone holds authority over you is not a worthwhile cause.
This does depend on what the engineers are being employed to do..
Are they there to be communication and documentation experts, or are they there to turn requirements into something that works?
I agree that there is benefits in having engineers who can engage with their managers, advocate for required changes and influence the management to act in a more beneficial way, but at some point the person doing this stops being an engineer and starts being a manager themself.
Managers are there to manage, that is organise, coordinate and ensure that their staff are completing tasks in the most efficient way possible. That will at time require them to communicate with both their superiors and their engineer staff. That requires them to be the the communication and documentation expert, not the engineer.
> Improve their communication skills, document and evangelize their work, etc.
Whether engineers do or don't do documentation and how much of it is decided by management.
Second, unless you are specific, I will assume the "improve their communication skills" is purely stereotype based. They are engineers, therefore they do not have communication skills. And we are going to pretend so even though they just communicated what they need very very clearly and politely.
I'll echo the other comments in saying that I believe this to be not convincingly argued at best and at worst condescending. Terms like "fairly obvious", implying parents "don't want to hear something" feels to me an oversimplification, etc
What's it called when someone asks you a question with certain parameters, then makes fun of you for trying to keep your answer within certain parameters because you didn't think outside the box?
I understand the YouTube titles have to be kind of clickbaity but that to me doesn't indicate confidence that I'm going to be reading or watching something worthwhile. Just my two cents.