The idea that technical aptitude is somehow inversely correlated with how much consideration a person should receive is a terrible concept that is constantly used to validate toxic behaviour.
I understand the rationale. We don't need the "filler" or "extra padding", or perhaps the "hand-holding". The fact is, that's all irrelevant. You can easily communicate the exact same information and not be cold and careless about it -- as I demonstrated in my prior comment which I casually typed up in like 10 seconds while getting ready to go out.
When you communicate with people, it affects them in some way or another. As a result, how you communicate makes a big difference, whether on the job or elsewhere. Some people may be more sensitive about that kind of stuff than others. So you "assume the worst", especially when someone is coming to you for help, and you treat them kindly and with consideration.
Great mentors never say things like "your code is shit", they say "this will probably run slower than it could - let's get on a call and discuss this". I understand that communicating like this as a standard doesn't come naturally to a lot of people, but it's not "business standard" or some kind of special ask because of executives or MBA guys. Further, it goes a damn long way with people, pretty much anywhere in life.
One should not take savage pleasure in pointing out others errors to them. This is the pathology that I think we find disagreeable.
"The idea that technical aptitude is somehow inversely correlated with how much consideration a person should receive is a terrible"
Let me rephraze this. A technical person should be able to receieve constructive feedback.
Think of a great editor for a book. Usually a writer cherishes editorial feedback for a book.
The situation is that both parties want the best possible outcome. It's not about egos. It's purely about ding and sich - the technical output.
I didn't mean one should cherish abusive behaviour.
But one should cherish candid constructive feedback.
The candid feedback should come with two guarantees: 1. It's honest and correct 2. It is given with the implicit will to make things better. 3. It's intent is not to abuse the other party in any way. 4. The giver is willing to support the other party until they reach a mutually satisfactory result.
It's not okay to use words to hurt. It is okay to use words to teach. You should not be afraid of giving candid feedback.
I understand the rationale. We don't need the "filler" or "extra padding", or perhaps the "hand-holding". The fact is, that's all irrelevant. You can easily communicate the exact same information and not be cold and careless about it -- as I demonstrated in my prior comment which I casually typed up in like 10 seconds while getting ready to go out.
When you communicate with people, it affects them in some way or another. As a result, how you communicate makes a big difference, whether on the job or elsewhere. Some people may be more sensitive about that kind of stuff than others. So you "assume the worst", especially when someone is coming to you for help, and you treat them kindly and with consideration.
Great mentors never say things like "your code is shit", they say "this will probably run slower than it could - let's get on a call and discuss this". I understand that communicating like this as a standard doesn't come naturally to a lot of people, but it's not "business standard" or some kind of special ask because of executives or MBA guys. Further, it goes a damn long way with people, pretty much anywhere in life.