Of course poor communication skills will cause problems. It's well worth asking for clarifications in such situations; I have few problems playing the dumb oaf and admitting my lack of understanding if it gets someone to ELI5 their point. And generally, someone who brags about using the Socratic method out loud will gladly display their brilliance you've blundered past.
In the end, I'm not advocating for confusing the person you're communicating with, I'm advocating for not butting your head against their beliefs; against their ego. Perhaps this advice is better suited to online debates, but I've also seen it too often in real life to waste my time trying to change someone's beliefs.
The issue is that it is often very important in engineering to get to the point and state what you believe as directly as possible, so that others (and yourself) can compare it to the facts quickly and easily. And listen, and figure out where they might be wrong afterwards.
And we can and should expect everyone in Engineering to do the same for what they believe too. Because otherwise we all waste time we can’t afford to waste, and end up with more broken situations.
What you’re describing is fine for politics and social meet and greets. It wastes time, causes confusion, and results in expensive (and sometimes fatal) mistakes when the facts matter.
Engineers too are human. They have egos and beliefs and care more about the things they build than they should. Their feelings get hurt when people are rude, short, or belittling - or when they perceive that someone's being rude, short, or belittling.
The perfectly rational engineer (read: human being) doesn't exist outside of a select few neurodivergant folks. Acting as if every engineer is perfectly rational is now, and always has been, a mistake.
Just ask Linus' more verbose colleagues; have a look at how he has changed over the many years he's lead the kernel development.
It is entirely possible to be direct without being an asshole.
Being indirect, Socratic questioning, etc. has its place too. But it can easily just result in someone being a passive aggressive asshole instead of a direct one, or, as others noted in the thread, being confusing and a drag on everyone because they won’t actually say what they think.
That’s the ‘no one is an asshole, everyone is an asshole’ type of BS that muddies the waters.
Linus has been an asshole, he didn’t have to be, and everyone agreed on that, including him.
He’s getting better at being less of an asshole.
That is what I’m referring to. It isn’t ambiguous. It isn’t ‘a bad day’. It isn’t one person getting offended about something that no one else saw. Pretending it is does no one any favors.
Saying that someone is perfectly rational is not saying they have no emotions. Nor is it an insinuation that someone is somehow less human for prioritizing rationality in decision making.
And I say this as an outspoken neurodivergent myself.
And neither is anyone who’s neurodivergent “perfectly rational”. That’s not a helpful stereotype, all on its own, without any characterization of our emotional capacity or supposed prioritization of whatever mode of thought.
Also when did I say anyone was guilty of anything? I should probably stop coming back and rereading this response and wondering why what little I said is being construed as the opposite of what I said.
Every part of your comment was an accusation based on your own embellishments.
They are not guilty of claiming or even implying that all neurodivergent are purely rational. You produced that yourself, and said it's wrong. Well, true it is wrong, and they are not guilty of saying that. Your comment was in response to theirs and not in a vacuum, and so the most reasonable interpretation of your comment is as response to theirs.
I specifically said I didn’t think it was intended.
> They are not guilty of claiming or even implying that all neurodivergent are purely rational.
That’s not what I thought they said either. They said that “perfectly rational engineer (read: human being) doesn't exist outside of a select few neurodivergant folks”. My objection is that no person is perfectly rational, neurodivergent or otherwise, and identifying even a select few as such might reinforce the stereotype even unintentionally.
I think the point of the parent comment wasn't about communication per se, but that you can't always be right (even when we like to think we are) and your method of trying to lead others to adopt your wrong conclusions can be hell to deal with.
In the end, I'm not advocating for confusing the person you're communicating with, I'm advocating for not butting your head against their beliefs; against their ego. Perhaps this advice is better suited to online debates, but I've also seen it too often in real life to waste my time trying to change someone's beliefs.