"it sounds like you are irritated that the assumption that technical and analytical people are somehow less sensitive but then your comment exhibits exactly the lack of understanding and immediate condescension which earns this perception. I doubt you intended it, but it's something to think about."
Well, that's a fine ad hominem, but it doesn't address what I wrote. I'm clearly irritated by the post; that's not a mystery. But to argue that I'm being patronizing, you have to ignore what I'm actually saying: we all have innate social skills, and that the author starts from the opposite premise. He's trying to figure out why this "developer CEO" is so different, when the difference appears to be trivial (one person is asking analytical questions).
The original post was clearly phrased in an adversarial manner:
"Sales Guy" vs "Developer Guy"
"I, on the other hand..."
"Whereas he based the value of the meeting..."
"Where he took my generalized questions and drove them to specific topics - that was the interesting part. That let me know what’s on his mind."
Plus, there was the hint of a "gotcha" tone:
"That will give me the context for assessing future activities by his company."
Basically, he's starting from the premise that this other person is somehow not making these social judgments; that they're not building a mental model of how their conversational partner operates. That's wrong, and it's (IMO) arrogant: his thinking rests upon the implicit assumption of The Other as a stranger. Not everyone makes this assumption -- many (if not most) people will start from an assumption of similarity on matters of human nature.
Actually think dmor nailed it, and your counter-examples here are just you putting them in your own context. I didn't pick up any of those innuendos at all.
I disagree, I think timr is correct, and despite him being criticized for poor socialization, he is in fact picking up the subtle but obvious social and language cues that you and dmor either fail to notice or choose to ignore.
This is clearly a compare and contrast piece. He is contrasting what he took from the meeting with what the Developer CEO took from the meeting, with a heavy implication that those benefits were exclusive to each other. He says it more or less explicitly:
"I suspect in his mind the benefit of meeting was directly related to his perception of the quality of data in my answers."
Also look at the language construct used:
"Whereas he based the value of the meeting on the quality of the data I focus on how much I think I got an accurate snapshot of how the person thinks and operates."
The google definition of 'whereas' is "In contrast or comparison with the fact that.".
To possibly overthink social cues, I think that timr wrote a true but slightly condescending response to a slightly condescending article. Since engineers commonly are condescending to sales people, and since HN is filled with contrarians, someone felt obligated to stick up for the sales guy.
>since HN is filled with contrarians, someone felt obligated
>to stick up for the sales guy
haha.. nice touch
but going back to the article, look like a description from a meeting with a alien creature from another planet, and a sociological perspective of the meeting with this new race coming to the town of the bosses.. The Nerd Ceo
Is natural that the old school yuppie feel threatened by this new specie of ceo.. this new species are the one who will replace them in a near future..
Of course the tech ceo will need to suck the knowledge from the generation that were in the battle front.. thats his nature.. he is a hacker, he learn fast, he thinks fast..
this is not just about different points of view.. this is a generational clash.. two different generations meeting each other while they are all in the game..
this is the dawn of the salesman, and the rise of the geeks
of course they are all afraid, they should be :)
Usually a large part of a ceo's job is human interaction. While it's not strictly necessary to have strong social skills to be a CEO, it sure is helpful.
I don't think you're participating in this conversation is in good faith, so I don't think it is worth continuing. I'm not interested in winning (there is nothing to win), it isn't an argument, I am interested in understanding the OP's post, and you've locked yourself into one position that is causing you to miss out on achieving some new understanding. Let's just get a beer and discuss sometime, this isn't working online.
Well, that's a fine ad hominem, but it doesn't address what I wrote. I'm clearly irritated by the post; that's not a mystery. But to argue that I'm being patronizing, you have to ignore what I'm actually saying: we all have innate social skills, and that the author starts from the opposite premise. He's trying to figure out why this "developer CEO" is so different, when the difference appears to be trivial (one person is asking analytical questions).
The original post was clearly phrased in an adversarial manner:
"Sales Guy" vs "Developer Guy"
"I, on the other hand..."
"Whereas he based the value of the meeting..."
"Where he took my generalized questions and drove them to specific topics - that was the interesting part. That let me know what’s on his mind."
Plus, there was the hint of a "gotcha" tone:
"That will give me the context for assessing future activities by his company."
Basically, he's starting from the premise that this other person is somehow not making these social judgments; that they're not building a mental model of how their conversational partner operates. That's wrong, and it's (IMO) arrogant: his thinking rests upon the implicit assumption of The Other as a stranger. Not everyone makes this assumption -- many (if not most) people will start from an assumption of similarity on matters of human nature.