> feelings are personal and not something i care to share with workplace associates or strangers

"xj9 you don't seem to share the enthusiasm for our exciting journey. We're a family here at SaaS.com and you seem to be treating it like just a job. You're fired. Please clear your desk"

Yeah, I used to think like xj9 in collage. But I have no idea how it's possible to survive as completely non-social programmer, now that I've seen what work life actually consists of.

You can be social and build professional relationships without sharing your feelings.

Not for long. People feel like they're really getting to know you if you're that caged off.

Most of the successful people I've seen in my career had a demeanor that ranged between "happy and pleasant" and "serious and stoic". Founders and top executives can get away with being passionate (e.g. Steve Jobs) but serious, reserved stoicism seems to be the norm (e.g. Tim Cook).

But not as good for motivating staff.

You can be genuine without being emotional

i'm not sure how "not sharing my emotions" and "being non-social" are connected. i socialize with co-workers, but we are acquaintances for the most part. i reserve sharing my emotions for intimate friends and significant others.

i've spent most of my career contracting. my attitude is: i care exactly as much as i'm contractually obligated to. i don't accept contracts with these kinds of conditions.

i have a permanent position atm and my no-nonsense professional attitude works fine. its not like i'm anti-social, but i prefer to keep things light with people i don't have intimate relationships with.

There is a world of software outside of useless saas/web shit-ware where you don't have to deal with overzealous SV enthusiasm.

It probably helps to think about customer service jobs not as "faking your emotions" or "being inauthentic" but as acting. If you're an actor in a play, your genuine feelings towards the other actor don't really matter: if you're supposed to yell and scream at them or have a sword fight, you do that, and if you're supposed to kiss them, you do that.

There are huge incentives to denying that that is what most socially capable adults do (and spend so so much time thinking about and mastering), so you admitting this is a huge service to all of us for whom it took longer than normal to realize. Thanks!

> other than talking to customers

You're so incredibly fortunate to be in a position where you get to decide you want to interact with customers or not, because the vast majority of workers don't. So many customer service jobs require you to keep cool even when customers are treating you like terrorists, and it can be soul-crushing.

Getting shit on constantly for two years as a call center CSR motivated me to get out of that world and into writing software, but not everyone can make that change successfully.

Those who are successful at interacting with the public basically treat the interactions as if it was an API. A lot of APIs are incomplete, or poorly thought out, but you can still at least do your best with them. Same with interacting with difficult customers, or putting on a smile and being witty with small talk for most other customers. You end up developing a series of canned responses, and don't take anything personally (just like you don't take a "404 not found" personally, or "503 service unavailable").

I understand the attempt to compare a successful salesperson 's thought process to an API, but it's essentially what this piece argues is wrong with our work culture. And man it makes me cringe.

More specifically though, how can you compare a 404 response to a random stranger telling you what a failure you are at life that you're stuck responding to their complaint instead having an "improtant" job like they do? How does a normal person who's struggling to earn a living (call centers don't pay well usually) while having to respond to ruthless, horrible people, not be damaged in the long run by those interactions? They can't even be compared because computers don't communicate with emotion.

That's like saying bullying could easily be solved if kids just talked more like APIs did. What?

You are probably right in that I most likely lost a big part of my soul while adopting this philosophy. But every since I've started treating non-personal interactions in the same way I would treat compiler errors, I've stopped having a strong urge to drink after work, and overall can focus on what is important to me outside of the 9-5.

The only thing that really can get under my skin at work anymore is if a situation starts to threaten my job (i.e., backstabbing, gaslighting, setting up for failure, etc). But with this newer approach, I'm able to recognize this a lot sooner and do something about it.

Another way to approach this if you don't like the cold impersonal "API" approach, is to convince yourself that you are playing the part of a character in an improv style play. That the people being "mean" to you aren't really mean, they are just acting. Of course the danger with this mindset is that you could end up inflicting emotional harm on someone else without intending or realizing it.

What makes you think that talking to customers involves feelings? It can also be completely professional and objective based - the only difference is that you certainly need good skills in showing appropriate affect in a wide range of situations.

Being bitchy/sarcastic at a bar sounds ... well very emotional to me.

Then you get a scolding from your supervisor that X customer thought you were "disrespectful" and "insensitive of their needs". Customers don't want objectivity, they want you to do the thing they want right now, and what are we paying you for anyway?

I think you got it other way round. The customer service is supposed to keep feelings for themselves and smile nicely, no matter how much they find customer unsympathetic. Yes, they are supposed to deliver. The programmer can went his frustration over requirements pretty much at will.

I don't know what exact objectivity would waiter deliver. Besides, you can be objective without being disrespectful, unless you are one of those people who use "objectivity" as euphemism for angry ranting.

Sorry. I was thinking "customer" in the context of drawing up requirements for a project. Often with the PM over your shoulder insisting that yes, you can do everything the customer is asking for, no problem.

That is lying. I know we habitually call it by various euphemisms, but in fact, it is lying. There is also lying about estimates later in process (because usually requirement themselves would not be problem, if price and estimations were higher).

"objective-based" != "objectivity". The objective is to please the customer (for example): do what they want in a timely fashion and send them a bill. There's quite little need for feelings in that. Call them up and ask them how they're doing. Are you sincere? Maybe, maybe not. That is your own personal affair.

Doesn't this assume that you'll never be emotionally overwhelmed while having to work?

Or that it's something you have complete control over?

Some people have low affect.

My ex was once moderating a forum and someone praised his ability to remain calm, cool and collected in forum discussions, at which point my ex said something along the lines of "You don't matter enough to me to get a rise out of me." (So much for diplomacy.)

The only person I ever saw him get so mad at that he turned red in the face and raised his voice was... me. I was the woman he was sleeping with and with whom he had two kids. No one else could get that much of a reaction out of him.

Some people just aren't super emotional. The feelings they do have they tend to guard. Those are a private matter and the world can butt out.

> "You don't matter enough to me to get a rise out of me."

I once pulled over to make a quick emergency stop to fix a broken wiper blade in pouring rain. The pullout I used happened to be a bus stop. As I was watching for the bus, a guy waiting there just started unloading at me from 15 feet away.

I gave him a glance, then just finished the 60 seconds of work fixing the blade, pulled out, and moved on. But I did not for one second give a shit about him or what he thought. As much as he wanted his concerns to be my problem, they really weren't. They would have been had a bus showed up while I was fixing my stuff, but that didn't happen.

> of course, this means that i'm totally unsuited for any kind of non-technical, customer-facing work.

I would say it is exactly the opposite -- you have got the pre-requisite #1. Source: am doing customer-facing work myself.

How did you get hired for your current position, did they ask you why you want to work for the company?