> > people "on the spectrum" often having low "theory of mind" capabilities.

> I somewhat take issue with this, as people on the spectrum are more likely to over-communicate,

Low theory of mind is definitely not incompatible with over-communication.

If anything over-communication sounds like a coping mechanism!

It's definitely a coping mechanism. When you've been burned repeatedly by people nodding vigorously in understanding, then turning around and revealing a complete lack of comprehension, forcing you to either intervene or allow the error to propagate, it's tempting to fall into a habit of pre-emptively explaining everything.

> revealing a complete lack of comprehension, forcing you to either intervene or allow the error to propagate, it's tempting to fall into a habit of pre-emptively explaining everything.

Or maybe the explanation was bad to begin with. Over communicating won't turn a bad explanation into a good one. Understanding something doesn't mean you know how to explain it to someone else.

> Understanding something doesn't mean you know how to explain it to someone else.

Too true. Explaining things is hard. My gripe is mainly people's tendency to pretend they understand in perpetuity, instead of expressing a modicum of curiosity about it. "What does 'TPS' stand for actually?" As mentioned, explaining things is hard, and I think I'm not alone in needing help identifying gaps in my explanations.

That said, I also understand that there are huge social barriers to admitting a lack of understanding in the tech industry, especially for juniors.

IME, this is exactly the difficulty that "ELI5" addresses. By asking people to dramatically underestimate understanding, they are comfortable undershooting without implying disrespect.

I agree, it's really not worth exposing yourself to the risk. Ignorance-Correct can even be interpreted as a micro aggression.

I think your chart is incomplete, because in the bottom-right quadrant, there’s the caveat that they never ask for clarification and blindly do the wrong thing.

Then when you have to go back and tell them the basic assumptions that they are wrong about, and that they have to redo tons of work, you lose a giant sum of hypothetical points

My theory is that devs often trade pretense-now for research-later. This habit allows them to gain ~0.002 status points here and there. But now combine that with unknown-unknowns. The thing they're hearing—if they actually understood it—ought to cause them to abandon or completely rethink a change they're currently working on. But because their takeaway isn't new knowledge, but a placeholder for potential new knowledge, they end up losing 15 status points when it blows up, in a way that was utterly unforeseeable.

<<I somewhat take issue with this, as people on the spectrum are more likely to over-communicate, all other things being equal.

I don't think I am on the spectrum ( I mean, I guess technically everyone is, which is why its a spectrum ), but I do know that I was ..what is a good word.. chastised.. no.. maybe gently admonished for putting up very long detailed summaries with some discussion of potential risks involved in an assumed approach, potential tradeoffs and pitfalls.

It really depends on your boss, but I come from compliance world, where you do want to CYA pretty extensively.

Anyway, back to the story. I was effectively asked to keep writing executive summaries. I hate to say it, but things seldom are that simple. I can simplify it for you, but you will lose a lot of context with that. And this how we get to the situation, where only one guy in the entire company knows how X actually works with all the constraints that it brings.

I agree (I think). I think the point is that by talking about the details the receiver doesn't get it more - it's more that some details stick instead (and thus the big picture is lost).

Thus, the only way forward is to summerize, and then point out that there are details/nuances (but not getting into it). Only if the there's interest in those nuances, then it's relevant going into them.

Same as with physics. First you learn Newton. Then you eventually realize Einstein adds nuance to the formula. Start with Einstein and it becomes much more complex, hard to grasp and less likely you'll understand anything. And, equally important. If the receiver doesn't want to know Einstein, then no point in talking about him.

One big problem I see nowadays is that more people do not care about the details, meaning it's less useful as a communicator to communicate then - but also that people do not fully grasp as much the nuances and believe (and search for) simple answers - and come to dangerous conclusions about them. From my POV this is the danger with the attention economy, leading to Trumpism and similar phenomena.

> One big problem I see nowadays is that more people do not care about the details...

I think people today care about the details just as much as people used to. It's just that there are so many more details to care about today.

The exhaustive CYA-flagging of risks (and similar behaviors) denotes more a problem of how incentive are aligned in that workplace rather than any lack of skill with words.

CYA?

Cover your ass.

Maybe so. Maybe it's also being led aware of/naive about how much one knows? I would guess there's less trust/faith in authorities than before?

(but I lack facts, so maybe I'm equally wrong)

Right it's as if the low-information people are saying (and believing) "I have just as much the right to be correct as anybody else. It's my right. Don't tell me I'm wrong because it is my right to be the one who tells what is the truth".

Bottom right should be "points lost" imo. For me, the most points lost, as there is nothing more annoying than someone assuming context I don't have.

It seems that this chart assumes:

1. Everyone is a baby that gets their feelings hurt when you imply they might not know something they do in fact know (top right).

2. Everyone loves being alpha nerd and making people feel dumb for not knowing things they know (bottom right)

While both of those are real phenomena, they are pretty dysfunctional. Many people (most people?) enjoy genuine cooperation within a context of mutual trust, learning things from others, and teaching others who want to learn. In that context, checking for knowledge is not a slight, and assuming things "are obvious" and failing to explain them is not a flex.

Yes, I'm for sure describing a perverse incentive structure, but one that's easy to fall into, almost a default state. If you get enough well-intentioned people together they can break the cycle, and then you have a healthy team.

> Bottom right should be "points lost" imo.

There's a certain breed of hot-shot dev who truly believes they're gaining status by making cryptic, in-the-know references, and there's another breed who falls for it. When it comes to social status games, if enough people believe it, it becomes true.

> There's a certain breed of hot-shot dev who truly believes they're gaining status by making cryptic, in-the-know references, and there's another breed who falls for it. When it comes to social status games, if enough people believe it, it becomes true.

Yes, this is what I described in point 2. Again, I'm not saying it isn't a real thing. At the same time, I wouldn't call it the norm either.

> there is nothing more annoying than someone assuming context I don't have

I worked with a senior developer when I was a junior who would answer any question by starting from first principles.

I understand sometimes a question can betray a misunderstanding of foundational principles but this was decidedly not the case, at least in most of the incidents.

I eventually learned to just not ask him questions unless I was absolutely desperate, because it would take him 5-10 minutes to work up to the critical piece of information I was actually missing. I think he just liked to hear himself orate.

It’s hard to solve. I’ve read blogs where people find it condescending but the opposite can be harrowing, especially if it is clear the other party is annoyed.

Empathy tends to drive my own novelistic explanations, not conceit. It might help to mention something if you haven’t yet. Everyone is different though.

> I think he just liked to hear himself orate.

I think his strategy had exactly the intended effect. If you had a real problem that required deep expertise, you knew to come to him.

If you didn't, you figured it out yourself, and thus grew your skills rather than having him feed you the answer.

If his goal was to be left alone entirely and never help anyone then it was certainly effective. I never went to him with problems that required deep expertise because they involved a recitation of how memory was allocated, or how linking works, or what an HTTP request is.. etc