> The fact that I had to explain this to you is because you're an outsider and not used to the culture.

I agree with this, but to me, that's additional evidence that it's not "direct" communication. It's not like Bridgewater is some sort of foreign society or something; it's company a company that's existed for several decades in the American northeast, and I'm a person who's lived for several decades in the American northeast.

> Karen I am sure was not put off.

Sure, I imagine that if she were unhappy with the way he phrased it enough then she wouldn't have been working there at such a high position in the first place.

I recognize that I was a bit unclear about what I "didn't buy" in my previous comment; I can believe that the specific quote wasn't said in a context meant to be hurtful, but I think it's disingenuous to describe it as "optimized for the direct/impactful communication". It sounds more like the company purposely calibrated the amount of rudeness in communication higher as the new norm and considered it a virtue. Ultimately, it's not really my concern what communication is like internally in a private company I'm not affiliated with, but it's already far too common for people to try to ignore decorum in places they are trying to participate by claiming "I just tell it like it is", so I feel strongly that this sort of mischaracterization is important to point out. People are responsible for more than just what they say, but _how_ they say it, and claiming that personal insults are somehow necessary for direct communication is a fallacy that can be used to help avoid that.