WORDS THAT WORK

What Hacker News says

1. chiefalchemistJan 2026
   I don't write for a living, but I do consider communication / communicating a hobby of sorts. My observations - that perhaps you can confirm or refute - are:

   - Most people don't communicate as thoroughly and complete - written and verbal - as they think they do. Very often there is what I call "assumptive communication". That is, sender's ambiguity that's resolved by the receiver making assumptions about what was REALLY meant. Often, filling in the blanks is easy to do - as it's done all the time - but not always. The resolution doesn't change the fact there was ambiguity at the root.

   Next time you're communicating, listen carefully. Make note of how often the other person sends something that could be interpreted differently, how often you assume by using the default of "what they likely meant was..."

   - That said, AI might not replace people like you. Or me? But it's an improvement for the majority of people. AI isn't perfect, hardly. But most people don't have the skills a/o willingness to communicate at a level AI can simulate. Improved communication is not easy. People generally want ease and comfort. AI is their answer. They believe you are replaceable because it replaces them and they assume they're good communicators. Classic Dunning-Kruger.

   p.s. One of my fave comms' heuristics is from Frank Luntz*:

   "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." (<< edit was changing to "say" from "said".)

   One of the keys to improved comms is to embrace that clarify and completeness is the sole responsibility of the sender, not the receiver. Some people don't want to hear that, and be accountable, especially then assumption communication is a viable shortcut.

   * Note: I'm not a fan of his politics, and perhaps he's not The Source of this heuristic, but read it first in his "Words That Work". The first chapter of "WTW" is evergreen comms gold.

   Show morethread
2. chiefalchemistOct 2022
   > It's not about you, though.. It's about them.

   Ironically (given the context), he buried the lede.

   That aside, if you're interested in raising your comms flag, I recently finished "Smart Brevity". As a solution, it's not a panacea for all use cases. Still, it's a quick and useful read. Simple but effective.

   https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/smart-brevity-write-less-say-m...

   I'd also recommend "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz. Chapter 1 is all you need. The rest is simply the lessons from Chapter 1 in practice.

   https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/words-that-work-its-not-what-y...

   Show morethread
3. chiefalchemistFeb 2022
   Sense of humor?

   1) humor? it's subjective

   2) you better be spot on because humor can easily be misinterpreted.

   3) along the same lines, it's likely not everyone reading will be of the same native language and/or culture. Humor will likely marginalize them.

   4) Frank Luntz "Words That Work". Chapter 1 is comms evergreen gold.

   https://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/140130...

   Show morethread
4. big_chungusFeb 2020
   I'm not making an emotional appeal, I'm making a logical one. Choice means I get to pick what I want to do and choose what's best for me.

   For instance, many unions give money to the Republican party, the Democratic party, or both. I'm not interested in funding either. Janus only covered public-sector unions, so I'd still be stuck paying for political speech in which I don't believe.

   As a second example, unions typically set the wage for a particular job with both a floor and a ceiling. This means that most employees get closer to the average wage for said job. That's great if you're a lower or average performer, but not if you typically make more. I do, and don't want my earning potential capped by the limits of my co-workers.

   Third and following up on my prior point, unions often make it harder to advance. I've been quickly promoted in most places I've worked, but that probably wouldn't happen in a union job. They're all about seniority, and I don't believe some boomer who has worked the same job for twenty years should be promoted ahead of a less-senior person with greater merit.

   Fourth, I don't want to be bound by the decisions of others. Unions often have the power to punish members who cross the picket line. If I'm happy with my job and others aren't, I shouldn't be stuck on strike.

   There you are, four logical reasons I don't want to join a union. I don't have an issue with them existing, just people being forced to join them. You can't hardly call them "workers' rights" but then say everyone's forced to exercise those "rights". You didn't give any argument of your own, though, nor did you answer my question, you just said "that's emotional reasoning."

   P.S. I've read Mr. Luntz' book, "Words that Work". I don't agree with him, but he's good at what he does, and it's worth reading. How you present things is just as important as what you present.

   Show morethread
5. carvinkJul 2019
   It does take some practice, and best not to overuse it. The book 'Words That Work In Business" by Ike Lasater is a very good guide to NVC in the business world.
   thread
6. james_s_taylerJan 2019
   Art helps facilitate communication. You can communicate an entire, massive, powerful idea by just saying "1984." That's where the power lies. The thought experiment aspect is nice too but you can write any old book to push any old narrative if you think enough people will buy it. I think that's neither here nor there.

   This analysis is uni-dimensional. There is nothing special about Democracy, per se, or even about standard political issues. We are highly political creates and you'll notice the very same patterns of calling the other side stupid or assuming they have an agenda with regards to basically anything. Though credit where credit is due, I think the subtext is saying "wait, are we in trouble?". That's not an entirely silly notion IMHO. History has shown things can progress and then go back the other way.

   We might have left the tribes but tribalism never left us. We have upgraded ourselves a little bit, but there is a long way to go. There are many underlying problems with our cognition that paint a pretty bleak picture with regards to "can't we all just get along?", but all is not lost. Just as The Enlightenment moved people away from relying on Mysticism as a philosophy, there is an ongoing dialectic around these issues that has the chance to birth a new philosophy that can help elevate our thinking further.

   In general just being aware of all our cognitive pitfalls, I think, will go a long way and there is also language that goes along with new ideas to help us communicate using new tools.

   I'll list some books I've read/I'm reading on the journey to help me figure this out. Most of this paints a picture that says "we need to actively adopt a philosophy where we emphasize digging into the opponents side more, also, yes they likely are coming to faulty conclusions, but still give them the benefit of the doubt as it will strengthen your own thinking."

   History (last 14,000 years):

     Why Nations Fail
     The Origins of Political Order
     Sapiens
     Guns, Germs & Steel
   

   Psychology:

     Thinking Fast and Slow
     The Elephant In The Brain
     Predictably Irrational
   

   Poltics:

     The Righteous Mind
     The Political Mind
     Chimpanzee Politics
     In Defense of Troublemakers
     A General Theory of Bureaucracy
   

   Communications:

     Words That Work
     Shortcut
     Surfaces & Essences
     Metaphors We Live By
     On Controversy
     Tempo: Timing, Tactics and Strategy in Narrative-Driven Decision Making

   Show morethread