I can't say I understand the example supplied. There's no way to say what the commenter said to someone's face without being insulting; he is explicitly implying that Joel is being manipulative and deceitful. It's the sort of thing you can feel free to think to yourself, but which is very rude to say.
Try this: Say this paragraph out loud, and find a tone where the primary message conveyed isn't "way to pull one over on us, asshole" (hint: there isn't one.)
You disguise a PR piece as an objective 'how to' in a national business publication, coming across as an authority, the underdog, and an all around nice guy who really cares about his customers. You're an engineer who claims to be 'weak' in the sales department, but all evidence to the contrary: nice 'sales hack'.
Even if you got rid of loaded words like "disguise" and took away the scare quotes, there's still no nice way to express that thought to someone. It's really tactless; any reasonable person would be insulted, regardless of the medium.
To generalize, I posit that a lot of "miscommunication" thanks to tone online is just a result of people feeling free (with the cover of semi-anonymity) to throw away any subtlety and confront people in a manner that they would never adopt face-to-face.
EDIT: Expanding on my last paragraph, I don't want to be overly critical of people who are very straightforward and speak their mind online, even if it seems rude; there's certainly a tradition of abrasively practical hackers. The commenter perhaps did everyone a service by opening for discussion something that other people might have left unsaid.
And I disagree, which is the point of the OP's article in the first place. I think the quote can be read as a genuine compliment - saying, "you put yourself down too much - it turns out you really are good at communication, and I'm impressed with your skill in this area".
Let's put the author's premise to the test, and add emoticons and exclamations:
You disguise a PR piece as an objective 'how to' in a national business publication, coming across as an authority, the underdog, and an all around nice guy who really cares about his customers. You're an engineer who claims to be 'weak' in the sales department, but all evidence to the contrary: nice 'sales hack'! :P
Hmm, I guess I was wrong. That second version really does come off with a much more playful and friendly tone (almost completely thanks to the :P). Language is so sneakily expressive!
Yep - the difference between yours and mine is 4 characters, including a space.
Language is so sneakily expressive!
You're so right! For example, I wrote out a positive interpretation before hand to prime the reader into seeing what I hoped they'd see. Would it come across the same way if I'd put that interpretation right after? Probably not.
I think the positive priming caused greater affect than the "! :P", and I propose the hypothesis that it's the "loaded terms" that determine tone, largely.
They are most effective if applied to the issue at hand; but they are also effective if a fragment makes them appear to so apply (Any reasonable person who takes your advice would be a fool); and even their mere presence in the visual field will affect the reader (disguise, weak, fool). A strong example of this is swear words.
Your priming passage includes warm, life-affirming terms and fragments (as distinct from their denotation): "genuine", "compliment",
"really are good", "I'm impressed with your". I'm suggesting it's not just that you were priming the reader with that logical interpretation, but that you were directly influencing their emotional state with your word choice.
I really do think the first-quoted commenter in the article was being sarcastic. Although he later claimed he wasn't, I find that hard to believe. I don't think it's just the words that are used; but that those words naturally emerge from a person's attitude. If they have a kindly approach to others (or even if they are just feeling happy and optimistic at the moment), it will be reflected in their word choice.
Unfortunately, optimistic, cheerful people tend not to make good engineers, given Murphy's Law, so there's sometimes a relative absence of good-will and affirmation online - including here, on HH.
This is due to a difference in assumptions/metaphors, not tone. Many people assume that being a salesman is a negative, like a used car salesman. The original comment sounds negative if understand it through this frame. But, if you view sales from an entrepreneurial frame then the comment sounds like a compliment.
Try this: Say this paragraph out loud, and find a tone where the primary message conveyed isn't "way to pull one over on us, asshole" (hint: there isn't one.)
You disguise a PR piece as an objective 'how to' in a national business publication, coming across as an authority, the underdog, and an all around nice guy who really cares about his customers. You're an engineer who claims to be 'weak' in the sales department, but all evidence to the contrary: nice 'sales hack'.
Even if you got rid of loaded words like "disguise" and took away the scare quotes, there's still no nice way to express that thought to someone. It's really tactless; any reasonable person would be insulted, regardless of the medium.
To generalize, I posit that a lot of "miscommunication" thanks to tone online is just a result of people feeling free (with the cover of semi-anonymity) to throw away any subtlety and confront people in a manner that they would never adopt face-to-face.
EDIT: Expanding on my last paragraph, I don't want to be overly critical of people who are very straightforward and speak their mind online, even if it seems rude; there's certainly a tradition of abrasively practical hackers. The commenter perhaps did everyone a service by opening for discussion something that other people might have left unsaid.