An acquaintance of mine calls their system, “Two-Do.” They figure out 2 things that must get done each day and then do those 2 things and sometimes repeat if time and their energy allows.
Lying. It is called lying, deceit, or bearing false witness.
In my house I do not permit "yeah", or "okay". It is "yes" and anything else is interpreted as a 'no'.
Once you press someone to speak a "yes" as a solid commitment, for example to an understanding of an instruction. If this puts the person on the defensive then you are dealing with someone who is not interested in being held accountable.
This isn't fair, because it's misunderstanding the problem. It's not that they're lying, it's that, in their culture, the meaning of yes is something different, meaning "I hear you" rather than "I understand you". If they're not strong with english they might not have a grasp of this, so (in the case of Mandarin as primary language) you have to usually think of it as an empty "uh huh" type filler word, not a word with actual meaning.
The real problem I have is the "saving face" concept prevents them admitting they don't understand something. This is where the "high context" part comes in. You can't listen to what they say directly, you have to go off how they say it, and other context clues. This is what I have the biggest problem with. The only way to know if they actually understand something is test their understanding, like have them repeat/explain it back to you. From a low context/western perspective, this results in low verbal trust (because it technically is). I've wasted so many hours on taking something said at face value, that I just default to verifying everything that's said, and trying to be patient when I find out the truth. But, I am getting much better at reading the cues, so can usually spot when the (from my western/low context perspective) bullshit when it starts.
There are old stereotypes around this clash of meaning/culture, but it really is just that. If you're from their culture, and speak their language, there's no "bullshitting" or "lying". From what I've been told, it's incredibly clear when someone is saving face, and it's very clear what the response should be, to "help" them save face. Westerners are, literally, just blind to it all. It's an incompatible mindset and language/expression that requires a robust translation layer that needs to exist in one of the parties. I seem to be mostly incapable of high context communication, even in english, so I'm just as "at fault" in the two party role of communication.
I live in a different world than most where the expectation is we speak the truth, stand behind our word, and in the event of failure we maintain the relationship after resolving the conflict.
As for saving face, I provide opportunities to walk back, restate, or take back something that was said. People get angry, misspeak, or respond with fear and that is understandable.
I get what you're saying, but you're ignoring intent here. They're, literally, using the wrong word, without meaning to. In their language they have multiple "yes" that mean very different things, but they incorrectly use our single "yes" for all of them which, as you're very correct to point out, has a very specific and STRONG meaning. This is a conceptual mapping mistake, not an intent.
They're trying, and slightly failing, to speak a language they took time to learn, but is still unfamiliar to them, my dude. The alternative is that you/I should learn mandarin. I applaud their efforts that allow me to be lazy, even if it means I have to understand some shortfalls in the communication.
If you learn a language, but accidentally use the wrong word in conversation, because maybe nobody has corrected you before, does that make you a liar? Of course not. That's what's going on here.
I was ignoring the language translation with excessive simplification while speaking of a framework.
To your specific point: no, grace abounds for those who remain in conversation and continue to repair the situation.
As for having a single 'yes', we backwater Americans have multiple versions including yeah, okay, yup, ya, yessssss, hell yes, yuppers, uh huh, right, right-o, got it, absolutely, and I am sure a dozen more.
I am speaking of intent. The intent, regardless of the language used, commnunicate in a way that both parties have no assumptions and if there is a miscommunication on anyone's part, both parties work to resolve it without blame. And I thank you for your reply, my dude, which I take as a verbal suffix of casual frustration. English is not my first language mind you.
My experience has been that if the skill is broken down into a function, possibly paired with a validator in another stage, you're at 99.9% deterministic.
I have not yet tested this at scale but give me six months.
Someone recently had AI create a trading bot and it returns 131% on every transaction over a 30 day period - do you really think they care about code quality or ability to verify the math?
Then I tackle that list.
Sometimes the list changes.
"Focus work" happens as pressure vs desire mingle.
The real question is "what is expected of me in the next four hours?" And suddenly my work is structured.
reply