On 4 Jul 2019, at 12:27, Keith Moore wrote:
Yes, though I've repeatedly said things like "not in such an extreme
form". But yes, people need to try to listen to ideas, and
criticism of ideas, in whatever form it's offered, even though this
might be a challenge.
So, you failed to do exactly the above when it came to Melinda's
criticism of your ideas, though I have not seen you yet attempt to
correct that situation.
I see countless examples in which people reject an idea not because
it's an inherently bad idea, but because they don't like the person
making it, or they project all kinds of motivations onto that person
that are often entirely figments of the readers' imaginations.
Ditto.
So yes, I do believe that readers have a responsibility to try to
overcome their prejudices when reading ideas and criticism of ideas by
others. And I would have thought that were obvious to most
longtime IETF participants, so I'm surprised there's so much backlash
about it.
Ditto. Re-read exactly what you wrote in the above three statements and
see exactly how you violated those rules when interpreting Melinda's
comment.
What I've experienced for most of my time in IETF is that speaking
honestly can be tremendously difficult to do precisely because
audiences can be so hostile (see above paragraph) [*]. And while
it's all well and good to want people to couch their ideas in
palatable terms, and one can be more effective if one manages to do
so, the demand that many people seem to want to impose (which I
interpret as effectively "express this idea in terms that I like, or
that avoid my prejudices") imposes yet another barrier to getting the
idea out at all, and that's tragic.
Which may (or may not) be true, but again misses Melinda's point that
speaking "honestly" may itself impose a barrier to getting others' ideas
out. (See below for more on this.)
([*] I took her use of the word "brutality" has meaning "an act that
is harsh and without consideration to the feelings of another", which
seems pretty consonant with how you were using "brutal honesty".)
Ah, to me "brutality" is more extreme than that - something like a
willful intent to do serious harm.
Which perhaps says that it is a reader's problem (i.e., yours), not a
writer's problem (Melinda's) that you interpreted her statement as a
"mischaracterization".
I found Melinda's message baffling because it seemed to be exhibiting
ill intent from someone I don't think I've ever seen exhibit such
before. If anything the attack seemed more extreme because of this.
If she was trying to deliberately push my buttons in an effort to
get me to see the flaws in my argument, it didn't have the desired
effect because (silly me?) I took her message at face value rather
than as a stunt.
So to you, the only choices are (1) ill-intent, (2) deliberately pushing
your buttons, or (3) a stunt? Let's presume you're wrong: None of those
things is true. Not that you should have gone there in the first place,
because by your own principle, you shouldn't be interpreting her intent,
you should be looking for the point of the statement. So let's assume
you were wrong in both the attempt to interpret intent, and the
conclusion you came to.
If I misinterpreted her intent, I'm relieved.
But apparently not contrite.
I don't disagree with that. It's just that in my experience it seems
that the audience is MUCH more likely to label the speaker as "being
an ass" when the speaker really is acting in good faith and trying to
express a point despite his/her frustration at the hostile/prejudiced
audience, than that the speaker is actually being an ass.
There seems to be some confirmation bias in there. You can hear every
time someone is being "forceful" with their opinion and can sometimes
determine whether they actually turned out to be correct in their point.
Exactly how many times have people silently walked away from discussions
because people who were being "forceful" got it wrong? What if that
number is (unbeknownst to you) much higher than the number of correct
points that have been dismissed by a hostile audience? How would you
know?
You seem to be assuming data that you simply have no empirical support
for.
And as I've said a couple of times, feel free to suggest a better
phrase than "brutally honest", because I think it's being taken in a
way other than that I intended.
I really don't think it is being taken as other than you intended, and
I'm fine with the phrase.
My experience is that many (most?) people have a hard time even with
well-intended honesty - honesty that's not trying to offend anyone -
and often react with hostility to it because of their own prejudices.
Hence your reaction to Melinda's post.
But by (hastily) choosing the words "brutal honesty" I wasn't
intending to suggest that speakers should intend to be abusive, but
rather that speakers should feel free to contribute technical ideas
and criticism in good faith even if those ideas and criticism might be
seen as offensive to people attached to different ideas, or people
projecting ill intent on the speaker that doesn't actually exist.
Yep, that's what I think we all mean by it.
But I don't think I missed the broader point - some people feel like
the bulk of the responsibility is on the speaker to try to avoid
offending the audience, and I feel like the bulk of the responsibility
is on the listeners to try to avoid being fooled by their own
prejudices. But it's not as if the entirety of the
responsibility is on either party.
Nope, it is clear that you missed Melinda's broader point. Let me paste
in my take on it again:
So you have to decide if you want to occasionally tone down the
"brutal honesty" and listen more carefully so as not to risk missing
important technical points that might be lost because others in the
group won't tolerate that "brutal honesty".
I hope that clarifies things.
Nope. You continue to argue against someone's intent rather than their
point, and don't see that doing so goes directly against the principles
that you are espousing.
I hope this note clarifies for you what the point is.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
