3 ms·

I've learned the hard way that you always need to be cognizant of other people's defaults in conversation. Willingness to have a vigorous debate is never the as

I've learned the hard way that you always need to be cognizant of other people's defaults in conversation. Willingness to have a vigorous debate is never the assumed default, so even if you are receptive to criticism, other people wont give it. The concept of the percent certainty is intriguing to me, since thinking back on it, it makes a lot of sense that posturing with certainty ("strong opinion") actually likely sends the signal that I am not receptive to criticism- otherwise I would have the self awareness to include in my original statement of opinion that I might be wrong by putting that acknowledgement of uncertainty in. Perhaps even that isn't enough? What I do now is explicitly say "I want your criticism on this" or "your job is to push back" or something since explicitly laying out the expected culture seems to help. Would people naturally interpret the statement of uncertainty as an invitation to disagree or is even that assumption based on a set of social norms around where the author lives? Wouldn't people just get attached to the number for percent certainty and feel insecure challenging that? I wonder if it's simply not explicit enough to set the lind of culture you would want.

BeetleB 7y ago
>What I do now is explicitly say "I want your criticism on this" or "your job is to push back" or something since explicitly laying out the expected culture seems to help. Not as much as you'd like. For many, "your job to push back" is saying "Your job is to argue." Many people want to discuss, not argue. Regarding "I want your criticism": I took a communications workshop, and we discussed this. Make a statement/claim, then follow it up with "Let me know if I got anything wrong." Half the class thought it was a good idea, and the other half said it wasn't (and likely wouldn't engage). The reason was that too many of them had seen the tactic used by insincere, argumentative people, and the very phrasing comes off as adverserial to many (like "show me how I'm wrong!"). The other half of the class was completely surprised by this ("When I say it, I'm sincere!"). The phrase that didn't trigger any problems is "This is how I see it. What do you think?" or "This is how I see it. What is your perspective on it?" or even better "This is how I see it. I'd like to hear your perspective."
- ssivark 7y ago
  Your communications workshop experience jives well with my observations. Over the last decade or so, I've evolved my expression style to a much more discussion oriented tone (de-escalating the situation) rather than a debate oriented one (trying to prove yourself right, often escalating tensions). If a subject is worth talking about with someone, I hold a frame of mind that they might have something new to say which will augment my understanding of the situation. IME, that makes people much more open to communicate -- they listen to you with an open mind, consider what you're saying, and respond with their perspective. I much prefer this mode of operation, because my perspective had diversified significantly from the things I've learned and I consider it as bringing out the best in the people I communicate with. Conversations are now a collaborative discovery process. "Strong opinions, weakly held" (in it's best spirit) is often a crutch for people who feel paralyzed by ambiguity. This mindset lets them sweep uncertainty under the rug and continue operating ("bias for action") till feedback requires them to change their mind. The problem with that assumption is that the willingness of people around them to express feedback is inversely proportional to the confidence they express. On the topic of being comfortable with ambiguity, I feel Feynman puts it best: https://youtu.be/_MmpUWEW6Is https://youtu.be/_MmpUWEW6Is
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > Over the last decade or so, I've evolved my expression style to a much more discussion oriented tone (de-escalating the situation) rather than a debate oriented one (trying to prove yourself right, often escalating tensions). I've been heading this way over time, and as you clearly have experience that it works I'll make an effort to try harder. Nothing like learning from other people's wisdom - thanks!
- vikramkr 7y ago
  Interesting - I didn't consider the connotations of the statement lining up more with argumentation for argument's sake and critical discussion. I think that's yet another case of the implications of the words used is dependent on the listener's mindset. I can see how using more neutral terminology like "what do you think?" is better - thanks for sharing your experience with that!

BeetleB 7y ago

>What I do now is explicitly say "I want your criticism on this" or "your job is to push back" or something since explicitly laying out the expected culture seems to help. Not as much as you'd like. For many, "your job to push back" is saying "Your job is to argue." Many people want to discuss, not argue. Regarding "I want your criticism": I took a communications workshop, and we discussed this. Make a statement/claim, then follow it up with "Let me know if I got anything wrong." Half the class thought it was a good idea, and the other half said it wasn't (and likely wouldn't engage). The reason was that too many of them had seen the tactic used by insincere, argumentative people, and the very phrasing comes off as adverserial to many (like "show me how I'm wrong!"). The other half of the class was completely surprised by this ("When I say it, I'm sincere!"). The phrase that didn't trigger any problems is "This is how I see it. What do you think?" or "This is how I see it. What is your perspective on it?" or even better "This is how I see it. I'd like to hear your perspective."

ssivark 7y ago
Your communications workshop experience jives well with my observations. Over the last decade or so, I've evolved my expression style to a much more discussion oriented tone (de-escalating the situation) rather than a debate oriented one (trying to prove yourself right, often escalating tensions). If a subject is worth talking about with someone, I hold a frame of mind that they might have something new to say which will augment my understanding of the situation. IME, that makes people much more open to communicate -- they listen to you with an open mind, consider what you're saying, and respond with their perspective. I much prefer this mode of operation, because my perspective had diversified significantly from the things I've learned and I consider it as bringing out the best in the people I communicate with. Conversations are now a collaborative discovery process. "Strong opinions, weakly held" (in it's best spirit) is often a crutch for people who feel paralyzed by ambiguity. This mindset lets them sweep uncertainty under the rug and continue operating ("bias for action") till feedback requires them to change their mind. The problem with that assumption is that the willingness of people around them to express feedback is inversely proportional to the confidence they express. On the topic of being comfortable with ambiguity, I feel Feynman puts it best: https://youtu.be/_MmpUWEW6Is https://youtu.be/_MmpUWEW6Is
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > Over the last decade or so, I've evolved my expression style to a much more discussion oriented tone (de-escalating the situation) rather than a debate oriented one (trying to prove yourself right, often escalating tensions). I've been heading this way over time, and as you clearly have experience that it works I'll make an effort to try harder. Nothing like learning from other people's wisdom - thanks!
vikramkr 7y ago
Interesting - I didn't consider the connotations of the statement lining up more with argumentation for argument's sake and critical discussion. I think that's yet another case of the implications of the words used is dependent on the listener's mindset. I can see how using more neutral terminology like "what do you think?" is better - thanks for sharing your experience with that!