4 ms·

This is a really great article. Her experience mirrors mine in a lot of ways - not that I've ever been an executive of anything, just that I've had the experie

This is a really great article. Her experience mirrors mine in a lot of ways - not that I've ever been an executive of anything, just that I've had the experience of winning a battle at work, but winning in a way that alienated my team. A lot of technical people are like that - we know we are right, and we probably are, but when you shove the raw data and facts down your team's throat in the wrong way, people will resent you for it. Unfortunately, a lot of people are idiots, but you can't just call them that. This is something I'm struggling with, and I wonder if anyone has pointers for me. Not that I call people an idiot, but just that, if I know my facts are correct, and I disagree with them, it's basically the same thing - you're saying "I'm right and you're wrong," which might be true. How do you get someone to agree with you without making them feel like an idiot? Please, tell me, I'm dying to know...

j_baker 16y ago
Bear two things in mind: 1. Sometimes the truth hurts. 2. People love to shoot the messenger. We have this idea that teamwork is this beautiful thing where people always get along and nobody is ever mad at each other. That's bullshit. To do the right thing, you have to piss people off sometimes. I really suggest you read the "No Asshole Rule". It goes into details about who's an asshole and how not to be one. And it's very clear about the idea that just because you disagree with people doesn't make you an asshole. A few relevant points: 1. Focus on the argument and not the person. 2. Argue like you're right, listen like you're wrong. In other words, really try to make sure that you really understand their point and that they understand your point. Even if you do those things, you're still going to make people angry. Remember, being stubborn and argumentative is only a vice if you're wrong or you're doing it for your own personal enrichment rather than the good of the team. If it really is a simple case of you being right and them being wrong, and yet they're still arguing with you, is it really you that has a problem?
aaronblohowiak 16y ago
When you say that "people are idiots", it seems to assume that there is a thing called "intelligence." Well, there is no "g", or general intelligence that anyone can pin down. Let's take the simple view and say that people's actions and judgements are a product of the information they have gathered, the habits they have, their ability to analyze and combine that information, their ability to optimize within constraints and their ability to recognize and evaluate constraints. If someone is clearly wrong, then they have some bad information or bad reasoning. Learning their bad conclusion, many people then go on and do a "well, i'm right and if they heard my reasoning then of course they would agree with me!" That can work within relationships that have a high degree of trust and rapport (not most relationships.) Outside of those relationships, it is too self-centered. Changing someone's mind is like fixing a bug in a foreign code base. You don't just look at the erroneous output in order to debug, you also look at the source and the input. Similarly, to effectively communicate with someone who disagrees with you, you should seek to understand the information and reasoning that lead them in a different path. Understanding where they went wrong (in addition to their erroneous conclusion) gives you a great level of preparedness. When you know where they went wrong, you can usually get them to change their own mind by asking them to teach you about how their model of the world is consistent even though you have seemingly contradictory information. For instance: "oh, how is delivery guaranteed if there isn't a confirmation echo?" Basically, you take the stance of being wrong, and "use" them to teach you about where you are wrong. If their answer seems to ignore information you have, you can ask "How does this relate to the stats they released last week?" This "please teach me" questioning approach doesn't undermine their judgement or threaten their ego while giving you control of their thought process (or at least more insight into it, which translates to having more control ultimately.) This takes a long time, but when you start learning to model other people's reasoning ( a skill unto itself) you will get better at asking the right question that guides them to the right conclusion without telling them what the right conclusion is.
- kanak 16y ago
  One of my favorite videos on youtube is the one where Neil deGrasse Tyson expresses disagreement at Richard Dawkin's methods [1]. He says: "... persuasion isn't 'here are the facts and you're either an idiot or you're not.' It's 'here are the facts and here's a sensitivity to your state of mind.' And it's the facts and the sensitivity that when convolved together, creates impact. I worry that your methods and how articulately barbed you can be, simply being ineffective..." [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

j_baker 16y ago

Bear two things in mind: 1. Sometimes the truth hurts. 2. People love to shoot the messenger. We have this idea that teamwork is this beautiful thing where people always get along and nobody is ever mad at each other. That's bullshit. To do the right thing, you have to piss people off sometimes. I really suggest you read the "No Asshole Rule". It goes into details about who's an asshole and how not to be one. And it's very clear about the idea that just because you disagree with people doesn't make you an asshole. A few relevant points: 1. Focus on the argument and not the person. 2. Argue like you're right, listen like you're wrong. In other words, really try to make sure that you really understand their point and that they understand your point. Even if you do those things, you're still going to make people angry. Remember, being stubborn and argumentative is only a vice if you're wrong or you're doing it for your own personal enrichment rather than the good of the team. If it really is a simple case of you being right and them being wrong, and yet they're still arguing with you, is it really you that has a problem?

aaronblohowiak 16y ago

When you say that "people are idiots", it seems to assume that there is a thing called "intelligence." Well, there is no "g", or general intelligence that anyone can pin down. Let's take the simple view and say that people's actions and judgements are a product of the information they have gathered, the habits they have, their ability to analyze and combine that information, their ability to optimize within constraints and their ability to recognize and evaluate constraints. If someone is clearly wrong, then they have some bad information or bad reasoning. Learning their bad conclusion, many people then go on and do a "well, i'm right and if they heard my reasoning then of course they would agree with me!" That can work within relationships that have a high degree of trust and rapport (not most relationships.) Outside of those relationships, it is too self-centered. Changing someone's mind is like fixing a bug in a foreign code base. You don't just look at the erroneous output in order to debug, you also look at the source and the input. Similarly, to effectively communicate with someone who disagrees with you, you should seek to understand the information and reasoning that lead them in a different path. Understanding where they went wrong (in addition to their erroneous conclusion) gives you a great level of preparedness. When you know where they went wrong, you can usually get them to change their own mind by asking them to teach you about how their model of the world is consistent even though you have seemingly contradictory information. For instance: "oh, how is delivery guaranteed if there isn't a confirmation echo?" Basically, you take the stance of being wrong, and "use" them to teach you about where you are wrong. If their answer seems to ignore information you have, you can ask "How does this relate to the stats they released last week?" This "please teach me" questioning approach doesn't undermine their judgement or threaten their ego while giving you control of their thought process (or at least more insight into it, which translates to having more control ultimately.) This takes a long time, but when you start learning to model other people's reasoning ( a skill unto itself) you will get better at asking the right question that guides them to the right conclusion without telling them what the right conclusion is.

kanak 16y ago
One of my favorite videos on youtube is the one where Neil deGrasse Tyson expresses disagreement at Richard Dawkin's methods [1]. He says: "... persuasion isn't 'here are the facts and you're either an idiot or you're not.' It's 'here are the facts and here's a sensitivity to your state of mind.' And it's the facts and the sensitivity that when convolved together, creates impact. I worry that your methods and how articulately barbed you can be, simply being ineffective..." [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik