4 ms·

If threads of conversation were series of git commits, then the way to avoid these would be to stop, apply revert(s), and then resume from the previous good-fai

by jka 5y ago

If threads of conversation were series of git commits, then the way to avoid these would be to stop, apply revert(s), and then resume from the previous good-faith, high-value commit. Sadly that's not particularly applicable to linear time-based human conversation, and people exploit that in meetings and other environments to sidetrack, limit and shut down discussion (while it's also true that some tangents are introduced to achieve similar ends). Are there good strategies to 'roll back' while maintaining composure and context during important conversations? Or is it necessary to move the conversations to other (threaded, for example) mediums?

ilaksh 5y ago
Good point. My impression is that it comes down to things like hierarchy, tact, charisma, political acumen. And if someone is deliberately derailing, there might not be an indirect strategy that's effective. You may simply have to bring it up again explicitly. And personally I think that if it's clear someone is interfering then it may be necessary and advisable to call them out on it depending on the urgency. But it's not a minor issue. Something like that can absolutely kill a project or your career. My belief is that they only way to really be free of that is to have the ability to fire people who do too much politicking or whatever. Such as being the boss.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > You may simply have to bring it up again explicitly. Depending on the circumstances, it might be possible to bring up the issue later via email or a group chat, saying something like "One idea from the meeting which I think wasn't fully explored was...". For in-person meetings, though, I think that we can probably learn a lot from the rules of order used in places like parliaments and courts, where discussions are deliberately arranged to be turn-based, with an ostensibly neutral party (the speaker or the judge) who guides proceedings but isn't an active participant in the flow of dialogue.
darkerside 5y ago
I don't know about strategies, but I think the key principle is not to take it personally. It can be difficult when someone is dismissive of something you think is important, but hanlon's razor suggests that you take it as me ignorance. Recognize that this conversation is your opportunity to open their eyes to why something you care about is important.

by jka 5y ago

ilaksh 5y ago

Good point. My impression is that it comes down to things like hierarchy, tact, charisma, political acumen. And if someone is deliberately derailing, there might not be an indirect strategy that's effective. You may simply have to bring it up again explicitly. And personally I think that if it's clear someone is interfering then it may be necessary and advisable to call them out on it depending on the urgency. But it's not a minor issue. Something like that can absolutely kill a project or your career. My belief is that they only way to really be free of that is to have the ability to fire people who do too much politicking or whatever. Such as being the boss.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> You may simply have to bring it up again explicitly. Depending on the circumstances, it might be possible to bring up the issue later via email or a group chat, saying something like "One idea from the meeting which I think wasn't fully explored was...". For in-person meetings, though, I think that we can probably learn a lot from the rules of order used in places like parliaments and courts, where discussions are deliberately arranged to be turn-based, with an ostensibly neutral party (the speaker or the judge) who guides proceedings but isn't an active participant in the flow of dialogue.

darkerside 5y ago

I don't know about strategies, but I think the key principle is not to take it personally. It can be difficult when someone is dismissive of something you think is important, but hanlon's razor suggests that you take it as me ignorance. Recognize that this conversation is your opportunity to open their eyes to why something you care about is important.