22 ms·

Even if participants have same level of domain understanding, it takes more to be willing to work towards a solution without their egos, their achievements, the

Even if participants have same level of domain understanding, it takes more to be willing to work towards a solution without their egos, their achievements, their alpha-ness getting in the way. I’ve seen the opposite more often than not. Where I do see this level of camaraderie is amongst close friends who know better about each other.

sockpuppet69 5y ago
317070 5y ago
Overheard on such a meeting yesterday: "Well, an alternative would be to use the coordinate system named after me." I feel these meetings work best when there is no career pressure, but when people have aligned goals and just want to make progress. It's easier to leave good points unsaid if everyone prefers having any conclusion to having no conclusion.
- avazhi 5y ago
  Can you get Descartes’ autograph for me? Thx
  - psd1 5y ago
    It could also have been Dr Polar
  - 317070 5y ago
    I don't want to dox the professor that uttered the quote, but he was talking about these coordinates ;-) http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/Boozer_coordinates http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/Boozer_coordinates
darkerside 5y ago
Two keys here I think. One is the way the team was built. The people selected had truly remarkable skills in their own domains such that everyone already had the respect of others. There was nothing to prove in part because the team fit together so well. Big credit should go to the person or people who selected the team. Second is the chairman facilitating who didn't controlled the conversation, didn't leave time for bullshit, and probably had a very tight agenda.
GuB-42 5y ago
I think experts naturally tend to befriend each other, for the simple reason that they are the only one who can understand each other. And that even when there is rivalry in the ideas. Maybe being alone at the top is good for the ego, and some people like that, but it is also boring. If you are at the top in some field, is is probably your passion, something you want to talk about all day, but no one understands you, you feel like you are talking to babies, repeating "obvious" things over and over. On the opposite, you can't find anyone to teach anything new to you, being a pioneer is nice, but if you get stuck, you can't count on anyone but yourself, and it can become tedious. So, when you finally meet someone on your level, it is someone you want to keep. At last, you can talk with someone who understand you, who can provide a meaningful input, and even teach you a thing or two. And even if there is some rivalry, you have a worthy opponent, not an annoyance.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
It's also important for each participant to not be afraid to not be heard. I feel like that's a big issue in a lot of meetings, especially between developers, where it often feels like people are interrupting each other and talking over each other, where the strongest opinion wins, instead of letting each other finish and waiting your turn to speak. It reinforces people's tendency to talk over each other - "if I don't jump in now, the conversation will have moved on" - while at the same time reinforces less verbal / confident people to just keep their opinion to themselves while others talk over each other. Don't hesitate to call others out for their behaviour, as it occurs. And involve those who seem to be withdrawn or quiet, ask them about their opinion and input. It takes concerted efforts, if not coaching and training, to get out of that habit.
- foobarian 5y ago
  There used to be meetings where I wished we could have installed those campaign debate buttons that buzz when someone's time is up. It could be infuriating. I have high hopes that remote meeting software will grow features like this eventually.

sockpuppet69 5y ago

317070 5y ago

Overheard on such a meeting yesterday: "Well, an alternative would be to use the coordinate system named after me." I feel these meetings work best when there is no career pressure, but when people have aligned goals and just want to make progress. It's easier to leave good points unsaid if everyone prefers having any conclusion to having no conclusion.

avazhi 5y ago
Can you get Descartes’ autograph for me? Thx
- psd1 5y ago
  It could also have been Dr Polar
- 317070 5y ago
  I don't want to dox the professor that uttered the quote, but he was talking about these coordinates ;-) http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/Boozer_coordinates http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/Boozer_coordinates

darkerside 5y ago

Two keys here I think. One is the way the team was built. The people selected had truly remarkable skills in their own domains such that everyone already had the respect of others. There was nothing to prove in part because the team fit together so well. Big credit should go to the person or people who selected the team. Second is the chairman facilitating who didn't controlled the conversation, didn't leave time for bullshit, and probably had a very tight agenda.

GuB-42 5y ago

I think experts naturally tend to befriend each other, for the simple reason that they are the only one who can understand each other. And that even when there is rivalry in the ideas. Maybe being alone at the top is good for the ego, and some people like that, but it is also boring. If you are at the top in some field, is is probably your passion, something you want to talk about all day, but no one understands you, you feel like you are talking to babies, repeating "obvious" things over and over. On the opposite, you can't find anyone to teach anything new to you, being a pioneer is nice, but if you get stuck, you can't count on anyone but yourself, and it can become tedious. So, when you finally meet someone on your level, it is someone you want to keep. At last, you can talk with someone who understand you, who can provide a meaningful input, and even teach you a thing or two. And even if there is some rivalry, you have a worthy opponent, not an annoyance.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

It's also important for each participant to not be afraid to not be heard. I feel like that's a big issue in a lot of meetings, especially between developers, where it often feels like people are interrupting each other and talking over each other, where the strongest opinion wins, instead of letting each other finish and waiting your turn to speak. It reinforces people's tendency to talk over each other - "if I don't jump in now, the conversation will have moved on" - while at the same time reinforces less verbal / confident people to just keep their opinion to themselves while others talk over each other. Don't hesitate to call others out for their behaviour, as it occurs. And involve those who seem to be withdrawn or quiet, ask them about their opinion and input. It takes concerted efforts, if not coaching and training, to get out of that habit.

foobarian 5y ago
There used to be meetings where I wished we could have installed those campaign debate buttons that buzz when someone's time is up. It could be infuriating. I have high hopes that remote meeting software will grow features like this eventually.