4 ms·

> let's try it your way this time I've never understood why people go along with things they disagree about. It seems people often beat a good argument with th

> let's try it your way this time I've never understood why people go along with things they disagree about. It seems people often beat a good argument with the threat of retribution if we dont play along. Doesnt sound like a recipe for well thought out actions or incentives.

jrochkind1 4y ago
Because sometimes people aren't going to agree. Now what? somebody's going to have to go along, aren't they? The person who is the most bull-headed about not giving in isn't actually more likely to turn out to be right. And because I know I might be wrong even though I don't think I am, I've been mistaken about that before, that's literally what being wrong is. Sometimes when I'm wrong I am not going to realize it for days/weeks/months. So why fight it to the death? Only when the consequences seem especially vital, not every damn time! I am still not advocating pretending to think something you don't. You do not have to pretend you agree with the other person or lie about what you think. But I am advocating some humility. (I definitely do not always exhibit it myself, for anyone reading this who knows me; I do consider it one of my faults; I am writing here as a reminder for myself too). I actually think it's important to set up a culture where everyone doesn't have to agree -- we all acknowledge we will sometimes embark on a course of affairs that everyone doesn't agree with, and you don't need to pretend you agree. People will disagree, and sometimes we still need to move forward. I actually fully agree that a culture where people have to pretend to agree in order to move forward is dishonest and harmful. And that's generally the real-world outcome of expecting nobody ever to "go along" with something they disagree with.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  The interesting thing about your argument is that the most bull headed person is the least likely to participate in the suggested manner. The attitude seems it will only exacerbate the number of times the Bull headed win for their bull headedness and the number of times the submissive people submit.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    It depends, if the world contains only the two people, sure. But there are other people: teammates, managers, executives. Being able to say "look I'm happy to compromise when I think its not important, but in this case it is important" is compelling, and having a pattern of actual willingness to compromise goes a long way towards convincing third parties that you're not being obstinate for no reason.
  - spiralx 4y ago
    If there were only those two people involved that's possible. But in a situation with onlookers the bull-headed 'winner' will gain a reputation for being aggressive and unlikeable, while the the 'loser' will seem reasonable and professional. If our 'winner' persists with this behaviour they'll end up ostracised at best and more likely ousted from their position because no matter how correct they are, that sort of behaviour is always a net negative overall.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      > But in a situation with onlookers the bull-headed 'winner' will gain a reputation for being aggressive and unlikeable, while the the 'loser' will seem reasonable and professional. I like this angle, I'll try to observe if it's actually happening in my context :)
ch4s3 4y ago
Sometimes you want to preserve or build a relationship and the cost of going along with a bad idea is outweighed by the value of the relationship. Sometimes the worst case outcome isn’t very bad and will be quickly uncovered. Sometimes you acknowledge that though you’re sure you’re right, there’s the possibility that you are not.
NotTameAntelope 4y ago
Because people understand that their perspective might be incomplete or wrong, and/or the consequences of failure are reversible. People also understand that "correctness" is often subjective and not boolean in nature, so insisting their opinion is in all ways the most correct would be silly.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Because sometimes I'm the one who's wrong, and if I allow myself to realize that I can learn from it. A bit of humility is necessary for healthy teamwork.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  Fully agreed humility is necessary to realize when one absolutely is or likely is incorrect. My comment was WRT when people submit knowing the path is wrong due to the threats of retribution from their colleagues (which includes ostracism or negative career effects). One thing I dont understand is why American culture is such that it's better to play nice to the group detriment than to work hard to everyone's benefit? It's like people would rather smile on a sinking ship than suffer the journey to excellence.
hypnoosi 4y ago
> I've never understood why people go along with things they disagree about. As an Engineering manager this happens to me a lot. The first (perhaps most important reason) is that I realise that I might have things wrong and welcome the opportunity to grown and learning. Second, I want to show my appreciation to my report by supporting her/his idea. And third, I always take to opportunity to keep my ego out of the game. I might need to manage the risk and interests, but that's just part of the job.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  Yeah I failed to qualify that my comment comes from my context which is an expert in a field that has painstakingly pursued excellence for more than a decade, and I frequently am out maneuvered (politically) by people who make choices they do not own the consequences of[1] [1]: for example I've warned my employer once that an implementation was brutally inefficient and will cost both opex and velocity, but they told me "what's your solution" to which I could only reply "give me a week to design it like you gave the principal engineer and I'll give you a better solution". They laughed and said they dont have a month. The choice has cost the business >$1M in excess PaaS fees and has had multiple subsequent major projects to attempt to remediate the costs (granted the opex costs have come down significantly since multiple rounds of refinement). But the point still stands -- I roughly knew a better path to not need 6+ months of refinement, and save >$1M in opex overspend, but they wouldn't spare the time and disparaged me for not being a team player. When you know you know better it's best not to submit. Perhaps it's worth realizing it's a bad culture though.
paraknight 4y ago
Sometimes it's also better to lose a battle in order to win a war. For example, I once thought a certain feature was useless and not worth the effort to implement. I knew however that if I chose that hill to die on, it would lead to a lot of resentment -- "if only we had built that feature, we would have X". I decided to concede as this was not a big feature but, like I predicted, the feature was useless. This now put me in a better position for the future where I could draw on this as a lesson for when it truly mattered. Whenever we would be at risk of getting distracted by some much bigger useless feature, I was able to point back to that experience to bolster my dissent with more credibility in a way I might not have been able to if I didn't pick my battles.
strken 4y ago
Let's say you're deciding on a washing machine. You're arguing about washing machine A ($500) vs B ($600), and you think B will last twice as long as A. Your partner would prefer to save $100 now even if the machine breaks later on, and doesn't want to back down either. The cost of choosing washing machine A is that it breaks at some distant time. The cost of arguing about washing machines is wasting an hour every week driving to a laundromat and paying $10 a wash, plus the hard-to-quantify strain on your relationship, for an argument you might not even win. In this situation, the hidden third option of dragging out a conflict that you might not even win could end up more costly than choosing a bad option, even if you're right. In software this happens a lot. You burn opportunity cost trying to argue for a perfect solution instead of aligning behind a flawed solution.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  Cool, that seems fair. As you describe it, either washer should work. I still hate the avocado one, but I hate the laundromat even more. I can build alignment around this. If only they were all that way. If someone tells me their blender is the best washing machine, this may turn into a painful conversation. A long one. Possibly an embarrassing one. But I’m here for it. That’s a fucking blender, and I’m not going to call it a washing machine even if that’s the last decision I make here. It would be great if all of these situations were as sane as picking between two valid options. Sometimes there’s a valid one, and, well, pick your expletives for the other one. In software this happens a lot. Entire teams spinning plates because someone confused authority with experience.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > Your partner would prefer to save $100 I fully agree that in a romantic relationship there is far more at stake than any single choice. But I've found the professional world to work far differently. For starters people only stick around jobs an average of 18 months (whereas marriages get about 7 yrs). And there is far more at stake to having your choice selected in an argument at work -- promotions and subsequent pay increases are worth 10s-100s of thousand. Submissive people are frequently looked over for promotion and may miss >5 years of promoted working years. perfection was never in the discussion, but good (ie high quality) is. When I see someone arguing for a bad solution (ie both high risk & total cost of ownership expensive) it's there's actually a lot on the line. This risk factor scales with the size/brand of the business. Look at the pie in the face one company wears[1] for a security breach, whereas another gets to demonstrate their security forward posture[2]. The former likely has lost millions to a ~million dollar choice[3]. Whereas the latter has increased their brand value to the same choice. But the person who argues without end for what they think is right is often ostracized and disparaged. This is something very broken in American culture. [1]: https://www.twilio.com/blog/august-2022-social-engineering-attack https://www.twilio.com/blog/august-2022-social-engineering-a... [2]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cloudflare-employees-also-hit-by-hackers-behind-twilio-breach/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cloudflare-em... [3]: 8k workers by $125 -- yubikey + cost of training ~$1M .
kthejoker2 4y ago
Consensus based decisionmaking has its place. It especially works better when there's too much ambiguity to proceed aggressively in any direction no matter how confident you are. It usually more accurately reflects the group's appetite for risk, creates psychological safety, and reduces the social costs of failure.

jrochkind1 4y ago

Because sometimes people aren't going to agree. Now what? somebody's going to have to go along, aren't they? The person who is the most bull-headed about not giving in isn't actually more likely to turn out to be right. And because I know I might be wrong even though I don't think I am, I've been mistaken about that before, that's literally what being wrong is. Sometimes when I'm wrong I am not going to realize it for days/weeks/months. So why fight it to the death? Only when the consequences seem especially vital, not every damn time! I am still not advocating pretending to think something you don't. You do not have to pretend you agree with the other person or lie about what you think. But I am advocating some humility. (I definitely do not always exhibit it myself, for anyone reading this who knows me; I do consider it one of my faults; I am writing here as a reminder for myself too). I actually think it's important to set up a culture where everyone doesn't have to agree -- we all acknowledge we will sometimes embark on a course of affairs that everyone doesn't agree with, and you don't need to pretend you agree. People will disagree, and sometimes we still need to move forward. I actually fully agree that a culture where people have to pretend to agree in order to move forward is dishonest and harmful. And that's generally the real-world outcome of expecting nobody ever to "go along" with something they disagree with.

maerF0x0 4y ago
The interesting thing about your argument is that the most bull headed person is the least likely to participate in the suggested manner. The attitude seems it will only exacerbate the number of times the Bull headed win for their bull headedness and the number of times the submissive people submit.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  It depends, if the world contains only the two people, sure. But there are other people: teammates, managers, executives. Being able to say "look I'm happy to compromise when I think its not important, but in this case it is important" is compelling, and having a pattern of actual willingness to compromise goes a long way towards convincing third parties that you're not being obstinate for no reason.
- spiralx 4y ago
  If there were only those two people involved that's possible. But in a situation with onlookers the bull-headed 'winner' will gain a reputation for being aggressive and unlikeable, while the the 'loser' will seem reasonable and professional. If our 'winner' persists with this behaviour they'll end up ostracised at best and more likely ousted from their position because no matter how correct they are, that sort of behaviour is always a net negative overall.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > But in a situation with onlookers the bull-headed 'winner' will gain a reputation for being aggressive and unlikeable, while the the 'loser' will seem reasonable and professional. I like this angle, I'll try to observe if it's actually happening in my context :)

ch4s3 4y ago

Sometimes you want to preserve or build a relationship and the cost of going along with a bad idea is outweighed by the value of the relationship. Sometimes the worst case outcome isn’t very bad and will be quickly uncovered. Sometimes you acknowledge that though you’re sure you’re right, there’s the possibility that you are not.

NotTameAntelope 4y ago

Because people understand that their perspective might be incomplete or wrong, and/or the consequences of failure are reversible. People also understand that "correctness" is often subjective and not boolean in nature, so insisting their opinion is in all ways the most correct would be silly.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Because sometimes I'm the one who's wrong, and if I allow myself to realize that I can learn from it. A bit of humility is necessary for healthy teamwork.

maerF0x0 4y ago
Fully agreed humility is necessary to realize when one absolutely is or likely is incorrect. My comment was WRT when people submit knowing the path is wrong due to the threats of retribution from their colleagues (which includes ostracism or negative career effects). One thing I dont understand is why American culture is such that it's better to play nice to the group detriment than to work hard to everyone's benefit? It's like people would rather smile on a sinking ship than suffer the journey to excellence.

hypnoosi 4y ago

> I've never understood why people go along with things they disagree about. As an Engineering manager this happens to me a lot. The first (perhaps most important reason) is that I realise that I might have things wrong and welcome the opportunity to grown and learning. Second, I want to show my appreciation to my report by supporting her/his idea. And third, I always take to opportunity to keep my ego out of the game. I might need to manage the risk and interests, but that's just part of the job.

maerF0x0 4y ago
Yeah I failed to qualify that my comment comes from my context which is an expert in a field that has painstakingly pursued excellence for more than a decade, and I frequently am out maneuvered (politically) by people who make choices they do not own the consequences of[1] [1]: for example I've warned my employer once that an implementation was brutally inefficient and will cost both opex and velocity, but they told me "what's your solution" to which I could only reply "give me a week to design it like you gave the principal engineer and I'll give you a better solution". They laughed and said they dont have a month. The choice has cost the business >$1M in excess PaaS fees and has had multiple subsequent major projects to attempt to remediate the costs (granted the opex costs have come down significantly since multiple rounds of refinement). But the point still stands -- I roughly knew a better path to not need 6+ months of refinement, and save >$1M in opex overspend, but they wouldn't spare the time and disparaged me for not being a team player. When you know you know better it's best not to submit. Perhaps it's worth realizing it's a bad culture though.

paraknight 4y ago

Sometimes it's also better to lose a battle in order to win a war. For example, I once thought a certain feature was useless and not worth the effort to implement. I knew however that if I chose that hill to die on, it would lead to a lot of resentment -- "if only we had built that feature, we would have X". I decided to concede as this was not a big feature but, like I predicted, the feature was useless. This now put me in a better position for the future where I could draw on this as a lesson for when it truly mattered. Whenever we would be at risk of getting distracted by some much bigger useless feature, I was able to point back to that experience to bolster my dissent with more credibility in a way I might not have been able to if I didn't pick my battles.

strken 4y ago

Let's say you're deciding on a washing machine. You're arguing about washing machine A ($500) vs B ($600), and you think B will last twice as long as A. Your partner would prefer to save $100 now even if the machine breaks later on, and doesn't want to back down either. The cost of choosing washing machine A is that it breaks at some distant time. The cost of arguing about washing machines is wasting an hour every week driving to a laundromat and paying $10 a wash, plus the hard-to-quantify strain on your relationship, for an argument you might not even win. In this situation, the hidden third option of dragging out a conflict that you might not even win could end up more costly than choosing a bad option, even if you're right. In software this happens a lot. You burn opportunity cost trying to argue for a perfect solution instead of aligning behind a flawed solution.

catchnear4321 4y ago
Cool, that seems fair. As you describe it, either washer should work. I still hate the avocado one, but I hate the laundromat even more. I can build alignment around this. If only they were all that way. If someone tells me their blender is the best washing machine, this may turn into a painful conversation. A long one. Possibly an embarrassing one. But I’m here for it. That’s a fucking blender, and I’m not going to call it a washing machine even if that’s the last decision I make here. It would be great if all of these situations were as sane as picking between two valid options. Sometimes there’s a valid one, and, well, pick your expletives for the other one. In software this happens a lot. Entire teams spinning plates because someone confused authority with experience.
maerF0x0 4y ago
> Your partner would prefer to save $100 I fully agree that in a romantic relationship there is far more at stake than any single choice. But I've found the professional world to work far differently. For starters people only stick around jobs an average of 18 months (whereas marriages get about 7 yrs). And there is far more at stake to having your choice selected in an argument at work -- promotions and subsequent pay increases are worth 10s-100s of thousand. Submissive people are frequently looked over for promotion and may miss >5 years of promoted working years. perfection was never in the discussion, but good (ie high quality) is. When I see someone arguing for a bad solution (ie both high risk & total cost of ownership expensive) it's there's actually a lot on the line. This risk factor scales with the size/brand of the business. Look at the pie in the face one company wears[1] for a security breach, whereas another gets to demonstrate their security forward posture[2]. The former likely has lost millions to a ~million dollar choice[3]. Whereas the latter has increased their brand value to the same choice. But the person who argues without end for what they think is right is often ostracized and disparaged. This is something very broken in American culture. [1]: https://www.twilio.com/blog/august-2022-social-engineering-attack https://www.twilio.com/blog/august-2022-social-engineering-a... [2]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cloudflare-employees-also-hit-by-hackers-behind-twilio-breach/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cloudflare-em... [3]: 8k workers by $125 -- yubikey + cost of training ~$1M .

kthejoker2 4y ago

Consensus based decisionmaking has its place. It especially works better when there's too much ambiguity to proceed aggressively in any direction no matter how confident you are. It usually more accurately reflects the group's appetite for risk, creates psychological safety, and reduces the social costs of failure.