3 ms·

I'm the original author. Thank you for reading the article and engaging with it! I don't fundamentally disagree with your point that "Most Abused" is accurate.

I'm the original author. Thank you for reading the article and engaging with it! I don't fundamentally disagree with your point that "Most Abused" is accurate. My experience is that it abused so frequently, and depends so much on a cultural context that generally doesn't exist anymore (if it ever really did), that it needs to be fundamentally rethought. And fortunately the main fix is really simple: even a tiny level of qualification makes a massive difference to how invited other people feel to the discussion. To take your example, if you said "In my opinion, Tesla makes the best electric car, no-one comes close... and I could be wrong, I'd love to hear the counterargument", that minimal adjustment can make a big difference to your coworkers. And presumably you want to get the best out of them!

gcanyon 4y ago
Hey! Thanks for not taking offense at my (very purposefully) "strong" opinion :-) To be clear, I'm not fundamentally opposed to your point. That said, strong opinion incoming -- I think adding the "in my opinion" and "I could be wrong" doesn't actually solve the problem. It's like the boss who says, "my door is always open" when nothing could be further from the truth. Or adding "no offense intended" to a clearly offensive statement. What matters is the environment, not the words spoken. If the environment is right, the words are unnecessary. If the environment is wrong, the words are a lie.
- michaeljnatkin 3y ago
  You are 100% right that the words have to be consonant with the environment. And I still think there is a ton of value in making the words explicit. E.g. if you are a manager, and in fact your door is always open, but you don't say it and you assume your employees will gather that from your demeanor and behavior - you could find out years later that you were totally wrong and employees (especially junior employees and those from underrepresented groups) may not realize it was ok to approach "the boss".

gcanyon 4y ago

Hey! Thanks for not taking offense at my (very purposefully) "strong" opinion :-) To be clear, I'm not fundamentally opposed to your point. That said, strong opinion incoming -- I think adding the "in my opinion" and "I could be wrong" doesn't actually solve the problem. It's like the boss who says, "my door is always open" when nothing could be further from the truth. Or adding "no offense intended" to a clearly offensive statement. What matters is the environment, not the words spoken. If the environment is right, the words are unnecessary. If the environment is wrong, the words are a lie.

michaeljnatkin 3y ago
You are 100% right that the words have to be consonant with the environment. And I still think there is a ton of value in making the words explicit. E.g. if you are a manager, and in fact your door is always open, but you don't say it and you assume your employees will gather that from your demeanor and behavior - you could find out years later that you were totally wrong and employees (especially junior employees and those from underrepresented groups) may not realize it was ok to approach "the boss".