4 ms·

This appears to be a perspective issue. The writer took it as rude without mentioning the most important part: Was Katz right? We need more context, and we ne

This appears to be a perspective issue. The writer took it as rude without mentioning the most important part: Was Katz right? We need more context, and we need less emotional argument. If the original presenter could effectively support his position then he would not have left the stage. And I would hope that Katz would not commit such a social atrocity without a very, very good reason. I don't find it hard to believe that the actual story is much more tame and logical than the author of this article thinks it is.

ceol 15y ago
> If the original presenter could effectively support his position then he would not have left the stage. I don't think so. They may not have been seasoned public speakers like Katz, so having someone outright argue with them during their presentation could have been especially unnerving.
smacktoward 15y ago
"Was Katz right?" is not the most important part. It's arguably not even relevant. If someone is presenting, and they say something that's incorrect, there are better ways to deal with it than pushing them off the platform and announcing that the Real Genius has arrived. I can think of two right off the top of my head: 1) Wait until they've finished, then pose your correction in the form of a question to them and allow them to answer. This lets them save face (since you're not outright correcting them, you're just asking for clarification), gives them the chance to correct themselves in case they just misspoke or were misunderstood, and avoids the risk of your correction of the one incorrect point overwhelming the other, presumably correct, points the speaker made. 2) When the session is over, approach the organizer of the user group and offer to make your own presentation on the subject, in which you'll give the correct information, at the next meeting. If you're concerned that people will miss the point, add a subtitle like "A Response to Presenter X" to the name of the presentation. > If the original presenter could effectively support his position then he would not have left the stage. In the world of actual human beings, this is not true. People are quite easily driven to the margins by bullies who are louder and more strident than they are, even if their argument is 100% correct. Lawyers even have a saying for it: "If the law is against you, bang on the facts. If the facts are against you, bang on the law. If both are against you, bang on the table."
andyjohnson0 15y ago
The article is not about being right or wrong, its about appropriate vs inappropriate behavior.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gwright 15y ago
Was Katz right? Answering that question doesn't really get you very far. Katz could have politely disagreed without taking over the presentation. Katz could have taken the author aside afterwards and shared his perspective. Katz could have offered to assist with a revised presentation. There are all sorts of ways to politely and tactfully correct someone. Doing it in the manner described in the original article doesn't seem like the best approach.

ceol 15y ago

> If the original presenter could effectively support his position then he would not have left the stage. I don't think so. They may not have been seasoned public speakers like Katz, so having someone outright argue with them during their presentation could have been especially unnerving.

smacktoward 15y ago

"Was Katz right?" is not the most important part. It's arguably not even relevant. If someone is presenting, and they say something that's incorrect, there are better ways to deal with it than pushing them off the platform and announcing that the Real Genius has arrived. I can think of two right off the top of my head: 1) Wait until they've finished, then pose your correction in the form of a question to them and allow them to answer. This lets them save face (since you're not outright correcting them, you're just asking for clarification), gives them the chance to correct themselves in case they just misspoke or were misunderstood, and avoids the risk of your correction of the one incorrect point overwhelming the other, presumably correct, points the speaker made. 2) When the session is over, approach the organizer of the user group and offer to make your own presentation on the subject, in which you'll give the correct information, at the next meeting. If you're concerned that people will miss the point, add a subtitle like "A Response to Presenter X" to the name of the presentation. > If the original presenter could effectively support his position then he would not have left the stage. In the world of actual human beings, this is not true. People are quite easily driven to the margins by bullies who are louder and more strident than they are, even if their argument is 100% correct. Lawyers even have a saying for it: "If the law is against you, bang on the facts. If the facts are against you, bang on the law. If both are against you, bang on the table."

andyjohnson0 15y ago

The article is not about being right or wrong, its about appropriate vs inappropriate behavior.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

gwright 15y ago

Was Katz right? Answering that question doesn't really get you very far. Katz could have politely disagreed without taking over the presentation. Katz could have taken the author aside afterwards and shared his perspective. Katz could have offered to assist with a revised presentation. There are all sorts of ways to politely and tactfully correct someone. Doing it in the manner described in the original article doesn't seem like the best approach.