5 ms·

"Overreacting" considered harmful

35 points by bconway 14y ago

F_J_H 14y ago
Another really unhelpful thing to say in these situations is the variant "Calm down".
- raganwald 14y ago
  You're being too sensitive about this.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - danielweber 14y ago
    What about when a guy has problems checking things into source control and starts throwing things around the office? What about the a guy gets a call from his home monitoring system and starts yelling that his house has burned to the ground? What about a guy who shouts "you aren't my manager and you never will be" to a coworker? I made none of those up. They all happened, from 3 different people. (At the same company, for that matter.) Some people really do overreact and really do need to calm down. The failure for those people to be removed led everyone else to leave.
    - aredridel 14y ago
      Did telling them so ever help?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- mtrimpe 14y ago
  I don't know which article you read, but all I see is a balanced and very well laid out argument for respecting the validity of the emotions of others whatever they may be.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Millennium 14y ago
I disagree with the assertion that it's impossible to overreact without "deliberately" exaggerating for effect. People overreact all the time without meaning to. Anyone who works with children can tell you that putting things into perspective is a learned skill: we are born overreactors, every one of us. Going too far is, as it turns out, the natural thing to do.
- mtrimpe 14y ago
  Except that it's equally likely that you are the one who has a skewed perspective which causes the reaction to seem overly strong.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    Equally likely? I doubt it. People overreact all the time, and realize it themselves when they cool down. It's not about the different opinions of different people, it's about the heat of the moment causing a temporary distortion in what seems reasonable.
    - unalone 14y ago
      If the only distortion possible was "heat of the moment", then yeah, the more emotional person in this situation would be overreacting. Unfortunately, there are systematic and structural faults in the way our society is constructed, which in many situations are invisible to the people who benefit from those faults and enormously apparent to the people getting screwed over by them. When an argument breaks out among those faultlines, the person getting emotionally charged may be doing so simply because they understand this argument from a context which the calmer participant doesn't see or refuses to acknowledge.
      - TeMPOraL 14y ago
        Or it may be just that the calmer person has a rationality 101 failure. I see the "overreacting" phrase used quite often against a person who raises a legitimate complaint. It's easier to say "you're overreacting" than admit that there's a problem here that might need to be solved. Bottomline, there's no way in which telling someone they're overreacting is going to lead to a productive conversation. It's a nasty way of dismissing someone.
molbioguy 14y ago
I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined meanings. I have come to understand that there really are "poisonous" words; words, phrases, attitudes that absolutely have impacts well beyond their dictionary definitions and the speaker's likely intent. If you include these things when conversations are tense or critical, the situation is likely to destabilize and get worse. Making the conversation "safe" and non-threatening is very important. Steering away from emotional arguments and focusing on facts is also key. All of this is harder to do in any text message or email as well, as body language and other social cues are unavailable. Added: This comes up a lot in employer - employee conversations. If you want your team to function efficiently, you really have to create a safe environment for comments and discussion.
- unalone 14y ago
  > I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined meanings. Well, they are! But those defined meanings are different for everybody who has a history with the word, and oftentimes you don't know that history going in. The problem with "straight white male" privilege, speaking as a straight white male myself, is that there are words which have enormous baggage for one group or another, yet I've simply never had to deal with such baggage myself. That's where the overreacting canard comes from, and I don't think raganwald fully empathizes with this in his post. Some people simply don't understand why somebody might have a reason to be worked up about a particular issue because they've never had to care about that issue in their life. I don't just hear "you're overreacting" from people who can't comprehend that people have bad days sometimes. In fact, assuming that the only reason a situation might be personally charged is because somebody had a bad day can be just as frustrating: it really sucks, I've learned, to be "forgiven" for your bad mood when the forgiver has said something truly offensive. What's difficult, but also truly necessary, is to be able to understand why somebody's reacted the way they have – to be willing to admit to yourself that even if something you said didn't seem egregious to you, that you might have crossed a line somehow that you simply haven't learned to notice. A lot of people forget that in any human-to-human interaction, the logical endpoints are the humans. Language, as all aspects of communication, is human-oriented; using it like it's a logical end unto itself is like trying to use Python phrases in a C script.
kstenerud 14y ago
You're ignoring the subtext of the hypothetical tweet. By asking "where are the caramel colored men?", you are implying that there SHOULD be men, which further implies that it's the organizer's fault that there are not. I'd be pretty surprised if such a tactless comment did not offend.
- raganwald 14y ago
  In my hypothetical story, she was offended (I used the word "pissed"). And if you agree that this is reasonable, I think this make smy point stronger, that the word "overreacting" is not helpful in having a productive discussion. The end-goal of a productive discussion doesn't have to be me convincing her that there should have been a tall, handsome Canadian on the podium. Perhaps the end-goal could have been her convincing me that I need to see this from a new perspective. Either way, the word "overreacting" is not a good start. That's my thesis.
jrogers65 14y ago
Your sentiments on overreacting aside, why does it matter what gender or skin colour the speakers have? If they are qualified and best of class then they should be the ones speaking, no? Should we also invite granite rocks to presentations so that they are equally represented?
- F_J_H 14y ago
  "The map is not the territory"
- unalone 14y ago
  Your assumption is that there is a "best of class" which can be easily identified and sorted from the rest. Given that most conferences aren't going to consist only of the absolute paragons of an industry, we can conclude that in planning conferences we're selecting possible speakers from a number of very qualified participants. In industries where there is a grotesque gender imbalance, one way you start to fix that imbalance is by acknowledging it and making efforts to pick women speakers when they're available – that both gives the speakers an opportunity that is being frequently denied them, and it indicates to other women that there is opportunity in this field, that they won't be passed over again and again by men for no merit other than their gender. If we assume that no woman is as good as a man in this field, then your argument makes sense – but that's a silly argument, methinks.
- raganwald 14y ago
  It may not matter at all. Why should there be "Tall, Canadian, Caramel Privilege?"
  - jrogers65 14y ago
    I don't really understand where you're going with this. If the best speakers happen to be Asian females then what is the problem, exactly? There is not one caucasian person in the top 10 fastest 100m sprinters (http://www.toptens.com/sports-track-sprinters/ http://www.toptens.com/sports-track-sprinters/). Do you believe that this is somehow problematic? Genes and gene expression affect neurotransmitter levels and neurotrophic factors which, in turn, affect cognitive performance - just as Jamaicans and Africans are on average better at sprinting than English and French natives. Particular genetic groupings are going to fare better at task X, not too badly at task Y and terribly at task Z. This is not privilege, it is reality. http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110809/genes-play-big-role-in-intelligence http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110809/genes-play-big-...
TeMPOraL 14y ago
A million times yes! I find the "overreacting" word incredibly annoying. What it basically amounts to is: "I don't care about you, your feelings or your opinion; I know better and I'm not going to have a rational conversation about it". It's an ugly thing to say, it changes the conversation from discussing objective reality to discussing the validity of someone's emotions. It's a very nasty and saddening kind of dismissal. I can't help but to think less of a person who uses this in a conversation.
edanm 14y ago
This is a post about word-usage, specifically saying that the word "overreacting" is not a good word to use in conversation, because it carries a lot of emotional baggage and doesn't foster productive conversations. Funny enough for a post about word-usage, I only understood this point after reading half of it. I think this post should've started with this sentence (from the OP, posted as a comment in this thread): "Let me get the thesis of the post out of the way first. The post asserts that the word 'overreacting' is unproductive to discussion." Having said that, I agree with the post and think it makes a very good point.
- raganwald 14y ago
  Overly clever author is overly clever. Thank you.
  - edanm 14y ago
    I was just about to edit my comment to make sure you'd take it in the right spirit (constructive feedback). I should never have doubted you raganwald.
olgeni 14y ago
"At last, the conference drama overshadowed the Rails drama and everybody lived happily ever after."

35 points by bconway 14y ago

F_J_H 14y ago

Another really unhelpful thing to say in these situations is the variant "Calm down".

raganwald 14y ago
You're being too sensitive about this.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- danielweber 14y ago
  What about when a guy has problems checking things into source control and starts throwing things around the office? What about the a guy gets a call from his home monitoring system and starts yelling that his house has burned to the ground? What about a guy who shouts "you aren't my manager and you never will be" to a coworker? I made none of those up. They all happened, from 3 different people. (At the same company, for that matter.) Some people really do overreact and really do need to calm down. The failure for those people to be removed led everyone else to leave.
  - aredridel 14y ago
    Did telling them so ever help?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mtrimpe 14y ago
I don't know which article you read, but all I see is a balanced and very well laid out argument for respecting the validity of the emotions of others whatever they may be.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Millennium 14y ago

I disagree with the assertion that it's impossible to overreact without "deliberately" exaggerating for effect. People overreact all the time without meaning to. Anyone who works with children can tell you that putting things into perspective is a learned skill: we are born overreactors, every one of us. Going too far is, as it turns out, the natural thing to do.

mtrimpe 14y ago
Except that it's equally likely that you are the one who has a skewed perspective which causes the reaction to seem overly strong.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  Equally likely? I doubt it. People overreact all the time, and realize it themselves when they cool down. It's not about the different opinions of different people, it's about the heat of the moment causing a temporary distortion in what seems reasonable.
  - unalone 14y ago
    If the only distortion possible was "heat of the moment", then yeah, the more emotional person in this situation would be overreacting. Unfortunately, there are systematic and structural faults in the way our society is constructed, which in many situations are invisible to the people who benefit from those faults and enormously apparent to the people getting screwed over by them. When an argument breaks out among those faultlines, the person getting emotionally charged may be doing so simply because they understand this argument from a context which the calmer participant doesn't see or refuses to acknowledge.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      Or it may be just that the calmer person has a rationality 101 failure. I see the "overreacting" phrase used quite often against a person who raises a legitimate complaint. It's easier to say "you're overreacting" than admit that there's a problem here that might need to be solved. Bottomline, there's no way in which telling someone they're overreacting is going to lead to a productive conversation. It's a nasty way of dismissing someone.

molbioguy 14y ago

I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined meanings. I have come to understand that there really are "poisonous" words; words, phrases, attitudes that absolutely have impacts well beyond their dictionary definitions and the speaker's likely intent. If you include these things when conversations are tense or critical, the situation is likely to destabilize and get worse. Making the conversation "safe" and non-threatening is very important. Steering away from emotional arguments and focusing on facts is also key. All of this is harder to do in any text message or email as well, as body language and other social cues are unavailable. Added: This comes up a lot in employer - employee conversations. If you want your team to function efficiently, you really have to create a safe environment for comments and discussion.

unalone 14y ago
> I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined meanings. Well, they are! But those defined meanings are different for everybody who has a history with the word, and oftentimes you don't know that history going in. The problem with "straight white male" privilege, speaking as a straight white male myself, is that there are words which have enormous baggage for one group or another, yet I've simply never had to deal with such baggage myself. That's where the overreacting canard comes from, and I don't think raganwald fully empathizes with this in his post. Some people simply don't understand why somebody might have a reason to be worked up about a particular issue because they've never had to care about that issue in their life. I don't just hear "you're overreacting" from people who can't comprehend that people have bad days sometimes. In fact, assuming that the only reason a situation might be personally charged is because somebody had a bad day can be just as frustrating: it really sucks, I've learned, to be "forgiven" for your bad mood when the forgiver has said something truly offensive. What's difficult, but also truly necessary, is to be able to understand why somebody's reacted the way they have – to be willing to admit to yourself that even if something you said didn't seem egregious to you, that you might have crossed a line somehow that you simply haven't learned to notice. A lot of people forget that in any human-to-human interaction, the logical endpoints are the humans. Language, as all aspects of communication, is human-oriented; using it like it's a logical end unto itself is like trying to use Python phrases in a C script.

kstenerud 14y ago

You're ignoring the subtext of the hypothetical tweet. By asking "where are the caramel colored men?", you are implying that there SHOULD be men, which further implies that it's the organizer's fault that there are not. I'd be pretty surprised if such a tactless comment did not offend.

raganwald 14y ago
In my hypothetical story, she was offended (I used the word "pissed"). And if you agree that this is reasonable, I think this make smy point stronger, that the word "overreacting" is not helpful in having a productive discussion. The end-goal of a productive discussion doesn't have to be me convincing her that there should have been a tall, handsome Canadian on the podium. Perhaps the end-goal could have been her convincing me that I need to see this from a new perspective. Either way, the word "overreacting" is not a good start. That's my thesis.

jrogers65 14y ago

Your sentiments on overreacting aside, why does it matter what gender or skin colour the speakers have? If they are qualified and best of class then they should be the ones speaking, no? Should we also invite granite rocks to presentations so that they are equally represented?

F_J_H 14y ago
"The map is not the territory"
unalone 14y ago
Your assumption is that there is a "best of class" which can be easily identified and sorted from the rest. Given that most conferences aren't going to consist only of the absolute paragons of an industry, we can conclude that in planning conferences we're selecting possible speakers from a number of very qualified participants. In industries where there is a grotesque gender imbalance, one way you start to fix that imbalance is by acknowledging it and making efforts to pick women speakers when they're available – that both gives the speakers an opportunity that is being frequently denied them, and it indicates to other women that there is opportunity in this field, that they won't be passed over again and again by men for no merit other than their gender. If we assume that no woman is as good as a man in this field, then your argument makes sense – but that's a silly argument, methinks.
raganwald 14y ago
It may not matter at all. Why should there be "Tall, Canadian, Caramel Privilege?"
- jrogers65 14y ago
  I don't really understand where you're going with this. If the best speakers happen to be Asian females then what is the problem, exactly? There is not one caucasian person in the top 10 fastest 100m sprinters (http://www.toptens.com/sports-track-sprinters/ http://www.toptens.com/sports-track-sprinters/). Do you believe that this is somehow problematic? Genes and gene expression affect neurotransmitter levels and neurotrophic factors which, in turn, affect cognitive performance - just as Jamaicans and Africans are on average better at sprinting than English and French natives. Particular genetic groupings are going to fare better at task X, not too badly at task Y and terribly at task Z. This is not privilege, it is reality. http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110809/genes-play-big-role-in-intelligence http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110809/genes-play-big-...

TeMPOraL 14y ago

A million times yes! I find the "overreacting" word incredibly annoying. What it basically amounts to is: "I don't care about you, your feelings or your opinion; I know better and I'm not going to have a rational conversation about it". It's an ugly thing to say, it changes the conversation from discussing objective reality to discussing the validity of someone's emotions. It's a very nasty and saddening kind of dismissal. I can't help but to think less of a person who uses this in a conversation.

edanm 14y ago

This is a post about word-usage, specifically saying that the word "overreacting" is not a good word to use in conversation, because it carries a lot of emotional baggage and doesn't foster productive conversations. Funny enough for a post about word-usage, I only understood this point after reading half of it. I think this post should've started with this sentence (from the OP, posted as a comment in this thread): "Let me get the thesis of the post out of the way first. The post asserts that the word 'overreacting' is unproductive to discussion." Having said that, I agree with the post and think it makes a very good point.

raganwald 14y ago
Overly clever author is overly clever. Thank you.
- edanm 14y ago
  I was just about to edit my comment to make sure you'd take it in the right spirit (constructive feedback). I should never have doubted you raganwald.

olgeni 14y ago

"At last, the conference drama overshadowed the Rails drama and everybody lived happily ever after."