4 ms·

Frankly, that's a terrible article, full of sexist stereotypes. She is reading too much into it. Just briefly: Sometimes people argue because they genuinely thi

Frankly, that's a terrible article, full of sexist stereotypes. She is reading too much into it. Just briefly: Sometimes people argue because they genuinely think their favorite tool is superior, and want to help others be more efficient. Sometimes people speak loudly because they are genuinely excited about something. I doubt there is any authority or respect to win by good arguing about technology (especially on online forums). Furthermore, any authority to be likely won by arguing only exists if people respect it; if one stops caring about people "gaining authority" by arguing, then there will not be any authority to be gained by that. [Edit: She also underestimates curiosity - sometimes I argue and play devil's advocate just because I am curious why the other smart person has a different opinion, how good is their argument?] The only valid complaint in the article is that people judge assertive women more negatively than assertive men, which is true and unfortunate. It's also amusing that she blames engineer's arguing for the competitive atmosphere, while being from the US, which has this hyper-competitive capitalist culture, which I rather despise and I am not the only engineer who does. (Another fun fact - I am native Czech speaker, and we have two different words for "argument" - "debata" and "hadka", the former implying a civil one, the other one meaning one where people are angry at each other. I am not really sure which meaning the article uses, and I pretty firmly against the latter - being a sensitive male, but I greatly enjoy the former.) The article is very clever in one thing, though. Now anyone who argues with it can be labelled as aggressive (or terrorist?). Humans and their mindgames, so funny.

dikaiosune 12y ago
> Another fun fact - I am native Czech speaker, and we have two different words for "argument" - "debata" and "hadka", the former implying a civil one, the other one meaning one where people are angry at each other. I am not really sure which meaning the article uses The problem is that it's the author's responsibility to disambiguate between the possible meanings, and the author of this article makes no such attempt. In fact, it seems like she's conflating the two and implying that they are one and the same -- i.e. that if you competitively evaluate ideas by (calmly or not) debating them, you are automatically engaging in a fight.
- mfisher87 12y ago
  If you read the article, the author made a distinction between these using the terms "regulated" and "unregulated."
  - dikaiosune 12y ago
    I don't really see this distinction made clear anywhere in the article -- just analogies drawn to externally-mediated arguments. And to what extent it's made I think it's inaccurate to describe all arguments' violence in terms of a third party's actions. Many arguments without an external mediator are sane, deliberate and productive.
grandalf 12y ago
Your comment is an example of the stuff she's describing... It can be broken down structurally as follows: - Righteous indignation - Example with sample size of 1 - Half-hearted praise - Jocular, superior tone - Name calling Zinger
- asgard1024 12y ago
  No, it isn't. Because my main point, which you missed, was "don't take these arguments too seriously, because they are not". They are basically child's play. You don't think children fighting each other are going to grow up criminals, do you? This is the same thing. But everything I wrote was honest. I, being a leftist anarchist, am probably more for equal and harmonic society than the author is. For instance, I wish there was no authority from power, and the companies were run democratically.
  - grandalf 12y ago
    > I wish there was no authority from power, and the companies were run democratically. This makes sense b/c you seem to find the demagoguery in the video you linked appealing. While it is important to advocate for a position in a technical discussion, the ideal outcome is not emotional persuasion (as in politics) but a wider rational understanding among members of the group. > don't take these arguments too seriously, because they are not I think it depends. Usually the people whose tactics cause intimidation are not all that aware of it. Yes in an ideal world we could all undertake vociferous argument and have all participants contribute to their full potential -- but unfortunately an open forum argument culture will easily defer to the loudest or most intimidating voice even if the words coming out are not the smartest or most rational.
- mucker 12y ago
  What like here article that opens with name calling? Pot, meet kettle.
- asgard1024 12y ago
  Actually, I think this video sums up the main problem with the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ Would you say the guy in the video is aggressive? He certainly speaks loudly and authoritatively, and uses a lot of emotional words and shortcuts. Of course the answer is no. The article confuses, quite thoroughly, aggression and passion. That's why I said "she's reading too much into it", because she reads "aggression" where she should just probably read "passion".
semi-extrinsic 12y ago
She also completely misrepresents both engineering and psychology. She claims that the consequences for lawyers are big if they lie, but for engineers it's the wild west. This is just asinine - in engineering, if you lie and cheat, you may well end up with human lives on your conscience.
maxerickson 12y ago
"debata" looks an awful lot like "debate", which is a generally a civilized, two sided discussion. Argument, when used to describe a discussion (rather than an idea), has at least some connotation of it being unpleasant/disagreeable/angry.
zeidrich 12y ago
There are two different words in English too right? "Debate" and "argument", the former implying a civil one, the other one meaning where people are angry at each other. "Debata" is even just one letter away from "debate" The article is not talking about constructive debate. The article is talking about emotional dominance. Not a question of debating the merits of one thing and holding a position and defending it against legitimate questions. Instead it's talking about making threatening and emotional overtures in order to get the other party to submit. She belabors that point in the first paragraphs to make sure that's what's being conveyed. It's not a matter of having a correct opinion, it's about acting in a way that causes another person to concede, maybe because they don't want to fight. I'm certain you've been in a meeting where someone in a position of authority has told you to do something that you didn't agree with, in a harsh tone of voice, and you've done it because despite the fact that you didn't agree with it, it wasn't worth the fight. Maybe you have spoken up about it but despite the fact that your argument is better, his is louder and he has authority over you, so you submit. Now move that situation to co-workers on an otherwise equal level, now you try to debate, but your co-worker starts to very stubborn and raises his voice. You don't want to make a scene so you back down. Now say you don't really want to back down. He raises his voice, so you try to rationally discuss the merits of your idea and he just keeps parroting his idea loudly and angrily, maybe you stick in a jibe about how he is getting too emotional, maybe not, but at this point you know you can't just debate, you have to beat him at a different game. You either make him self-conscious, or you make him feel weaker than you by yelling over him. Your only other option is to submit. This is something I see in normal day to day work. Not outright yelling, but the power dynamic of "I disagree with you, but I'm not willing to engage in an escalating fight, so I'll let you have your way." Unfortunately, if you're in a situation where that kind of culture dominates, someone who always backs down will never get their way. You can't win through rationality in those circumstances. The only way you can win is to represent a more dominant position than the other person. This is a strictly emotional scenario and because of it it does suck for women. Because while a guy might tolerate being outdebated by a woman, to be socially dominated by a woman is something that is still really taboo. I mean, if two stubborn men both hold a position, both believing themselves to be right, and they both raise their voices, and one guy ends up making the other back down by belittling him and making him feel it's not worth the fight, that's annoying, it's awkward, but it's sometimes life. On the other hand if a stubborn man and a woman hold differing positions, and they both raise their voices, and the woman ends up making the man back down by belittling him and making him feel that it's not worth the fight, well that's a terrible thing. She's got to be some sort of crazy bitch to not listen to his opinion rationally. And flipping that around, if a the man ends up making the woman back down by belittling her and making her feel it's not worth the fight, then the woman feels like it's a terrible thing, but people tell her that she should have stood up for herself more, that she needs to be more assertive, that it's her fault that he won the battle. But the whole thing is that the article is not talking about the "debata" side of things. The article is talking about the "hadka" side of things. About forcing your opponent to submit to your idea, not because you have convinced them through fair discussion, but because you undermine your opponent's credibility, resort to ad hominems, and use personal attacks. She's not talking about whether talking with co-workers about the merits of some tool is bad or not. Simply about the culture of "I'm right because nobody is willing to say I'm wrong". I also am not sure what you mean about "It's also amusing that she blames engineer's arguing for the competitive atmosphere, while being from the US, which has this hyper-competitive capitalist culture, which I rather despise and I am not the only engineer who does" The culture that she's talking about is a US trait, and if you despise it, I'm wondering why you're arguing against it. Maybe you feel that she is generalizing to you, or other countries? I think you might just be misunderstanding the article. She's not talking about disagreements or logic. She's talking about, in her own words "The use of aggressive opposition", which is using "personal remarks, interrupting, speaking much more loudly, entering someone's personal space" as opposed to "logic, facts and better information." If you are in a situation where that never happens, then great, you're not the people that she's talking about. I've seen workplaces that operate very much entirely on the rule of aggressive social dominance, to ones that are very rationally handled. It really depends on management and culture. American startup culture is often described as much more like the former. A lot of arrogance and little management expertise. A lot of young people and little perspective. But she's not saying that challenging other people's opinions is wrong. She's saying that a culture where what is right is decided by who is the person who people are most afraid to stand up to is dangerous. Look for example of how lauded Steve Jobs is and how tyrannical he was to his employees. You don't get into an argument with him, you don't even want to get his attention. Not because you might be wrong, but because he has more power than you and you'll just end up fired. There's no rational business reason for that decision, but he did like to show that he had the power to make you sink or swim.

dikaiosune 12y ago

> Another fun fact - I am native Czech speaker, and we have two different words for "argument" - "debata" and "hadka", the former implying a civil one, the other one meaning one where people are angry at each other. I am not really sure which meaning the article uses The problem is that it's the author's responsibility to disambiguate between the possible meanings, and the author of this article makes no such attempt. In fact, it seems like she's conflating the two and implying that they are one and the same -- i.e. that if you competitively evaluate ideas by (calmly or not) debating them, you are automatically engaging in a fight.

mfisher87 12y ago
If you read the article, the author made a distinction between these using the terms "regulated" and "unregulated."
- dikaiosune 12y ago
  I don't really see this distinction made clear anywhere in the article -- just analogies drawn to externally-mediated arguments. And to what extent it's made I think it's inaccurate to describe all arguments' violence in terms of a third party's actions. Many arguments without an external mediator are sane, deliberate and productive.

grandalf 12y ago

Your comment is an example of the stuff she's describing... It can be broken down structurally as follows: - Righteous indignation - Example with sample size of 1 - Half-hearted praise - Jocular, superior tone - Name calling Zinger

asgard1024 12y ago
No, it isn't. Because my main point, which you missed, was "don't take these arguments too seriously, because they are not". They are basically child's play. You don't think children fighting each other are going to grow up criminals, do you? This is the same thing. But everything I wrote was honest. I, being a leftist anarchist, am probably more for equal and harmonic society than the author is. For instance, I wish there was no authority from power, and the companies were run democratically.
- grandalf 12y ago
  > I wish there was no authority from power, and the companies were run democratically. This makes sense b/c you seem to find the demagoguery in the video you linked appealing. While it is important to advocate for a position in a technical discussion, the ideal outcome is not emotional persuasion (as in politics) but a wider rational understanding among members of the group. > don't take these arguments too seriously, because they are not I think it depends. Usually the people whose tactics cause intimidation are not all that aware of it. Yes in an ideal world we could all undertake vociferous argument and have all participants contribute to their full potential -- but unfortunately an open forum argument culture will easily defer to the loudest or most intimidating voice even if the words coming out are not the smartest or most rational.
mucker 12y ago
What like here article that opens with name calling? Pot, meet kettle.
asgard1024 12y ago
Actually, I think this video sums up the main problem with the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ Would you say the guy in the video is aggressive? He certainly speaks loudly and authoritatively, and uses a lot of emotional words and shortcuts. Of course the answer is no. The article confuses, quite thoroughly, aggression and passion. That's why I said "she's reading too much into it", because she reads "aggression" where she should just probably read "passion".

semi-extrinsic 12y ago

She also completely misrepresents both engineering and psychology. She claims that the consequences for lawyers are big if they lie, but for engineers it's the wild west. This is just asinine - in engineering, if you lie and cheat, you may well end up with human lives on your conscience.

maxerickson 12y ago

"debata" looks an awful lot like "debate", which is a generally a civilized, two sided discussion. Argument, when used to describe a discussion (rather than an idea), has at least some connotation of it being unpleasant/disagreeable/angry.

zeidrich 12y ago

There are two different words in English too right? "Debate" and "argument", the former implying a civil one, the other one meaning where people are angry at each other. "Debata" is even just one letter away from "debate" The article is not talking about constructive debate. The article is talking about emotional dominance. Not a question of debating the merits of one thing and holding a position and defending it against legitimate questions. Instead it's talking about making threatening and emotional overtures in order to get the other party to submit. She belabors that point in the first paragraphs to make sure that's what's being conveyed. It's not a matter of having a correct opinion, it's about acting in a way that causes another person to concede, maybe because they don't want to fight. I'm certain you've been in a meeting where someone in a position of authority has told you to do something that you didn't agree with, in a harsh tone of voice, and you've done it because despite the fact that you didn't agree with it, it wasn't worth the fight. Maybe you have spoken up about it but despite the fact that your argument is better, his is louder and he has authority over you, so you submit. Now move that situation to co-workers on an otherwise equal level, now you try to debate, but your co-worker starts to very stubborn and raises his voice. You don't want to make a scene so you back down. Now say you don't really want to back down. He raises his voice, so you try to rationally discuss the merits of your idea and he just keeps parroting his idea loudly and angrily, maybe you stick in a jibe about how he is getting too emotional, maybe not, but at this point you know you can't just debate, you have to beat him at a different game. You either make him self-conscious, or you make him feel weaker than you by yelling over him. Your only other option is to submit. This is something I see in normal day to day work. Not outright yelling, but the power dynamic of "I disagree with you, but I'm not willing to engage in an escalating fight, so I'll let you have your way." Unfortunately, if you're in a situation where that kind of culture dominates, someone who always backs down will never get their way. You can't win through rationality in those circumstances. The only way you can win is to represent a more dominant position than the other person. This is a strictly emotional scenario and because of it it does suck for women. Because while a guy might tolerate being outdebated by a woman, to be socially dominated by a woman is something that is still really taboo. I mean, if two stubborn men both hold a position, both believing themselves to be right, and they both raise their voices, and one guy ends up making the other back down by belittling him and making him feel it's not worth the fight, that's annoying, it's awkward, but it's sometimes life. On the other hand if a stubborn man and a woman hold differing positions, and they both raise their voices, and the woman ends up making the man back down by belittling him and making him feel that it's not worth the fight, well that's a terrible thing. She's got to be some sort of crazy bitch to not listen to his opinion rationally. And flipping that around, if a the man ends up making the woman back down by belittling her and making her feel it's not worth the fight, then the woman feels like it's a terrible thing, but people tell her that she should have stood up for herself more, that she needs to be more assertive, that it's her fault that he won the battle. But the whole thing is that the article is not talking about the "debata" side of things. The article is talking about the "hadka" side of things. About forcing your opponent to submit to your idea, not because you have convinced them through fair discussion, but because you undermine your opponent's credibility, resort to ad hominems, and use personal attacks. She's not talking about whether talking with co-workers about the merits of some tool is bad or not. Simply about the culture of "I'm right because nobody is willing to say I'm wrong". I also am not sure what you mean about "It's also amusing that she blames engineer's arguing for the competitive atmosphere, while being from the US, which has this hyper-competitive capitalist culture, which I rather despise and I am not the only engineer who does" The culture that she's talking about is a US trait, and if you despise it, I'm wondering why you're arguing against it. Maybe you feel that she is generalizing to you, or other countries? I think you might just be misunderstanding the article. She's not talking about disagreements or logic. She's talking about, in her own words "The use of aggressive opposition", which is using "personal remarks, interrupting, speaking much more loudly, entering someone's personal space" as opposed to "logic, facts and better information." If you are in a situation where that never happens, then great, you're not the people that she's talking about. I've seen workplaces that operate very much entirely on the rule of aggressive social dominance, to ones that are very rationally handled. It really depends on management and culture. American startup culture is often described as much more like the former. A lot of arrogance and little management expertise. A lot of young people and little perspective. But she's not saying that challenging other people's opinions is wrong. She's saying that a culture where what is right is decided by who is the person who people are most afraid to stand up to is dangerous. Look for example of how lauded Steve Jobs is and how tyrannical he was to his employees. You don't get into an argument with him, you don't even want to get his attention. Not because you might be wrong, but because he has more power than you and you'll just end up fired. There's no rational business reason for that decision, but he did like to show that he had the power to make you sink or swim.