4 ms·

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

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".
- grandalf 12y ago
  The speech in the video is political propaganda speech. Not only does it use emotional words but it uses value-laden words extensively... both to reinforce the character of the speaker and to underscore the speaker's message. The speaker wishes to come across as passionate because of the persuasive power of that kind of tone/tempo. If a company's engineering culture is anything like that I'd be worried. > The article confuses, quite thoroughly, aggression and passion. Not necessarily. The speech doesn't have to be deliberately aggressive to still create the negative effects that stifle rationality and make it more difficult to rationally analyze the problem/decision.
  - asgard1024 12y ago
    Hm, interesting. This seems like a "Spock vs. Bones" type of worldview, although I would have never guessed that I would side with Bones (age, probably?). Yeah, perhaps if you want fully rational discussion, then emotions are counterproductive. But should that mean we should have this sterile environment without any passion? And does showing a passion really means aggression? I just don't think so.
    - grandalf 12y ago
      That depends, personally I prefer to have a rational discussion about technology decisions. Sure we inevitably feel some emotion when we care about our work... but: - Sometimes one person's emotion turns into bluster that can be unwittingly intimidating to others. - Emotions should be an input into a meta-rational process, not something that can override it. - The goal here is getting the most buy-in and problem solving out of a group of people. In my experience going into a decision with eyes open about the tradeoffs is always a good thing.

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".

grandalf 12y ago
The speech in the video is political propaganda speech. Not only does it use emotional words but it uses value-laden words extensively... both to reinforce the character of the speaker and to underscore the speaker's message. The speaker wishes to come across as passionate because of the persuasive power of that kind of tone/tempo. If a company's engineering culture is anything like that I'd be worried. > The article confuses, quite thoroughly, aggression and passion. Not necessarily. The speech doesn't have to be deliberately aggressive to still create the negative effects that stifle rationality and make it more difficult to rationally analyze the problem/decision.
- asgard1024 12y ago
  Hm, interesting. This seems like a "Spock vs. Bones" type of worldview, although I would have never guessed that I would side with Bones (age, probably?). Yeah, perhaps if you want fully rational discussion, then emotions are counterproductive. But should that mean we should have this sterile environment without any passion? And does showing a passion really means aggression? I just don't think so.
  - grandalf 12y ago
    That depends, personally I prefer to have a rational discussion about technology decisions. Sure we inevitably feel some emotion when we care about our work... but: - Sometimes one person's emotion turns into bluster that can be unwittingly intimidating to others. - Emotions should be an input into a meta-rational process, not something that can override it. - The goal here is getting the most buy-in and problem solving out of a group of people. In my experience going into a decision with eyes open about the tradeoffs is always a good thing.