Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

You’re right. 

What I mean is, when someone says something that contradicts what I understand to be true, there is great value in assuming that what they have said is true and exploring that pathway rather than trying to prove them wrong. Trying to prove them wrong tends to lead to motivated reasoning.

Also, on matters of opinion, I can always prove you wrong to my own satisfaction, so that isn’t useful. There’s simply more benefit to trying to see what you see. 

But you are right that if we think that because the other person might be right, it’s safer not to speak, that’s a bad outcome. Assuming that Ted is wrong has to be accompanied by some bravery, and the lack of that bravery is indeed another cognitive bias to overcome. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Eric Gray <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ted,
> 
> This may work for you, but will not work for many.
> 
> I might be wrong, but it seems to me that many people would - if they start out with a predisposition to believe that they are (as opposed to might be) mistaken - would simply keep quiet.  That might be the worst thing they could do.
> 
> But, as someone pointed out already, this could be a result of assuming you've expressed an absolute.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 1:16 AM
> To: Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF Discuss <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF
> 
> It doesn’t work if you don’t start out with a predisposition to believe that you are mistaken. This counteracts a cognitive bias we all share: that we are correct by default. This is too deeply ingrained to fight with small measures. You have to go to the other extreme.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jul 4, 2019, at 11:52 PM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 4, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> If I were to state a corollary to Crocker’s rule, it is that in order for any useful discourse to occur, each of us has to let go of a very specific idea.  That idea, stated from my perspective, is that “Ted is usually right.” To test this rule on yourself, do not substitute “I” for “Ted.” Make it personal.  Substitute in your own name.  And then say “Ted is usually wrong” (but substitute your name) and see how that feels.  It can be a fruitful exploratory process.
>> 
>> I think I would say that in order for Crocker’s Rules to work, one must be at least as willing to discover that he/she is  “wrong” (in some sense, including that he/she has failed to take some important case into account), as to discover that he/she is right.  
>> 
>> I would not personally recommend adopting either a “_____ is usually wrong” or “______ is usually right” mindset, because either approach seems to me to promote a kind of closed mindedness.  I would say try to have an open mind, but if that’s too hard, be optimistic about yourself rather than pessimistic.  It’s easier to learn and take advantage of discovery from an optimistic point of view.  (I say this as one who was conditioned to pessimism and self deprecation from early childhood; it’s very hard to overcome that mindset and realize your potential.)
>> 
>> (For myself, I am often grateful to learn something that proves me wrong, because the learning is useful; and sometimes find it awkward - almost embarrassing - to be proven right.  But I don’t accept social pressure as a form of proof.) 
>> 
>>> Realizing that you were wrong is actually an incredibly good outcome, not bad at all. 
>> 
>> Certainly agree with that.  Can be awkward or painful but generally good overall.
>> 
>> Keith
>> 
>> 
>