Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

On 4 Jul 2019, at 12:27, Keith Moore wrote:

> Yes, though I've repeatedly said things like "not in such an extreme 
> form".   But yes, people need to try to listen to ideas, and 
> criticism of ideas, in whatever form it's offered, even though this 
> might be a challenge.

So, you failed to do exactly the above when it came to Melinda's 
criticism of your ideas, though I have not seen you yet attempt to 
correct that situation.

> I see countless examples in which people reject an idea not because 
> it's an inherently bad idea, but because they don't like the person 
> making it, or they project all kinds of motivations onto that person 
> that are often entirely figments of the readers' imaginations.

Ditto.

> So yes, I do believe that readers have a responsibility to try to 
> overcome their prejudices when reading ideas and criticism of ideas by 
> others.   And I would have thought that were obvious to most 
> longtime IETF participants, so I'm surprised there's so much backlash 
> about it.

Ditto. Re-read exactly what you wrote in the above three statements and 
see exactly how you violated those rules when interpreting Melinda's 
comment.

> What I've experienced for most of my time in IETF is that speaking 
> honestly can be tremendously difficult to do precisely because 
> audiences can be so hostile (see above paragraph) [*].   And while 
> it's all well and good to want people to couch their ideas in 
> palatable terms, and one can be more effective if one manages to do 
> so, the demand that many people seem to want to impose (which I 
> interpret as effectively "express this idea in terms that I like, or 
> that avoid my prejudices") imposes yet another barrier to getting the 
> idea out at all, and that's tragic.

Which may (or may not) be true, but again misses Melinda's point that 
speaking "honestly" may itself impose a barrier to getting others' ideas 
out. (See below for more on this.)

>> ([*] I took her use of the word "brutality" has meaning "an act that 
>> is harsh and without consideration to the feelings of another", which 
>> seems pretty consonant with how you were using "brutal honesty".)
>
> Ah, to me "brutality" is more extreme than that - something like a 
> willful intent to do serious harm.

Which perhaps says that it is a reader's problem (i.e., yours), not a 
writer's problem (Melinda's) that you interpreted her statement as a 
"mischaracterization".

> I found Melinda's message baffling because it seemed to be exhibiting 
> ill intent from someone I don't think I've ever seen exhibit such 
> before.  If anything the attack seemed more extreme because of this. 
>   If she was trying to deliberately push my buttons in an effort to 
> get me to see the flaws in my argument, it didn't have the desired 
> effect because (silly me?) I took her message at face value rather 
> than as a stunt.

So to you, the only choices are (1) ill-intent, (2) deliberately pushing 
your buttons, or (3) a stunt? Let's presume you're wrong: None of those 
things is true. Not that you should have gone there in the first place, 
because by your own principle, you shouldn't be interpreting her intent, 
you should be looking for the point of the statement. So let's assume 
you were wrong in both the attempt to interpret intent, and the 
conclusion you came to.

> If I misinterpreted her intent, I'm relieved.

But apparently not contrite.

> I don't disagree with that.  It's just that in my experience it seems 
> that the audience is MUCH more likely to label the speaker as "being 
> an ass" when the speaker really is acting in good faith and trying to 
> express a point despite his/her frustration at the hostile/prejudiced 
> audience, than that the speaker is actually being an ass.

There seems to be some confirmation bias in there. You can hear every 
time someone is being "forceful" with their opinion and can sometimes 
determine whether they actually turned out to be correct in their point. 
Exactly how many times have people silently walked away from discussions 
because people who were being "forceful" got it wrong? What if that 
number is (unbeknownst to you) much higher than the number of correct 
points that have been dismissed by a hostile audience? How would you 
know?

You seem to be assuming data that you simply have no empirical support 
for.

> And as I've said a couple of times, feel free to suggest a better 
> phrase than "brutally honest", because I think it's being taken in a 
> way other than that I intended.

I really don't think it is being taken as other than you intended, and 
I'm fine with the phrase.

> My experience is that many (most?) people have a hard time even with 
> well-intended honesty - honesty that's not trying to offend anyone - 
> and often react with hostility to it because of their own prejudices.

Hence your reaction to Melinda's post.

> But by (hastily) choosing the words "brutal honesty" I wasn't 
> intending to suggest that speakers should intend to be abusive, but 
> rather that speakers should feel free to contribute technical ideas 
> and criticism in good faith even if those ideas and criticism might be 
> seen as offensive to people attached to different ideas, or people 
> projecting ill intent on the speaker that doesn't actually exist.

Yep, that's what I think we all mean by it.

> But I don't think I missed the broader point - some people feel like 
> the bulk of the responsibility is on the speaker to try to avoid 
> offending the audience, and I feel like the bulk of the responsibility 
> is on the listeners to try to avoid being fooled by their own 
> prejudices.    But it's not as if the entirety of the 
> responsibility is on either party.

Nope, it is clear that you missed Melinda's broader point. Let me paste 
in my take on it again:

>> So you have to decide if you want to occasionally tone down the 
>> "brutal honesty" and listen more carefully so as not to risk missing 
>> important technical points that might be lost because others in the 
>> group won't tolerate that "brutal honesty".

> I hope that clarifies things.

Nope. You continue to argue against someone's intent rather than their 
point, and don't see that doing so goes directly against the principles 
that you are espousing.

I hope this note clarifies for you what the point is.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best