Re: Effective discourse in the IETF
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 17:06 UTC
Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1B01201DC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 10:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Sr0QiB8S-Mn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 10:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 398EE120270 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 10:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E608521FB6; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:03:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:03:27 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=KkxgwLK+kRuDK5fxY1gISYbtWhiplOG0MwOk5qRZ6 TY=; b=C3gKf2323FENqwYy6x0UpFI/rxkkhXf4eR0hfNaFCzzh41lbcHfwq7AKM NeyvZhmn3BgKdOezVisdAV83WmVZo6+oQPe6Obcm4PjOMMknk4niMwIugDiFDRCy akFDrvaukWTgYWUXpXwNjImGeZHGZihXbRlvmVYECq9IKqsulx6q5Lc9v22dTfd2 RYW9RNyISRo4UDqXVozwiJyom4sRLzb49+/e5RxQ20Cw8WbnWSXV+K5MyEkeI5Tl W3+7KskGSJDlUZWEa2quhZj30/cec7VS+3kI38mla4iLBoKMPb8tw2jwWTSHjVu5 ivjDmEUnXxtexH+DNF+j1fkBIVtMQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:3oIfXTMH622zfVIY91MvuYaeBtuHDV6MI8KyJyMtc8q05Y93-QIoEg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrfeeggddutdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhofgjfffgkfhfvfesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecukfhppeelledrvddtfedrudejrddugeeinecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhm pehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvg hrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:3oIfXXwD-0ZkOaofG44vS7vPxBhampOb5exf6F4pQACL5Uk_rvie6A> <xmx:3oIfXV8aDR-mNB4D8h0rkQ6J11li5K-c39aGhrahR7Ou8ouBbNUHbw> <xmx:3oIfXSqgX1z5cxuwiy353zGjDxUgg42iAtMT5JWfthkBfRBSS63rwg> <xmx:34IfXWkWJwRcuVBa1g9VAuuiqBsCqCyrRXnBDM8dd16WmMN4x6RjUQ>
Received: from [11.115.179.134] (ip-99-203-17-146.pools.cgn.spcsdns.net [99.203.17.146]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7693180066; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:03:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR15MB2644891D2915C8A0A43002BD97F50@BN8PR15MB2644.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:03:25 -0400
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, IETF Discuss <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E7433291-4E40-4F25-9897-827DA0832857@network-heretics.com>
References: <20190628232206.GC10013@kduck.mit.edu> <e7bf71c3-7842-8699-1f56-36ffa823da99@comcast.net> <20190701223914.GK13810@kduck.mit.edu> <bad99f11-0d66-4aba-72ef-b4b648470753@comcast.net> <34A581FE-BCFA-4FDD-A626-372E036BD79A@cooperw.in> <20190703125524.GB98598@verdi> <c24b3857-fa3e-46a9-f55b-dd160250f290@acm.org> <2807ff5a-7fd3-65cc-5574-ae05df6c622c@acm.org> <20190703141309.GX49950@hanna.meerval.net> <F86FDC5A-AF66-492E-A1FC-678486C26065@fugue.com> <20190703151443.GA49950@hanna.meerval.net> <ce29c166-bdb6-c441-8104-632541b1f12d@network-heretics.com> <7acee776-8dce-294c-6261-8d5c65ce46f7@gmail.com> <98d40a67-7cc5-182a-a203-4b1d06c18917@network-heretics.com> <43377a5b-931e-25f2-353b-8fd4a452ea67@gmail.com> <077de81f-6398-5690-4992-72c0b8251d08@network-heretics.com> <a66a328c-3765-85ef-837f-78f90df65275@gmail.com> <c52e7256-6804-ab16-1cc0-b59b0efae631@network-heretics.com> <F8B7949C-9C82-4A15-8B45-0E0B304EB0E5@episteme.net> <e8fa3003-ea36-25be-1e48-14b06284ea2f@network-heretics.com> <BE1E74F6-29DC-4075-B3F7-E22E71CCC5D0@fugue.com> <336BAB07-22C4-42DA-91FC-6B970B681903@network-heretics.com> <AD174FF7-A8C6-4515-A83A-CAAA91985918@fugue.com> <BN8PR15MB2644F59B1023EDC811A07A1997F50@BN8PR15MB2644.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <395167AC-B852-4118-98FE-A685711C0AD3@fugue.com> <BN8PR15MB2644891D2915C8A0A43002BD97F50@BN8PR15MB2644.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/stzrmyhm-gFAB3rblALAM3sA00M>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 17:06:30 -0000
If you think you’re definitely wrong about something, and the goal of a discussion is to find a right answer, why would you contribute that something to a discussion? Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 5, 2019, at 12:57 PM, Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com> wrote: > > So, you think that I implied that the reason why many people would stay out of a discussion if they started from a viewpoint that they are wrong (not that they might be) is that it would be unsafe and they would lack the bravery required? > > Hmmm... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> > Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 10:37 AM > To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com> > Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>; IETF Discuss <ietf@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF > Importance: High > > 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 <eric.gray@ericsson.com> 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 <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon >> Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 1:16 AM >> To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> >> Cc: IETF Discuss <ietf@ietf.org> >> 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 <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 4, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> 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 >>> >>> >>
- RFC Series Editor Resignation Sarah B
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Aaron Falk
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Terry Manderson
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Alexander Neilson
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Terry Manderson
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Alexander Neilson
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Alexander Neilson
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Stewart Bryant
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Kyle Rose
- Re: [IAB] RFC Series Editor Resignation Ted Hardie
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Eliot Lear
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Richard Barnes
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Ted Hardie
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation John Levine
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation John C Klensin
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation John C Klensin
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Mike StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Richard Barnes
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Allison Mankin
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Jared Mauch
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Randy Bush
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Richard Barnes
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Ted Hardie
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- RE: RFC Series Editor Resignation Adrian Farrel
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Toerless Eckert
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IAB] RFC Series Editor Resignation Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Leif Johansson
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Leif Johansson
- RE: RFC Series Editor Resignation Roni Even (A)
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Leif Johansson
- RE: RFC Series Editor Resignation Roni Even (A)
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Carsten Bormann
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Stan Kalisch
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Randy Bush
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Randy Bush
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Keith Moore
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Livingood, Jason
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Leif Johansson
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Theodore Ts'o
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Keith Moore
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Theodore Ts'o
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Nick Hilliard
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation S Moonesamy
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Alissa Cooper
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Randy Bush
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation John Leslie
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Scott O. Bradner
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Alissa Cooper
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Scott O. Bradner
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Keith Moore
- Choices or language and tone (was: Re: RFC Series… John C Klensin
- Re: Choices or language and tone (was: Re: RFC Se… Russ Housley
- Re: Choices or language and tone (was: Re: RFC Se… Richard Barnes
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Theodore Ts'o
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Job Snijders
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Keith Moore
- Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Richard Barnes
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Keith Moore
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Richard Barnes
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Keith Moore
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Kyle Rose
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Richard Barnes
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Keith Moore
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Richard Barnes
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Job Snijders
- Re: Choices or language and tone (was: Re: RFC Se… Mary B
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Jared Mauch
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Richard Barnes
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Kathleen Moriarty
- communication styles (was Re: RFC Series Editor R… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Randy Bush
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Randy Bush
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Dave Cridland
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Bob Hinden
- Re: Choices or language and tone (was: Re: RFC Se… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Salz, Rich
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Jari Arkko
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Alissa Cooper
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Melinda Shore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Melinda Shore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Paul Wouters
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Choices or language and tone (was: Re: RFC Se… John C Klensin
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Salz, Rich
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Choices or language and tone (was: Re: RFC Se… Richard Barnes
- RE: Effective discourse in the IETF Eric Gray
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Randy Bush
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Tim Bray
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Melinda Shore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Salz, Rich
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Salz, Rich
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Stephen Farrell
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Salz, Rich
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Choices or language and tone Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Michael Richardson
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Richard Barnes
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Pete Resnick
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Miles Fidelman
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Pete Resnick
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF S Moonesamy
- RE: Effective discourse in the IETF Eric Gray
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Marc Petit-Huguenin
- RE: Effective discourse in the IETF Eric Gray
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Keith Moore
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Randy Bush
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- RE: Effective discourse in the IETF Eric Gray
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- RE: Effective discourse in the IETF Eric Gray
- Re: Effective discourse in the IETF Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Hector Santos
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Hector Santos
- Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation Alexandre Petrescu