Ideas about how software should behave

[Ned Batchelder]

On 11/7/17 5:48 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Nowadays I realize and accept that this is preposterous. You cannot
>> criticize an idea without also criticizing the people who are attached
>> to that idea.
> Maybe so. Does that mean we must not criticise ideas? Later in your
> message you say no, but everything leading up to it argues you think so.
>
> In the thread which spawned this one, an idea was criticised, *because*
> someone expressed attachment to the idea.
>
> The idea was expressly one about software behaviour. Should that idea
> not be criticised in this forum, because someone expressed attachment to
> the idea?
>
> Does this forum allow ideas to be criticised only if no-one is attached
> to them?
>
>> Even if no personal slight is intended, it is received that way. If
>> your idea is bad, then by implication you are a person with bad ideas.
> Yes. And people with bad ideas rarely abandon bad ideas if those ideas
> are not shown to be bad.
>
>> Now, I'm not saying that we can't criticize ideas. We can, however,
>> choose to be polite or not in how we go about it.
> Certainly. It is incivil to make personal attacks. The criticism which
> started this sub-thread made no personal attack.
>
> Yet you've already pointed out that criticism of an idea – an idea
> specifically about how software should behave – is *perceived as* an
> attack, by people who are attached to the idea.
>
> You called such criticism “incivility”; presumably on the basis that the
> person was attached to the idea that was criticised.
>
> By responding, in this forum, to criticism of ideas with the
> admonishment of “incivility”, you effectively imply that it is incivil
> to criticise ideas strongly held — even when those ideas are about the
> behaviour of Python software, in a forum whose purpose is discussion of
> Python software.
>
> This is the condescension of low expectation: that someone who is
> attached to an idea deserves *less respect*, that they should not be
> exposed to criticism of ideas they hold lest they perceive it as an
> attack. That treats people as too fragile to examine an idea as separate
> from their person.
>
> I thoroughly reject that condescending attitude, and choose instead to
> promote respect that people *can* examine ideas when those ideas are
> criticised.
>
> Ideas, whether lightly or strongly held, are never immune from
> criticism. Indeed, for the purpose of reducing the amount of bad ideas
> held by people, those ideas must be criticised.
>
> Ideas about software behaviour, in this forum, are surely not an
> exception to that.
>

All of this could have been avoided.  Steve called an idea arrogant. Jon 
felt that Steve was calling him arrogant. If Steve had simply said, "I'm 
sorry, I didn't mean that to apply to you," we wouldn't be here now. Why 
is it so hard to treat people as if they mattered?

People are so caught up in proving others wrong and themselves right, 
that just saying, "Sorry, I wasn't clear" feels like giving ground.

We need more civil discussion, and less sniping.  We're better than this.

--Ned.