Ideas about how software should behave

[Ben Finney]

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet at unequivocal.eu> writes:

> On 2017-11-08, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > I also think Jon had cause to bristle somewhat at the characterisation.
> > I don't think Jon was attacked by Steve's remark, but I do sympathise
> > with the instinct to feel a criticism as an attack.
>
> Steve called me arrogant, that's an attack

To say that someone is being arrogant simply is not an attack, and I
really want you to see that.

It's also not true that he called you arrogant.

> Arrogance is simply not a concept that applies to ideas, it is
> a concept that applies to people.

Arrogance, like generosity or cleverness or foolishness, is a concept
that applies to *behaviour*.

Someone can commit an act that is arrogant, or generous or clever or
foolish, and we can call the *idea that informed that act* as arrogant
or generous or clever or foolish.

> If you call an idea arrogant you are necessarily stating that the
> person espousing the idea is guilty of arrogance - that's what the
> word means.

Yes: it describes the behaviour. It does not imply characterisation of
the person.

To describe the idea as arrogant, or generous or clever or foolish, is
*not* to say that the person holding that idea is arrogant.

That would be as unwarranted as calling Bill Gates generous merely
because he sometimes gives a small portion of his wealth to charity. Yet
we would not hesitate to say that the giving of funds to malaria
research is a generous idea.

Similarly, to say that someone expressed an arrogant idea is indeed to
say their bewhaviour was arrogant, and that necessarily accuses the
person of arrogant behaviour. That does not characterise the person as
arrogant and it is not an attack on the person.

> Chris also called the idea "ridiculous", which is also fairly rude,

It is not rude to describe an idea as ridiculous. It is deeply
*respectful* to people to show when ideas are ridiculous. If the idea
*is* correctly described as ridiculous, we want the *person* to stop
holding the ridiculous idea. The idea is not the person, and rudeness to
the idea is often *compassion and respect* for the person.

(Whether the idea is correctly described that way is a separate matter,
of course; that is why discussion is required, preferably with the
participation of the person holding the idea.)

> The idea is clearly not ridiculous.

Great! That should be a good discussion to have. No-one needs to
identify with an idea about how software behaves, in order to
participate in that discussion; no-one is attacked by merely calling the
idea ridiculous.

> You have also, in the past, pretty much straight-up called me a liar.
> That is also, obviously, insulting - yet again, not that you had any
> justification for it at all.

I hope that we can do the necessary work of seeking factual basis for
claims talk about facts, without calling each other liars. I also hope
that we can receive challenges on our claims, without being perceived as
under attack.

-- 
 \            “If you continue running Windows, your system may become |
  `\        unstable.” —Microsoft, Windows 95 bluescreen error message |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney