Ideas about how software should behave

[Ben Finney]

Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> writes:

> On 11/8/17 5:22 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > To say that someone is being arrogant simply is not an attack, and I
> > really want you to see that.
> Ben, this idea is really stupid!
>
> Be honest: when you read what I just wrote, did you feel a
> dispassionate discussion starting, or did you feel a bit attacked?

I feel attacked. Does that mean I am attacked?

If I feel attacked, does that mean one should never call an idea stupid?

I think the answer to both those questions is “no”.

> I think it is unrealistic to expect people to be completely
> dissociated from the ideas they hold.

I don't expect that.

What I do expect is that people will, when experiencing that feeling, to
figure out whether the feeling of attack reflects the nature of what
happened, or merely a perception.

That's how I expect adults to behave. Sometimes we – and of course I
include myself – don't meet that, yet we need to keep aiming for that.


> Second, now you want us to agree that calling someone arrogant isn't
> an attack?

It's one thing to say “this idea is arrogant”, which is what Steve did.
That's not in any way personal, nor an attack on a person. It criticises
an idea.

If instead Steve said “that was an arrogant action”, the person is being
criticised. But it's still not *characterising* the person; it
characterises the action. It says nothing about whether the person is
arrogant.

If instead of either of those Steve said “you are arrogant”, that would
warrant the response, in my estimation.

That it got nowhere near that is why I'm pleading that we stop treating
criticism of ideas as though it were an attack on a person.

> Perhaps you are able to discuss your own behavior this way

Too often I fail. But it's what we need to keep trying to do.

> but I assure you, most people are not.

I think we are better than that. We all have these responses to some
degree; we can choose to respond differently. I think we can, and I ask
that we do.

>  You are holding up this kind of distance from yourself as an ideal we
>should all strive for.  To me it seems like a Dr.-Spock-like separation
>from feelings.  People don't work this way.

We can't avoid feeling what we feel, and I would never fault someone for
that.

> How many paragraphs of close parsing are we going to twist ourselves
> through, just to avoid saying, "Yeah, sorry, that went a bit far.  I
> didn't want to alienate you in the pursuit of a demonstration of my
> own correctness."

I don't have any aim of avoiding that. If I need to apologise for
something, that hasn't been made clear to me. If you're seeking an
apology from someone else, I can't do it for them.

What has been made clear to me is that we have a long way to go in
pursuit of allowing ideas to be held at arm's length, discussed and
criticised, with respect and compassion for one another.

-- 
 \     “[…] we don’t understand what we mean when we say that [God] is |
  `\    ‘good’, ‘wise’, or ‘intelligent’.” —Karen Armstrong, _The Case |
_o__)                                                   For God_, 2009 |
Ben Finney