Background: after what struck me as a particularly vitriolic exchange between myself, Quatrarius, eightbitsamurai, thenewgreen and others, I had to take a step back and evaluate why I responded so defensively to Q's criticism of my comment. In the wake of this consideration, I sent the following question to lil:
- How could I have better dealt with this situation? I've found that when I'm faced with conflict the only way I know how to respond is defensively (or offensively, by actively raising the stakes). I'm not fond of this quality.
galen
lil and I agreed that you all might be interested in our discussion, so here's the rest of it.
lil:
- I read through the thread.
Here's how I interpret it.
From what I can tell, you gave a one-word comment.
Q gave what seemed like a criticism --
8bit - tongue-in-cheekily, ramped up Q's criticism. The only way I can read that is that 8-bit was mocking Q for being critical, not mocking you for your one word.
tng - FOR FUN ramped up 8bit's comment and was MOCKING 8bit
Then it all became a discussion of grammar.
You mute someone -- not clear who. Q badges you - ironically?
So before I go any further -- That's how I read it.l
How do you read it.
galen:
- My reading:
Me: One-word comment.
Q: Unnecessary criticism.
Me: Biting, sarcastic response.
8bit: Further mocking Q's reaction, in a similar mode.
TNG: Mocking 8bit as we mocked Q.
Q muted me. I responded sardonically, and Q (ironically, probably) badged me.
lil:
- > how could I have better dealt with this situation?
Good question. So you see the problem with a defensive reaction (biting sarcastic response). You recognized your own reaction as sarcastic which equals "full of pain." 8bit and tng jump to your defence because they felt your pain. They are empaths in their own ways.
We don't really know what Q meant or why he said what he said. Your defensive feelings will come first and fast, but with practice you can stop yourself from assuming the worst and just ask questions, like "What do you mean?"
You have to wonder: what is his goal by making his comment. The thing is -- we don't know his goal. So you can use a wonderful communication tool called the perception check.
It goes like this:
1. Describe behaviour: "Hey q, when you said "Quality input" I'm wondering whether ...."
2. Suggest one interpretation: "you are criticizing my one-word comment" or
3. Suggest another interpretation: "you wanted to know more about what I mean."
4. Ask for feedback: "What was your goal?"
This response will likely elicit an answer. If the answer is critical and sarcastic, ignore it and move on.
It's called the perception check.
Your goal: Assume you know nothing. When you are feeling irritated by something, just say some version of "what do you mean?"
I'll grant that my reaction to Q's comment was unnecessary, perhaps escalatory. I need to work against the counterproductive responses that I tend to give, and recognize that insensitivity will rear its ugly head throughout my life. I guess I was just expecting more from Hubski.
Oh, and a final irony: Q himself probably won't see this, now that he's muted me.
Hey everybody. I didn't expect this to become such a big hubbub, and as such I don't really have much of an idea how to respond. I'm going to break this up into smaller bits. What I meant: Exactly what I said. I've seen you do the "NO" thing in two threads and I think it's annoying. I think that that turns into pandering to people who share your opinion. Why that isn't correct: I'm not the word police. I don't control what you do. You shouldn't need to defend yourself for giving an opinion. Your comment: I don't care about any rudeness that you showed me, I started the shit-fight. 8bit and TNG's comments: I didn't actually perceive either of these as insulting towards me. I took them more as a "Q, quit being a prick, you're acting stupid" sort of signal. I don't have any idea of how they were supposed to be taken. Muting: I've gone on a muting spree on Hubski, and in the heat of the moment I muted you as well. Badging: I thought your "badge of honor" comment would be funny if it had an actual badge. I wanted you to stop. I didn't want to hurt you and I'm sorry that it happened. I'll keep my negative thoughts to myself. It's kind of funny (in an unfunny kind of way) that my comment was probably less of a "quality input" than yours. It doesn't sound very genuine now after this post. Let's see how this'll work for now.
If I remember correctly, that other thread was some time ago, no? I had nearly forgotten about it. In any case, it now seems to me that this conflict arose from differing conceptions of Hubski. I see the 'ski as (amongst other things) a place to share emotions and opinions with a welcoming community, which sometimes gives rise to my sharing visceral, perhaps not well-thought-out reactions. But you perceive these reactions as "annoying" and even "pandering", so clearly there's a disconnect here. Care to explore with me? How do you view Hubski? Rather than respond point-by-point to the rest, I'll just say that I appreciate your analyses and apology. I'm sorry for the role I played in our conflict, but I think we've managed to turn this whole affair into something eminently valuable. (PS Badging my "badge of honor" is hilarious) E: mk, will Q see this reply? He still has me muted but it's a direct response to one of his comments... I just don't really understand mute mechanics in general.I've seen you do the "NO" thing in two threads and I think it's annoying. I think that that turns into pandering to people who share your opinion.
I saw this message a minute after it was posted and I've been trying to think of why I feel like I do. I honestly can't think of a "deep reason" for it. The political side of Hubski is one I really don't enjoy. I don't agree with people on here and I don't like conflicting opinions, apparently. The "news" section is the only one I dare to dive into and even that becomes too much sometimes. It feels like everybody has the same opinions on the things that happen. It's unfair, but I view it as pandering to each other. "Yes, I also agree. Me too! I agree." When I saw your "NO" comment, that was the only thing I could think of. It looked to me like just another example. I took some frustrations out on you. Honestly, at the time I didn't like you. I wasn't doing well and, like I said, I went on a muting spree. I didn't view you as someone to be nice to. I'm sorry for that. I've unmuted you. You seem fine enough.
I am happy to read this. We need more dissenting opinions, and we should all work to be tolerant of them. After all, we are all to some extent, ignorant, baised, and wrong. Only by discussing our ideas with an open mind and a willingness to civilly disagree can we all more to a better, more-informed place. We all benefit from the opportunity of civil disagreement.
Hubksi is indulged with a plethora of people who have interesting opinions which they can successfully discuss at length. If you become used to that, I guess there's a risk of adverse reactions to comments like the one in discussion. I understand the intent of the 'NO' as an impassioned disagreement. I also agree that the word count of a comment means very little. And it is of course great that you feel comfortable expressing emotions and opinions here. But emotions should seldom be left to their own devices. The 'NO,' to me, represents your emotions more than your opinions. To some it may seem empty of thought and reflection. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. But you must seek to be conscious of these things and how your comment will read to both those that agree and disagree. A potential reason that Q sees it as pandering is because the only person who can concur with it is someone who already agrees with you. There is zero analysis of anything. Next time you have urge to make a similar comment, or any comment really, take a step back. It is as important to interrogate your own views as it is everyone else's. Both its standpoint and the way it's written. I personally like to imagine that each comment is my first. That each one is my first impression. I try not rely on people remembering who I am, how I feel, or my typical demeanour. Of course, the beauty of Hubski is that you can procure that kind of relationship with people. But on a medium where anyone from across the world could be reading my words at any time, I find it an appropriate approach. Though I'm likely not always successful.I see the 'ski as (amongst other things) a place to share emotions and opinions with a welcoming community, which sometimes gives rise to my sharing visceral, perhaps not well-thought-out reactions.
People do this all the time-- especially to people they either don't interact with much, or that they probably won't see again. One problem with a text based format is that comments don't fade into the air. Most people have enough trouble with group dynamics in the real world-- that is, in interactions that have been shaped by evolution and culture. Here, we lack context (as in facial cues, intonation, body language, etc.) as well as a clear definition of the etiquette of hubski's culture. Maybe one of the steps to making an account should be to sacrifice a goat or something with the existing users.
Quatrarius -I think he will see it because of that shout-out above. I think, I'm not sure how the functionality is set up these days to be honest. (mk?) Your assessment of my reply to 8bit is somewhat right. I was attempting to mock the existence of the word-counter at all and it was a bit of a throw back to the era of having assignments with word counts. You remember those right? Write a 1000 word essay on the Inca and you would write, "the Inca were a people that lived a very, very, very long time ago." Lil's suggestions were spot on and they equate to what we call "probing questions," in sales. The use of them is to get to the "true objection." I'm sorry if I contributed at all to you having a negative experience. I dig all of you in that thread and hope we can all be pals. I know we can all coexist peacefully.
I'm inferring from your punctuation that you mean to imply we oughtn't find this so difficult, is that reasonable? What lies behind your opinion that conflicts are so easily avoidable? I understand the wisdom implied by "sticks and stones" is simple, but I find implementing it to be fairly difficult.
Yes. Conflicts are avoidable on hubski/the internet because there aren't any conflicts. Conflicts are things that cause tangible problems ... nothing that happens on hubski can possibly cause a tangible problem in my real life, unless I let it. The site might make me happy/sad/angry, but I'm an unemotional person so I don't bother with all that except when I want to. In real life, you didn't ask, but whatever, it's a bit different, but only to the extent that you make it so. I've always deeply believed in sticks and stones. I had glasses in sixth grade, before I joined the football team and got contacts, and I spent most of my time reading because everyone around me was an idiot. So I was bullied every once in a while, not in any serious way, or by anyone that mattered. But I just sort of stared at them and wondered why they were talking at me until they wandered off [it helps to be arrogant as fuck]. I dunno maybe I'm an alien but in my experience conflicts are (almost always) two-sided. If one side is like fuck conflict, it vanishes. This does not apply in the Middle East, but it does to, like, being a teenager, or a hubski user. So yeah. Long-winded. What you let hurt you, hurts you; only that.
OK, basically, my issue with this is that it doesn't work when it really matters. I'll explain. I agree that nothing on the 'ski can cause a tangible problem unless I let it. However: for me, the reason that I sometimes can't walk away from conflicts is that they tend to arise when I care a lot about someone. For example, the reason that Quatrarius's sarcastic reply to my comment stung so much is that I care kind of a lot about his opinion (also on some level I knew he was right, at least in terms of intended message). This ties into an exchange I had with eightbitsamurai: I was having issues with one of my friends being a jerk about the music I was producing, and 8bit said something to the effect of "Simple. Don't be friends with him." I badged that comment because it was so simple, yet so effective, but eventually I realized that I can't just not be friends with him. I value his friendship, and, quite frankly, his opinion about my music. That's why I cared about him insulting it. If I didn't care about someone's opinion, I would just ignore it. But when I do care, and they hide their criticisms behind insults, it's painful. I can't ignore that.
1. Today someone I loved said something mean and sarcastic to me. It's hard, but I am trying to see those comments as an expression of his pain (which it was). The sarcasm spreads the pain to others. I did say, "Are you being sarcastic?" He said, "Yes." I didn't say, "I'm sorry you're feeling pain." 2. 3. But there's only so much we can care about without exploding or going mad. ("Humankind cannot bear very much reality" - T. S. Eliot) 4. And of course you can't just dump a friend because he doesn't like your music. But a little bit of your friendship dies. Your sense of oneness and sharing is no longer pure. The friend has expressed divergent and contrary opinions. It is a new friendship. To be a healthy friendship you have to "respect his opinion" -- (to refer to another conversation). By that I mean, let him have his opinion. It can differ from yours. But you are hurt because you want to be loved and appreciated. At some point, perhaps much much later, you'll realize that not liking your music does not mean he doesn't like you. In fact he feels enough trust in the friendship to express his feelings to you. If you want to know more, say "Tell me more." Whatever he doesn't like, it's about the music. You are not your music -- but you don't know this yet. so you felt hurt. Eventually, learn to surround yourself with people who care about your feelings. Hubski is mostly safe, but not entirely. If the waters get rough, look around and there might be a lifeguard in this ocean of thought.also on some level I knew he was right, at least in terms of intended message)
We sometimes get even more defensive if we suspect there's some truth in the perceived attack.If I didn't care about someone's opinion, I would just ignore it. But when I do care, and they hide their criticisms behind insults, it's painful.
You care about what you care about. Not caring is the real enemy. When we care less, we become less kind. Q mentions in his comments: "I didn't view you as someone to be nice to." -- He saw you as not being worthy of care. In fact, he diminished himself, isolated himself, became less humane. When he, in this case, stopped caring, he engaged in random acts of meanness. This made him even more unlovable, thus reinforcing his low opinion of himself.
That's a good issue. In my mind, though, you can't really have it "both ways." I genuinely stop caring about people if they act in such a manner that caring about them would hurt me. It's almost tautological, to my mind. I value someone's friendship because it is worth valuing, and then if they insult my music in needlessly hurtful ways, I devalue their friendship. Maybe not in a binary sense from 1 to 0 immediately, but continuously, such that if they needlessly hurt me I assign their opinion a lower impact and the next time they do whatever they did to hurt me, it automatically hurts me less because I care less. Time is all we've got and I choose who I spend mine with very carefully.
For me this is the crucial part. I can't immediately stop caring about someone just to avoid a conflict. It takes place over time, and in the interim you have to have other, more interpersonally-focused strategies for dealing with conflict.Maybe not in a binary sense from 1 to 0 immediately
If you were to make this happen, what would it mean for you personally? (sorry had to google probing questions and try to apply my newfound knowledge. Interesting stuff, I bet you're a beast of a salesman. I've been noticing how good you are at connecting with other people and keeping track of everybody's personal stuff around here.)I know we can all coexist peacefully.
I'm not sure if I'm a "beast," but I do think I am well suited to it. There are those that stumble in to sales as a profession and then there are those that choose it and respect it for the art/science that it is. I try and get better at it all the time. I leave every call and self-critique by contemplating the things I feel I did right and the things I would have done differently. I would suggest that to anyone, in any profession. -When you leave a meeting ask yourself those questions.
I engaged in this conversation with galen immediately, because he asked me, "How could I have better dealt with this situation?" We contribute to our own problems all the time, but it's far easier to see other people's contribution than it is to see our own. More often than we realize, the antidote is to stop taking the poison. I think that is essentially what flagamuffin is saying.I leave every call and self-critique by contemplating the things I feel I did right and the things I would have done differently.
Good point tng.
Earlier today I had to write a 750-850 word essay on a film I watched. Could have got the point across in a lot less words, and the fact that there's a word-count range is even more aggravating than saying write at least this much. It's everywhere too, between that and page counts...at least Cosmos is on. Anyway, good thread galen. I think it's easy to forget that there are other, real, people behind words being said. Especially on the internet. Sometimes it's easy to ascribe those words to malice, or an attack on our beliefs or the words we have said and then become firmer in talking with the other person. Those are some great ways in dealing with this, understanding, context, and attempting to be empathetic can take you a long ways and I think is something we all struggle with.I was attempting to mock the existence of the word-counter at all and it was a bit of a throw back to the era of having assignments with word counts.
I don't think that shoutouts work when you've been muted, but I'll have to double check to be sure. Your shoutout should work, however. Unless you've been muted, of course. You can PM those that have muted you. I've heard good arguments for and against this.
Rather than go all meta about the conversation, you should get to the heart of the issue and elaborate what it is that bothers you about TPP. That would be more instructive. I've yet to hear a coherent argument against it, although there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the proliferation of international trade is the most important factor in global poverty being dramatically reduced in the last two decades. Nothing is better for a poor person than a steady job, no matter how good it makes us feel to shower them with charity. Trade increases wealth. The important bit is to ensure that the wealth is accrued in such a way that many people benefit. I'm not personally familiar enough with TPP to know if that's the case here, but I've also not heard anything negative, besides labor leaders saying what amounts to "NAFTA!!!"
I appreciate the sentiment, and I'll certainly try to add to that discussion, but I don't think this has to be framed in opposition to this post and its discussion (as implied by "Rather than going all meta). I would also be happy to see your comments on the original TPP post.
Maybe. By your own subtitle, your aim is to "understand comments." With that in mind, let's dissect your comment: "NO." What does that comment say, really (in a subtextual sense)? To me, it says that you hold a firm opposition to the policy, and that you're using a thinly veiled rhetoric to express solidarity with a like-minded bloc, probably ideologically pro-labor liberals. The reaction comment, "Quality input there..." was either a lack of understanding of the message, a rejection of it, or, more probably, an indictment of the device itself that is independent of the position (edit: after reading through the thread, I see that Quatrarius has already addressed this point, and my supposition is correct). That is, the user was attempting to get you to recognize that all you're doing is reinforcing the echo chamber of anti TPP sentiment without stating an argument against it. Perhaps it was done without a lot of tact. I suppose where Quatrarius was disappointed is that your comment seemed to be encouraging this place to become part of the vast liberal echo chamber that is many corners of the Internet (pure speculation on my part). If you have an argument for or against TPP, then make it. But when you take a side for the sake of being part of a movement, people look suspiciously on it. Bear in mind I'm not accusing you of being uneducated on the issue. I have no idea what your interest or knowledge on the subject is. What I do know is that you can only be judged by what you put into the world, and that when the output is crap, people assume the input is, too. So, my point is that while dissecting how you could have responded may be a worth while exercise, it also may be completely avoidable if you speak more precisely from the outset, or at the very least qualify yourself when challenged. Truth >>> Politeness....I don't think this has to be framed in opposition to this post and its discussion.
Right. I meant that, given what has happened, two possible responses emerge: analyzing the situation, and adding to my original comment. Both are instructive. Of course dissection of possible responses isn't necessary when one responds appropriately the first time around. But I didn't. In any case, I have no intention of defending my original comment. Of course my response to Quatrarius's criticism of it was in self-defense, but that was before this discussion. I intended the comment as an expression of emotion, and spoke with little regard for the effects it would have on the community (e.g. "encouraging this place to become part of the vast liberal echo chamber that is many corners of the Internet"), and for that I apologize. Had a great discussion with my Physics teacher about this today. He pointed out how hollow the phrase "I respect your opinion" is. What the fuck does it even mean? The only action it seems to foreshadow is cessation of argument, which has little to do with respect and much more to do with the choice to gloss over differences of opinion. And even if respecting an opinion is a meaningful act, why would I want you to do it? My opinion is a personal belief. It means nothing outside of my subjective experience, so your assessment of it is necessarily meaningless. I would much rather you respect the facts. (This is especially important when debating, e.g., anti-vaxxers, creationists and the like.) Anyway, sorry for the tangent.So, my point is that while dissecting how you could have responded may be a worth while exercise, it also may be completely avoidable if you speak more precisely from the outset, or at the very least qualify yourself when challenged.
Truth >>> Politeness.
Perhaps "I respect your opinion" is a short form for "Let's agree to disagree for now, since given the available information at this moment and the available time and energy for this topic at this moment, I can't go any further right now, but note: I do not hold any animosity towards you for differing from me. Moving on..." Please ask your physics teacher.