I especially like that you validate their question and then convincingly explore the nuance to the situation, framing your response around their question. Then you make your ultimate position subjective ("Personally, I prefer...") instead of trying to make it some objective truth ("it's better to be kind."), which allows that the others person's position is also subjective - merely a personal preference - and thus changeable.
The communication was so effective I chose not to respond to it.
I personally prefer (there it is!) to work in an environment where being incorrect isn't such a big deal everyone thinks you have to walk around eggshells in order to point it out.
I responded to another poster in this thread and told them they may just be in the wrong place. Or to put it another way.
But he effectively communicated his mindset quite well, right?
I also think there are degrees to how much one can avoid contradicting others. I also want to be able to take contrary positions in meetings without hedging and without people getting upset or other nonsense. I don't think that has to be avoided by "walking around on eggshells". If it had that effect in my life I would never have adopted it.
Additionally none of my comments are really about cultural proclivities: I am opposed to trying to rigidly enforce communication standards within a group. "Sorry MReiland, you didn't state your position about why we shouldn't be using the braid data structure with enough sensitivity." The thing you're taking a position against sounds terrible but isn't really the thing we're talking about.
this is the quote that I initially responded to, emphasis mine.
> I see telling people they're wrong as selfish. It's almost never necessary, and in a probabilistic sense is not the most efficient way to make them correct, because instead of just changing their mind, they have to tamp down their ego, avoid getting ticked at you, and then change their mind. Bam: you've just made their lives harder, for the satisfaction of being explicit that you're more correct than they are.
That's the context of this conversation (a statement made by YOU).
If I can't approach someone about improving/fixing/changing something being worked on then I have no interest in working with them, and I have enough control over my own life that I don't have to.
If someone is really going to insist that I need to spend my time trying to work with them, they're going to get dismissed and I'm going to go on with my life.
I have enough control over my own life that I don't have to deal with those sorts of issues. Perhaps if you're working in a job where you feel forced to have to deal with other people's bullshit than you suddenly feel as if it's important to start worrying about this sort of thing, but I'm not there.
And no amount of communication is going to put me there.
> If I can't approach someone about improving/fixing/changing something being worked on
I think maybe we're misunderstanding each other. I'm not saying don't approach someone to improve/fix/change something. I'm making a statement about manner of approach. Being unable to approach people when they're wrong is intolerable. Being an asshole about it will make you intolerable. The statement I made is about finding a middle way.
I especially like that you validate their question and then convincingly explore the nuance to the situation, framing your response around their question. Then you make your ultimate position subjective ("Personally, I prefer...") instead of trying to make it some objective truth ("it's better to be kind."), which allows that the others person's position is also subjective - merely a personal preference - and thus changeable.
A+, effective communication.