Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [XP] ego (was the value of splitting stories)

Expand Messages
  • Charlie Poole
    Bill, ... Here s what I ve noticed: the reaction you describe is almost inevitable for a lot of people - yes I was one - on a
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
      Bill,

      <snip lots of good stuff/>

      > This says to me that the people who come here and make that argument feel
      > like we are telling them that they don't know anything about software
      > development, and that we are treating them like newbies when we say start
      > at the beginning.

      Here's what I've noticed: the reaction you describe is almost inevitable for
      a lot of people - yes I was one - on a mailing list. It's probably also hard
      to avoid in a normal work situation.

      I've also noticed that in a class situation, even with quite experienced
      developers, I can get away with making them start at the beginning. In some
      cases, I can get away with giving them s*it about their habits, if I do it
      in the right spirit - like "Why do you need a hashtable to return 0 to
      NumberOfMovesSoFar() - get rid of that turkey!"

      Why so? Dale remarked quite a long time back that people need to give us
      permission to try to teach them something in order for it to be received
      positively. Many of us take the simple fact of a new person posting a
      question here as exactly that permission, but it probably isn't always
      - or even mostly - what the posters intend. Many of them haven't really
      entered the XP Restaurant yet... they're just standing in the door reading
      the menu.

      I don't know that there is any general solution and I expect many of us
      will continue to have difficulty with folks who want to question and
      challenge before trying - but it's often the same as what we do ourselves
      when deciding to commit to a new course of action. Maybe we need someone
      to write this up in a FAQ for the list: "Why are you treating me like
      a beginner?"

      <snip even more good stuff/>

      Charlie Poole
      cpoole@...
      www.pooleconsulting.com
      www.charliepoole.org
    • Jim Murphy
      ... That ... and ... It could be ego or perhaps something else. In his Thinking Course book, Edward de Bono observes that bright people have a tendency to
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
        William E Caputo wrote:
        >
        > Ron Jeffries:
        > > My advice to people trying XP is to learn it all, practice it all, and
        > > having done that, to decide /then/ what to add and what to take away.
        That
        > > seems to be pretty much the same advice from all the senior coaches and
        > > practitioners here, all of whom have been around the development block,
        and
        > > the XP block, more than once.
        >
        > I often wonder why this advice is soooooooo difficult for some people to
        > accept. I have given -- and seen given -- this advice literally for years
        > on this list. Yet there is no shortage of people who come here and argue
        > ad nauseam, against it. (interestingly enough, many of them later come
        > back and start giving the same advice to newcomers).
        >
        > I suspect its an ego problem because some things seem generally true about
        > the arguments:
        >
        > 1) the arguers spend a lot of energy talking about their own projects --
        > and how many projects they've already done (and often how those projects
        > don't need all of XP)
        >
        > 2) There is a lot of speculation and hypothetical situations thrown out
        > designed to find fringe cases that "prove" the limitations of both XP, and
        > the advice given on how to learn it.
        >
        > 3) The arguers are invariably seasoned veteran software developers.
        >
        > This says to me that the people who come here and make that argument feel
        > like we are telling them that they don't know anything about software
        > development, and that we are treating them like newbies when we say start
        > at the beginning.
        >
        It could be ego or perhaps something else. In his "Thinking Course" book,
        Edward de Bono observes that bright people have a tendency to form opinions
        quickly and then use their intelligence to defend their initial position,
        rather than keep an open mind and gather more information before
        establishing a position/opinion. He offers a technique called PMI (for
        examining Pluses, Minuses, and Interesting aspects of a topic/issue) in
        order to delay the formation of an opinion until more information is known.
        Rather than try to convince a newbie that XP is the way to go, perhaps the
        best way to proceed with a newbie is to use a PMI-like approach and get the
        person to keep an open mind until more evidence (pro or con for their
        situation) is on the table.
      • Steve Bate
        ... and ... Bill, Speaking for myself, I think this is very reasonable advice. I ve said so in previous messages so I wasn t clear about the intent of Ron s
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
          > From: William E Caputo [mailto:wecaputo@...]
          > Ron Jeffries:
          > >My advice to people trying XP is to learn it all, practice it all, and
          > >having done that, to decide /then/ what to add and what to take away.
          > >That seems to be pretty much the same advice from all the senior coaches
          and
          > >practitioners here, all of whom have been around the development block,
          > >and the XP block, more than once.
          >
          > I often wonder why this advice is soooooooo difficult for some people to
          > accept. I have given -- and seen given -- this advice literally for years
          > on this list. Yet there is no shortage of people who come here and argue
          > ad nauseam, against it. (interestingly enough, many of them later come
          > back and start giving the same advice to newcomers).

          Bill,

          Speaking for myself, I think this is very reasonable advice. I've said so
          in previous messages so I wasn't clear about the intent of Ron's response
          to me.

          I'm not an XP beginner. I do not make my living from or have any specific
          interest in XP beginners doing what I tell them to do. My income does not
          depend on it and I don't feel a need to boost my ego in this way. The goal
          of my questions are to understand what /experienced/ XP teams are doing and
          why. I'm most interested in advanced approaches that have strong empirical
          (or anecdotal) support and solid reasoning behind them. I'm sure you are
          familiar with the 3 levels of learning. It's not surprising that an
          experienced practitioner is not necessarily going to accept the level 1
          sweeping generalizations a beginner is expected to take on faith. I
          understand that the level 2/3 questioning can be viewed as a threat to
          the establishment. The alternatives I've been asking about are
          not adding to or taking away from XP. They are all documented in the
          XP books (I've given numerous references in previous messages). IOW,
          I'm not exactly being a deconstructionist here. Not even close.

          What's your preference for how I should proceed in asking questions related
          to advanced usage of the practices (rather than beginner instruction)? Do
          you want to me just not ask them? Do you want to accept whatever answer is
          given to me by some specific small group of people, even if it contradicts
          my personal experience or doesn't have solid reasoning behind it? Something
          else? My preference is that I'd like to learn from other experienced XP
          practitioners /and/ not trigger too many memetic antibodies in the process.
          I definitely don't want to get involved in ad hominem discussions. The
          ego-related rant seems to be heading in that direction and I'd rather stop
          posting than proceed along that path. In case there is any question about
          it, I have great respect for you guys and look forward to meeting some of
          you in person someday.

          Regards,

          Steve
        • Ron Jeffries
          ... Steve, I m writing for the gallery. I m always writing for the gallery, with the exception being times when I really go into using the word you , which I
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
            On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 5:42:54 PM, Steve Bate wrote:

            > Speaking for myself, I think this is very reasonable advice. I've said so
            > in previous messages so I wasn't clear about the intent of Ron's response
            > to me.

            Steve, I'm writing for the gallery. I'm always writing for the gallery,
            with the exception being times when I really go into using the word "you",
            which I usually try to avoid when I'm talking to the gallery.

            There may have been a couple of times when you've expressed your situation
            as a kind of existence proof for what could work -- and it is that, no
            question about it -- and I might have wished for more support for the
            notion of beginners. On the other hand, it isn't your job, or anyone's job
            to support me.

            And sometimes in my answers, and even my questions, judging from one recent
            response of yours that I haven't replied to yet, it may have sounded as if
            I'm attacking your experience. I'm not. For the past long time, since the
            beginning coffee shop, I've been on about just one thing: what is the right
            way to do XP when one doesn't know how to do XP, i.e. when one is a
            beginner.

            > What's your preference for how I should proceed in asking questions related
            > to advanced usage of the practices (rather than beginner instruction)? Do
            > you want to me just not ask them?

            Asking is good. We like to talk about stuff. It might be useful to refer to
            them as "advanced" or "fringe" techniques when you know that's what you're
            on about, and I suspect we'll all be a little more careful in that area
            now.

            > Do you want to accept whatever answer is
            > given to me by some specific small group of people, even if it contradicts
            > my personal experience or doesn't have solid reasoning behind it?

            I'd like everyone to accept and adopt whatever answers I give. ;->

            > Something else?

            Failing that, I'd like to see replies that sound like real effort has been
            made to understand and dig into what I'm on about, rather than just trying
            to refute it. (I'm not saying that you personally have done that, and don't
            have an instance in mind.)

            > My preference is that I'd like to learn from other experienced XP
            > practitioners /and/ not trigger too many memetic antibodies in the process.
            > I definitely don't want to get involved in ad hominem discussions. The
            > ego-related rant seems to be heading in that direction and I'd rather stop
            > posting than proceed along that path.

            I would have difficulty expressing how much I welcomed that rant, because I
            have been feeling very much unlistened to in recent days, as if readers
            were just arguing for the sake of it. I haven't ever plonked anyone on this
            list in the biolions of messages that have gone by. But I do not enjoy
            having my best efforts rejected out of hand, often rudely.

            So I was glad to see Bill's rant because it told me that maybe I wasn't
            just having an ego crisis of my own.

            > In case there is any question about it, I have great respect for you guys
            > and look forward to meeting some of you in person someday.

            The word "respect" has been coming to mind as I read this, and over the
            last couple of weeks. No one here has the right to demand "respect",
            whether by virtue of long service, incredible intelligence, good looks,
            outstanding writing ability, great sense of humor, or sexua1 prowess. Would
            that it were the case, as given that list I would surely be elevated to the
            pantheon. ;->

            But one does sometimes want to feel respected, and one does very much
            dislike to read postings which, by virtue of not listening and other
            matters of tone, seem to offer the reverse.

            So if I was in that list of "you guys" ... thanks!

            Ron Jeffries
            www.XProgramming.com
            I could be wrong, but I'm not. --Eagles, Victim of Love
          • Dale Emery
            Hi Bill, ... Have you asked the people who find it difficult to accept ? What reasons have they given you? (I know that you characterize their responses
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
              Hi Bill,

              >> My advice to people trying XP is to learn it all, practice
              >> it all, and having done that, to decide /then/ what to add
              >> and what to take away.
              >>
              >> That seems to be pretty much the same advice from all the
              >> senior coaches and practitioners here, all of whom have been
              >> around the development block, and the XP block, more than
              >> once.
              >
              > I often wonder why this advice is soooooooo difficult for some
              > people to accept.

              Have you asked the people who find it "difficult to accept"?
              What reasons have they given you? (I know that you characterize
              their responses later in your post. I'm asking not about
              characterizations, but what they've actually said.)

              Do the people you're referring to think of the advice as
              "difficult to accept"? I'm trying to think of when I would
              characterize advice that way. I can imagine doing that when I
              /want/ to accept the advice, but have some reservations that (so
              far) keep me from accepting it. But if I didn't already want to
              accept the advice, I wouldn't think of it as difficult to accept,
              I'd think of it as not fitting for me in some way, probably
              because I have other values and beliefs that I think of as
              conflicting with it.

              > I suspect its an ego problem

              This seems to me to be a characterization that both comes from
              and reinforces your point of view. How does it look from their
              point of view?

              It also seems like a characterization that would leave you stuck.
              If it is indeed an ego problem, you're not going to be able to
              make any progress unless you know how to do something about their
              ego problem.

              I suspect that if you want to make progress, you're going to have
              to understand their POV more fully. That's where the possibility
              of change comes from, because every action they take comes from
              their point of view.

              My test for whether I've understood someone's point of view is
              this: I express what I believe to be their POV, and they agree
              that I've said it well. I think the same test applies to
              characterizations and attributions (such as attributing their
              rejection of your advice to ego problems): If they agree that my
              characterizations and attributions express their thinking, then
              I've understood their point of view.

              > This says to me that the people who come here and make that
              > argument feel like we are telling them that they don't know
              > anything about software development, and that we are treating
              > them like newbies when we say start at the beginning.

              I've asked hundreds of people their reasons for choosing not to
              do something that someone else had asked them to do. In one
              workshop, one woman said, "People might find out I can't do it."
              After a moment, the woman beside her said, "/I/ might find out
              I can't do it." That seems like a core issue to me, very close
              to an identity issue. People want to feel competent. And for
              some people, feeling competent is /very/ important. (Is that
              what you mean by ego problem?)

              On another forum, Brad Appleton mentioned an idea he learned from
              a book by Mel Silberman: The Three C's: competence, control, and
              connection. These are core issues for many people, and if people
              feal threatened about these core issues, you can make progress
              only if you attend to the issues.

              One way of dealing with core issues is to ask the persom for
              help. Ask them to tell you whenever they feel as if you're
              treating them like a newbie. When that happens, take a minute to
              ask what, exactly, they heard you say, and what meaning they made
              of it. Maybe you'll find out (as I sometimes do) that they were
              very accurately picking up on an attitude I was feeling without
              knowing I was feeling it. Other times, you'll learn what
              "trigger words" to avoid, and you can rephrase what you're saying
              so that the person can hear it more cleanly.

              > we are only saying that for those who wish to learn XP -- and
              > how to vary it -- the *best* (not the only) way is to try it
              > as close to how it is generally presented, and *then* vary it.

              I'll bet context matters a great deal. For example, for people
              learning XP in the context of a project, the success of the
              project may be more important to them than learning XP. They
              have ideas (from their own experience) about what works for
              projects, and naturally they don't yet have confidence in XP.
              They like some of the ideas in XP (otherwise they wouldn't be
              willing to try it at all), but other ideas collide with their
              ideas about what works. So what's more important in that
              situation, learning XP, or succeeding on the project?

              Of course, you may believe that learning XP and succeeding on the
              project are compatible, or even that learning XP will make the
              project /more/ successful. But they don't know that, not yet
              having experience with XP. So they naturally rely on their own
              experience, and the wisdom they've gleaned from it.

              In addition to project success, or instead of project success,
              people may also value other things more highly than learning XP.
              Their feeling of competence, for example, or the respect
              they've gained from their skill at what they've done before now.
              Or many other possible values (like the other Three C's).

              So even if they agree with you about the best way to learn XP,
              they may not hold learning XP as the most important goal right now.

              I don't know whether this applies to you, but Jerry Weinberg once
              gave me this advice: Don't denegrate people for not already
              knowing what you came to teach them.

              Dale

              --
              Dale Emery -- Consultant -- Resistance as a Resource
              Web: http://www.dhemery.com
              Weblog: http://www.dhemery.com/cwd (Conversations with Dale)

              If the world were a logical place, men would ride side-saddle.
              --Rita Mae Brown
            • Steve Bate
              ... Yes, I understand that has been your focus on the coffeehouse thread. That s why I was hoping to keep the more advanced issues separate from the XP
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
                > From: Ron Jeffries [mailto:ronjeffries@...]
                >...
                > And sometimes in my answers, and even my questions, judging from one
                > recent response of yours that I haven't replied to yet, it may have
                > sounded as if I'm attacking your experience. I'm not. For the past
                > long time, since the beginning coffee shop, I've been on about just
                > one thing: what is the right way to do XP when one doesn't know how
                > to do XP, i.e. when one is a beginner.

                Yes, I understand that has been your focus on the coffeehouse
                thread. That's why I was hoping to keep the more advanced issues
                separate from the XP beginner issues by starting some different
                threads. That strategy didn't work particularly well. I'm sorry
                about that.

                >...
                > Asking is good. We like to talk about stuff. It might be useful to
                > refer to them as "advanced" or "fringe" techniques when you know
                > that's what you're on about, and I suspect we'll all be a little
                > more careful in that area now.

                Yes, I'll be more careful. I have tried to qualify many of my
                statements as being very context dependent. The ability to identify
                the appropriate context could be viewed as an advanced skill.

                >> Do you want to accept whatever answer is
                >> given to me by some specific small group of people, even if it
                >> contradicts my personal experience or doesn't have solid
                >> reasoning behind it?

                > I'd like everyone to accept and adopt whatever answers I give. ;->

                Ok, one vote for accepting and adopting all Ron's answers. :-)

                >...
                > Failing that, I'd like to see replies that sound like real effort
                > has been made to understand and dig into what I'm on about, rather
                > than just trying to refute it. (I'm not saying that you personally
                > have done that, and don't have an instance in mind.)

                I understand. If you've gotten that impression from me it may be
                because we've been talking at two different levels. I've felt the same
                way about some of the responses to my messages, probably for the same
                reason.

                At other times, it may be more an issue of whether I accept the "good
                enough" answer (from you or myself) rather than digging deeper for the
                excellent one.

                >...
                > I would have difficulty expressing how much I welcomed that rant,
                > because I have been feeling very much unlistened to in recent days,
                > as if readers were just arguing for the sake of it. I haven't ever
                > plonked anyone on this list in the biolions of messages that have
                > gone by. But I do not enjoy having my best efforts rejected out of
                > hand, often rudely.

                Hopefully you didn't think I was rude in my responses. I was making a
                real effort not to be. I didn't see any "rudeness objections", so I'll
                assume you didn't take them that way. Like you, I've been feeling like
                my best efforts have been rejected or twisted beyond recognition and I
                agree it doesn't feel good. I've received a few rants from lurkers
                about the other side of the discussion. The feedback does help to know
                I'm not completely wacked out, but I also try to explain your and the
                others' perspectives. Debate is fine, but I don't like discussions to
                become too polarized. It distorts the reality of the situation and
                often becomes personal.

                > So I was glad to see Bill's rant because it told me that maybe I wasn't
                > just having an ego crisis of my own.

                I was glad to see it because I know he said some things that other
                people were also thinking.

                >...
                > The word "respect" has been coming to mind as I read this, and over the
                > last couple of weeks. No one here has the right to demand "respect",
                > whether by virtue of long service, incredible intelligence, good looks,
                > outstanding writing ability, great sense of humor, or sexua1
                > prowess. Would that it were the case, as given that list I would surely be
                > elevated to the pantheon. ;->

                Uh, TMI about the prowess... ;-)

                > But one does sometimes want to feel respected, and one does very much
                > dislike to read postings which, by virtue of not listening and other
                > matters of tone, seem to offer the reverse.
                >
                > So if I was in that list of "you guys" ... thanks!

                Definitely. I will admit though that it can be sometimes difficult to
                interact with you. I think you know that already. :) One form of
                respect is to value what someone has to say (due to their experience,
                intelligence, ...). I wouldn't have invested as much time in these
                threads as I have if I didn't value learning more about your
                perspectives on the topics we've been discussing.
              • Brad Appleton
                ... I think that the resistance may have at least two perceived sources: - that person - that person s organization If the source of resistance is the
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
                  On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 02:29:55PM -0600, William E Caputo wrote:
                  > I often wonder why this advice is soooooooo difficult for some people to
                  > accept. I have given -- and seen given -- this advice literally for years
                  > on this list. Yet there is no shortage of people who come here and argue
                  > ad nauseam, against it. (interestingly enough, many of them later come
                  > back and start giving the same advice to newcomers).
                  >
                  > I suspect its an ego problem because [...]

                  I think that the resistance may have at least two perceived sources:
                  - that person
                  - that person's organization

                  If the source of resistance is the organization (or at least
                  if that person perceives it to be) then they will feel there
                  is no way they can get their team or mgr to adopt ALL the
                  practices all at once and want some kind of incremental path
                  for process migration to XP rather than all at once (evolution
                  rather than revolution).

                  If the source of the resistance really is primarily from the
                  person, perhaps it is a matter of ego. Then again maybe it
                  isn't. I also wonder if feeling respected (even feeling one's
                  experience/knowledge should be respected) is really an issue
                  of ego or not.

                  I forget who originally founded the field of "transactional
                  analysis" within interpersonal dynamics, but I think they
                  broke things down into two basic types of interactions:
                  parent-child and peer-to-peer. Often someone taking on an
                  instructional/teaching role does so in a presumed form of
                  teacher-student interaction which essentially comes across as
                  parent-child to the other person (at least according to the
                  theory :-)

                  Often a great many folks will resist by tuning-out or
                  turning-off (flight) or refuting (fight) if they feel they are
                  being treated like the child in a parent-child interaction. It
                  may not even matter one whit whether or not they feel they
                  have a lot of experience/knowledge. It just doesn't feel
                  respectful to them and comes across as arrogant rather than
                  "humbly" knowledgeable - and they aren't about to take advice
                  they perceive to be given in that tone.

                  --
                  Brad Appleton <brad@...> www.bradapp.net
                  Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
                  Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
                  "And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost
                • yahoogroups@jhrothjr.com
                  From: Brad Appleton Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [XP] ego (was the value of
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
                    From: "Brad Appleton" <brad.at.bradapp.net@...>
                    Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 8:57 PM
                    Subject: Re: [XP] ego (was the value of splitting stories)


                    >
                    > I forget who originally founded the field of "transactional
                    > analysis" within interpersonal dynamics,

                    Eric Berne.

                    > but I think they
                    > broke things down into two basic types of interactions:
                    > parent-child and peer-to-peer. Often someone taking on an
                    > instructional/teaching role does so in a presumed form of
                    > teacher-student interaction which essentially comes across as
                    > parent-child to the other person (at least according to the
                    > theory :-)

                    TA is a bit more complicated than that, but not a whole lot.
                    It's also a gross oversimplification of how subpersonalities
                    work, but that's rather far afield for this list.

                    > Often a great many folks will resist by tuning-out or
                    > turning-off (flight) or refuting (fight) if they feel they are
                    > being treated like the child in a parent-child interaction. It
                    > may not even matter one whit whether or not they feel they
                    > have a lot of experience/knowledge. It just doesn't feel
                    > respectful to them and comes across as arrogant rather than
                    > "humbly" knowledgeable - and they aren't about to take advice
                    > they perceive to be given in that tone.

                    Exactly. That's one place where Berne got it right on. The
                    fact is, most kids will tune out adults that do that.

                    John Roth
                  • Ron Jeffries
                    ... I was hoping for two by now. Why didn t you vote for me? ;- Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Learn the principle, abide by the principle, and dissolve
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
                      On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 8:12:13 PM, Steve Bate wrote:

                      >> I'd like everyone to accept and adopt whatever answers I give. ;->

                      > Ok, one vote for accepting and adopting all Ron's answers. :-)

                      I was hoping for two by now. Why didn't you vote for me? ;->

                      Ron Jeffries
                      www.XProgramming.com
                      Learn the principle, abide by the principle, and dissolve the principle.
                      -- Bruce Lee
                    • Ron Jeffries
                      ... No, usually I have not had that impression from your postings. Anyway, it doesn t matter now, we re on some other plane, I hope the same one. ... Yes.
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
                        On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 8:12:13 PM, Steve Bate wrote:

                        >> Failing that, I'd like to see replies that sound like real effort
                        >> has been made to understand and dig into what I'm on about, rather
                        >> than just trying to refute it. (I'm not saying that you personally
                        >> have done that, and don't have an instance in mind.)

                        > I understand. If you've gotten that impression from me it may be
                        > because we've been talking at two different levels. I've felt the same
                        > way about some of the responses to my messages, probably for the same
                        > reason.

                        No, usually I have not had that impression from your postings. Anyway, it
                        doesn't matter now, we're on some other plane, I hope the same one.

                        > At other times, it may be more an issue of whether I accept the "good
                        > enough" answer (from you or myself) rather than digging deeper for the
                        > excellent one.

                        Yes. There is this thing where someone feels it's time for good enough, and
                        someone else, often me, wants to press for excellent. I wonder if there
                        should be a signal for that, like saying "Stop, good enough for me for now,
                        you pushy b*st*rd." It would have to be something subtle like that ...

                        > Hopefully you didn't think I was rude in my responses. I was making a
                        > real effort not to be. I didn't see any "rudeness objections", so I'll
                        > assume you didn't take them that way.

                        I have not felt that you were rude. I believe we both got a little edgy
                        sometimes, but no offense was taken here.

                        > Like you, I've been feeling like
                        > my best efforts have been rejected or twisted beyond recognition and I
                        > agree it doesn't feel good. I've received a few rants from lurkers
                        > about the other side of the discussion.

                        OK ... I do sometimes become aware that there is some behind the scenes
                        chatter on this channel. Folks can only be affected by what they can read,
                        so until it comes to foreground, most of us can't learn from it.

                        > The feedback does help to know
                        > I'm not completely wacked out, but I also try to explain your and the
                        > others' perspectives. Debate is fine, but I don't like discussions to
                        > become too polarized. It distorts the reality of the situation and
                        > often becomes personal.

                        Yes. It is so hard to press on for agreement without causing polarization.
                        I wish I were better at it, but to get better at it I'd have to be much
                        better at listening to Dale and others like him. For some reason that's
                        very difficult for me.

                        > Definitely. I will admit though that it can be sometimes difficult to
                        > interact with you. I think you know that already. :) One form of
                        > respect is to value what someone has to say (due to their experience,
                        > intelligence, ...). I wouldn't have invested as much time in these
                        > threads as I have if I didn't value learning more about your
                        > perspectives on the topics we've been discussing.

                        Yes, I am familiar with the fact that many otherwise capable people seem to
                        have difficulty interacting with me, especially electronically. I'm not
                        sure what is so consistently wrong with so many of them ... ;->

                        Take care ... and oh, by the way, Happy New Year, everyone!

                        Ron Jeffries
                        www.XProgramming.com
                        Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
                        The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
                        is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
                      • Dale Emery
                        Hi Ron, ... Three things. First, would it help if I were more of a pushy b*st*rd? :-) Second, there are no others like me. Third, I m not very good at
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
                          Hi Ron,

                          > I wish I were better at it, but to get better at it I'd have
                          > to be much better at listening to Dale and others like him.
                          > For some reason that's very difficult for me.

                          Three things. First, would it help if I were more of a pushy
                          b*st*rd? :-)

                          Second, there are no others like me.

                          Third, I'm not very good at listening to me, either.

                          Dale

                          --
                          Dale Emery -- Consultant -- Resistance as a Resource
                          Web: http://www.dhemery.com
                          Weblog: http://www.dhemery.com/cwd (Conversations with Dale)

                          Problems worthy / of attack / prove their worth / by hitting
                          back. --Piet Hein
                        • Ron Jeffries
                          ... Hard to say ... sometimes it helps me, sometimes it doesn t ... ... True. There are some with similar values and messages, however. ... What? Ron Jeffries
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 1, 2004
                            On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 10:55:58 PM, Dale Emery wrote:

                            > Hi Ron,

                            >> I wish I were better at it, but to get better at it I'd have
                            >> to be much better at listening to Dale and others like him.
                            >> For some reason that's very difficult for me.

                            > Three things. First, would it help if I were more of a pushy
                            > b*st*rd? :-)

                            Hard to say ... sometimes it helps me, sometimes it doesn't ...

                            > Second, there are no others like me.

                            True. There are some with similar values and messages, however.

                            > Third, I'm not very good at listening to me, either.

                            What?

                            Ron Jeffries
                            www.XProgramming.com
                            The practices are not the knowing: they are a path to the knowing.
                          • Brad Appleton
                            ... I ve noticed a lot of adults tune out when other adults do that too :-) -- Brad Appleton www.bradapp.net Software CM Patterns
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 2, 2004
                              On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 09:37:46PM -0500, yahoogroups@... wrote:
                              > From: "Brad Appleton"
                              > > Often a great many folks will resist by tuning-out or
                              > > turning-off (flight) or refuting (fight) if they feel they are
                              > > being treated like the child in a parent-child interaction. It
                              > > may not even matter one whit whether or not they feel they
                              > > have a lot of experience/knowledge. It just doesn't feel
                              > > respectful to them and comes across as arrogant rather than
                              > > "humbly" knowledgeable - and they aren't about to take advice
                              > > they perceive to be given in that tone.
                              >
                              > Exactly. That's one place where Berne got it right on. The
                              > fact is, most kids will tune out adults that do that.

                              I've noticed a lot of adults tune out when other adults do that too :-)
                              --
                              Brad Appleton <brad@...> www.bradapp.net
                              Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
                              Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
                              "And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.