Argument Cultures and Unregulated Aggression
kateheddleston.com
kateheddleston.com
If we accept all beliefs as provisional and only look to the argument as a method of hypothesis testing, it can be part of a group's rational process.
However in my opinion the best way to approach group decision making is to acknowledge that all decisions have tradeoffs and then evaluate various ideas based on their relative tradeoffs.
Teams with a bullying culture find the tradeoff matrix annoying because it deflates the intimidation tactics that some members use to get their way and shut other people down. For an example just bring up Mongodb.
Yes exactly. If only people were more rational, solution oriented, and humble. Engineering is about design within tradeoffs.
It's also helpful to take an iterated "2 pass approach" the argumentation/evaluation phase: first have everyone state their arguments, then isolate the important criteria upon which the proposed alternatives truly differ (e.g., team familiarity, fitness to application area) and try to establish how these are related and make sure these criteria are related to the end goal (e.g., quality product delivered on time and at cost). Then throw out any arguments that aren't related to the most salient criteria and iterate. This is a useful decision making process even when you're arguing with yourself.
However, divorcing advocate from advocacy is not always a good idea because it assumes everyone in the room has the same set of experiences. This is never the case; people often suggest a particular solution precisely because they understand that solution (or a proposed alternative) well enough to have an experience-backed opinion; others in the room might not have the same experience, and so are unlikely to make the same arguments for/against a solution as other team members.
In general, the problem isn't argumentation. Argumentation, broadly defined, will hopefully always happen whenever two mutually exclusive options are on the table. It is unavoidable unless you're willing to engineer by coin flip. The problem is ego and lack of respect and empathy.
When team members respect and have empathy for one another, argumentation won't lead to these problems. Similarly, a lack of respect and empathy or an inflated ego cannot be solved by mediation of particular arguments; it's a larger issue that should be dealt with on its own terms.
The previous company I worked for was the exact opposite, probably a good example for the sort of aggressive and argumentative company the article talks about. Things got done, but the atmosphere was not very good. It helped to be dominant and make a lot of noise.
The writer tries to push for the environment she'd like as the best possible way of achieving whatever that needs achieving, but having worked for several companies on either end of that spectrum, I don't think it's all that clear cut. You might like a non-confrontational style, only positivity and no competing, but I don't think that's a company where everyone wants to work or that would do well in every market.
Finally, I don't want to argue ;) -- but the word aggression is very ambiguous and some of the examples refer rather to violence (war, physical aggression) rather than with fighting spirit (like an athlete).
There's so much wrong with a culture of aggressive arguing it's hard to know where to start but consider this: we've got plenty of research that tells us that women are disproportionately disliked if they act in an aggressive manner. Men, on the other hand, are often seen as being "winners" or "leaders" with _the same behaviour_. So you're de facto running a misogynistic culture by promoting this behaviour.
And if there's much better ways for your firm to win than be more aggressive than your competitors. There's serving your customers for a start.
"An argument is the use of aggressive opposition to weed out weak logic, keeping the strongest ideas possible. The philosophy behind using arguments for problem-solving is that attacking the weak parts of an idea will leave the best solutions."
I'm with you so far. Being able to distinguish good from bad is the basis of critical thought.
"The metaphor for argument in our culture is war. We think of people we argue with as opponents ..."
I know a lot of people who do this, but I certainly don't, and I consider it a sign of maturity when somebody is able to separate ideas from egos. Remember, we started off by talking about the good and bad parts of ideas; not good and bad people. It's not a fight, it's a collaboration to share perspectives and discover new insight.
"... we attack their position and defend our own, we can gain or lose ground, and ultimately we can win or lose arguments—just like battles"
Whether you're focusing on the idea, or the person who generated it, there's really no use in considering them an opponent, and even less use in framing things in terms of winning or losing. Ideas don't "compete" with each other, any more than 1 and 2 compete to see which is the bigger number. There's only truth. If you're winning or losing, you've already missed the point and you're focusing on the wrong thing.
I think "aggression" is unfortunately not the real problem here, the real problem is that people often aren't mature enough to admit they're wrong, or to consider another person's perspective, or to say "I don't know".
I don't want to focus on this aspect of the article, but I find it really discouraging to continually see these articles which try to spin things in terms of gender. Developing this "men vs women" perspective is exactly the kind of "adversarial mind" the author denounces in the introduction.
If you truly feel like you & your work environment do have such pure-truth-seeking arguments: great. However, please take some time to really critically evaluate & test that assertion -- the people who are most at home in such an environment are the people least likely to notice its negative effects on other team members & potential hires. I'm speaking from experience here: I love arguing (or "debating" as I prefer to think of it), and have been on plenty of teams where it was a common interaction. It was only with some time, helpful feedback from my direct reports, and critical examination that I was really able to see the subtle ways in which it was hurting our org.
Re: gender -- I hope you see why gender was brought up in the article. No, it was not some "spin" or needless us vs. them. Women are, as the article states, the canary in the coal mine of toxic & aggressive interpersonal dynamics. Not because of any weaknesses of women, but rather because men have been shown over and over again to reject the arguments of assertive women no matter their merits, and to accept the same arguments from equally assertive men instead (cited in the article). In other words: an argumentative environment is one which punishes women by putting them in a position where their peers judge them in a gendered way.
I guess I am having trouble appreciating the relation of this article to gender, for two reasons.
1. The author is claiming that "men are aggressive" and then claiming that "aggression" is the problem, so the point of the article really seemed to be "men are the problem". I find this in some ways offensive, especially since I (a man) think that I don't do the things mentioned in the article. Maybe I'm overreacting to being accused of something based on my gender.
2. The author states "Crossing boundaries and using aggression to win an argument includes making personal remarks, interrupting, speaking much more loudly than an opponent, or entering someone's personal space." I completely agree that these behaviors are unacceptable. But, I think that these are all gender neutral behaviors, and it harms people of any gender when they are used against them. Is it really important to designate men as the ones who must follow these rules?
It's almost a tautology that unregulated aggression is a bad idea and should be dealt with.
but -
If you have an idea, how do you know it's a bad idea? That requires critical engagement, taking it apart, putting it back together and performing analysis on it. Doing this well will involve some fairly in-depth reasoning and questioning. If someone is losing their temper in that process, then (1) they are too sensitive/protective and/or (2) someone's being a jerk to the offended party and it's time to knock it off. Egofree programming is an old ideal, but not a bad one.
I also retain the mildly heretical notion that a really and truly aggressive environment about code, design, and the quality thereof is probably a more enjoyable place to work than one that focuses on relationships and keeping them smooth. Wrong stuff is wrong, and should be called out and removed. IMO. :)
I don't have any comments about gender here, because any gender comment will draw down 'unregulated aggression', and I'm tired of reading such.
I'm an engineer. I've been online for over 30 years, including Usenet days, and I never even once saw such a "meme".
This is slander, and I object to it.
The study this observation is derived from only talks about competitions of physical ability.
If your answer is b), what evidence do you have to support this?
A claim requires evidence, skepticism is just asking for evidence to support a claim. B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly.
Of course, I would expect men to be more competitive with women in a number of areas (not just grade school PE races) based on my limited experience and the cited study, but where's the evidence?
edit: speeling
Just following along with you guys. B is another claim because it is not disbelief, it is a negative claim:
> b) to think that it does not.
Maybe you misinterpreted it on reading, but it's very clearly not simply disbelief, it is rejection. Neutral disbelief (read: skepticism) would be to take neither position a nor b.
> The study this observation is derived from only talks about competitions of physical ability.
This doesn't say anything about disproving the extrapolation to other areas of competition, it's just pointing out the problem with relying on the cited study for the assertions made. In that sense, I think it's fairly neutral. I tried to make it clear, but probably not clear enough:
> B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly.
By "paraphrase it fairly," I was referring to proveanegative's comment, when paraphrased in context and while honoring it's implied skepticism, as opposed to rejection.
gress had rewritten it as a statement of rejection:
> a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not
Although now that you point it out, maybe we've been talking past each other. As I stated above, I think it's reasonable to assume based on gut heuristics that this competition extends beyond the gym. However a new burden of evidence is assumed when one cites studies to grant apparent legitimacy to one's argument. I don't think that burden of evidence has been met here.
"Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this drug works for other diseases, or b) to think that it does not.
If your answer is b), what evidence do you have to support this?"
If not, why apply it when discussing human behavior?
"Men compete more against men than against women, but compete against women who are thought to compete."
these are 2 different races. In the first case a boy runs to avoid shame. In the second - to win. The second is a real competition, while the first isn't even a race really, more just like running from a bear.
Agree that both options are off the table now and that a third solution must be found.
Normally if there is an argument both parties do have actual legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. The problem is that often once you get into argument mode, your ability to be creative and modify your solution to fit the other persons concerns can go out the window.
By removing both options you can go back into creative mode.
A lot of the time when doing this we actually have arrived at a much better idea than either of the two presented before that makes us both happy.
Often you end up settling on an idea that is 95% the same as what one of the people suggested in the first place, only now it also addresses the concerns of the other person too and they will now feel on board with it, which is a much better situation than if one person had "won" the argument leaving the other bitter.
"Winning" on an engineering team needs to be "we built a great product quickly", not "I made the team do things my way".
This is hard, and your first task is to be a person who thinks and acts that way. If you never had to change how you approach and think about things, you're probably not doing that.
When you are angry/frustrated, you can't think clearly. So if someone has reached that point, it's very hard to have a productive discussion.
This is true. Lots of men feel humiliated and experience a loss of status when they're defeated by a woman, which effectively means women can't engage with men in that way. That's because the company culture or the men they work with have sexist beliefs.
One workaround is banning arguments. But if you have the power to change the culture that way, why not just ban sexism? That seems like it would do more good.
I think the problem is that people just suck in general and a lot of people are seeing it as man vs women.
More than two interesting people, with different backgrounds and beliefs should always argue. It is a great thing for any institution.
Arguments discard weak ideas before the market does. If the market does you have already spent enormous amount of money.
This should not be confused with keeping it civilized. My main job as a manager was keeping a great environment for discussion.
Good quality debate and discussion should be teached in schools, like in ancient Greece, when they were trained to defend their position, and then to defend the opposite. This forces you to understand the other side.
Like in marriage, a great marriage does not mean no arguments, because if there are no arguments it means simply that one party is surrendering to the other. You can love and respect the other person and disagree, listen to the other party, understand what they tell you and take a shared decision.
No arguments in a company means design by committee. Everybody's opinion is equal an usually this means disaster, unless the people in the Round table are already preselected like King Arthur's.
Brainstorming is something that you do before arguing. First you are not critical, you expose all ideas that you have, you are creative, not rational, but at the end end of the process you start trimming, cutting for getting to decisions(witch etymologically means to cut branches) based on rational decisions that make some ideas stand and the others perish.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1fix14_bbc-atom-1-the-clas...
People like Edison getting mad with a young genius that was ALSO right. All of those physicist fighting each other using arguments.
the author probably has no idea about some wrestling and in general war strategies. In many cases you don't need to aggressively attack the opponent. Just let him fall using his own impulse and under his own weight... you can even help him by adding to his impulse (like in many cases in judo :) In corporate environment - just let the opponent develop his great idea in details, ask helpful questions about inter- and intra- component integration, performance, suggest the opponent do quick POC demonstrating all these great characteristics of their idea ...
If a participant is a member of a group that is stereotyped as "aggressive", and that individual is accused of aggression, is this accusation automatically an invocation of the stereotype -- and therefore an unfair attack? If not, how do we separate such an accusation from one that truly rests only on the individual's behavior?
This motion was always going to pass unopposed But Alan stood up and did a passionate 4 minute tour deforce speech that is the only time I have seen a real standing ovation
I'm a huge fan of Deborah Tannen, not least because I grew up in a household with a lot of verbal and physical aggression so I am painfully aware of how awful arguments can get and why arguing is soften a one-way street for the participants. and after studying her work I found some techniques that seem to work well during face-to-face disputes to de-escalate things without going passive-aggressive. the downside is that t's time-consuming and hard work.
If someone is yelling at me and it's something more than some momentary misunderstanding that can be established and then set aside, then I just let them yell. After a while the lack of reply leads them to run out of steam, at which point I ask, politely, whether they're finished. Maybe they are, or maybe this unleashes another tirade. So far nobody has offered a third one :-) Once they say they are finished, now I have some time to talk - because they said so themselves. And instead of arguing with them or expressing my own view, or characterizing their emotional state (even positively), I try to summarize their complaint as fairly as possible, eg 'So you're saying that after I went into the kitchen to cook dinner, I set your hose on fire and burned it to the ground - is that correct?'*
I try to articulate the person's basic complaint in full, while ignoring any ancillary stuff (eg remarks about why I'm a bad person or that my mother wears army boots or that the person doesn't care for the horse I rode in on either). The point of this is to build agreement with the other person about what they said. Although I may go on to dispute it, this shows the other person that I did actually listen to them, and that I paid sufficient attention to what they were saying that I can be trusted to accurately report their own claims back to them. Sometimes it turns out that I've failed to understand something important - either how much they cared about something or some actual fact that I got wrong, so I might have to concede the argument at this point, or concede some part of it. That's OK; the point of this is not to win, but to bring an end to the conflict, and if that end disadvantages me that's my problem.
If I am going to disagree, there's two different ways that could happen. If it's about some factual issue, then I try to go back with the other person to before the dispute arose, and establish the last thing prior that we do agree about, in the same way that I secured their agreement about the basic content of their argument. This allows us (not me) to identifying the point where our experiences diverge. Maybe it's a simple misunderstanding which could then be cleared up, or maybe it stems from some difference of opinion; in the latter case I outline as briefly as possible what I thought that was different from what they thought. If they attack me for that I accept it, but reiterate that that was the opinion I held at the time, right or wrong, and show how it informed my subsequent actions/beliefs/whatever. That part usually goes smoothly because most people are familiar with the way large consequences can flow from small differences. The aim then is to identify the smallest difference that existed, before the consequences became significant, and work with the other person to understand how it arose. Making the point of disagreement as small as possible usually allows the conflict to be made smaller as well, to the point that it can be resolved without the 'losing' side having to feel humiliated. Even if I was right and the other person was wrong, I try to pass over that as quickly as possible and ask what I could do differently in future to ensure the situation does not recur.
The other sort of disagreement is one of conflicting aims rather than conflicting narratives; we're in conflict because we want different things, or both want an exclusive right o the same thing, or because of some fundamentally different belief. In this istuation I try a similar approach - get the opponent's agreement about my attempt to fairly summarize their premises, then articulate my own premises. Even if my opponent rejects them utterly I just accept that, but state gently that my premises are as firmly held as theirs, and try to articulate (and seek agreement for) what the contours of the resulting disagreement will be, ie that we may not be able to resolve the dispute, but we can minimize its scope, rather than attempting to win by throwing in other irrelevant stuff, up to and including the kitchen sink (a phrase which I feel sure originates in the accusation that not only is one party in a marriage having an affair or doing something equally bad, s/he also does a terrible job of washing dishes). This is of course even more time-consuming, because the conflict hasn't been resolved, but by gradually (and mutually) whittling it down to a minimum number of irreconcilable differences, and if possible, quantifying the value assigned to victory or loss (eg 'So you are saying that you will only feel satisfied if you are allowed to burn my house to the ground in turn, yes?'), it allows for letting the emotions out slowly in the same way as you'd let the air out of an over-inflated balloon, rather than having it pop (resulting in irreparable damage) or go whizzing randomly all over the room (with unforeseeable consequences, eg things getting knocked over). Although you're still in conflict, it's now a cooler conflict than it was before, and importantly, your opponent acknowledges, however grudgingly, the fact of your agency and your right occupy a conflicting position. At this point you can start negotiating approaches to resolution (eg going to court) or containment (eg agreeing to kick the can down the road, something countries often do over disputed territories where neither side wants to give up a claim but they don't actually want to go to war over it, so they agree to disagree).
I think that one of the primary difficulties for us as a species is our capacity to become addicted to particular hormonal experiences; our capacity for narrative in many ways serves the purpose of generating the release of hormones in predictable patterns, and it could be argued that ritualized activities or formulaic stories are a way of domesticating and channeling that. The best way to deal with someone else trying to make you into the villain of their personal story is to become familiar enough with their story that you can tell it back to them in a manner that they recognize. By identifying the driving factors between different actors and distilling the basis of the ensuring conflict to the most fundamental identifiable form, the basis for resolution (or at worst, mitigation) often becomes clear.
* I would like to point out that I have never set anyone's house on fire and you could totally trust me to cook dinner. This example is fortunately drawn from imagination rather than experience.
“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.” Issac Asimov
The only valid complaint in the article is that people judge assertive women more negatively than assertive men, which is true and unfortunate.
It's also amusing that she blames engineer's arguing for the competitive atmosphere, while being from the US, which has this hyper-competitive capitalist culture, which I rather despise and I am not the only engineer who does. (Another fun fact - I am native Czech speaker, and we have two different words for "argument" - "debata" and "hadka", the former implying a civil one, the other one meaning one where people are angry at each other. I am not really sure which meaning the article uses, and I pretty firmly against the latter - being a sensitive male, but I greatly enjoy the former.)
The article is very clever in one thing, though. Now anyone who argues with it can be labelled as aggressive (or terrorist?). Humans and their mindgames, so funny.
The problem is that it's the author's responsibility to disambiguate between the possible meanings, and the author of this article makes no such attempt. In fact, it seems like she's conflating the two and implying that they are one and the same -- i.e. that if you competitively evaluate ideas by (calmly or not) debating them, you are automatically engaging in a fight.
- Righteous indignation
- Example with sample size of 1
- Half-hearted praise
- Jocular, superior tone
- Name calling Zinger
But everything I wrote was honest. I, being a leftist anarchist, am probably more for equal and harmonic society than the author is. For instance, I wish there was no authority from power, and the companies were run democratically.
This makes sense b/c you seem to find the demagoguery in the video you linked appealing. While it is important to advocate for a position in a technical discussion, the ideal outcome is not emotional persuasion (as in politics) but a wider rational understanding among members of the group.
> don't take these arguments too seriously, because they are not
I think it depends. Usually the people whose tactics cause intimidation are not all that aware of it. Yes in an ideal world we could all undertake vociferous argument and have all participants contribute to their full potential -- but unfortunately an open forum argument culture will easily defer to the loudest or most intimidating voice even if the words coming out are not the smartest or most rational.
Would you say the guy in the video is aggressive? He certainly speaks loudly and authoritatively, and uses a lot of emotional words and shortcuts.
Of course the answer is no. The article confuses, quite thoroughly, aggression and passion. That's why I said "she's reading too much into it", because she reads "aggression" where she should just probably read "passion".
If a company's engineering culture is anything like that I'd be worried.
> The article confuses, quite thoroughly, aggression and passion.
Not necessarily. The speech doesn't have to be deliberately aggressive to still create the negative effects that stifle rationality and make it more difficult to rationally analyze the problem/decision.
Yeah, perhaps if you want fully rational discussion, then emotions are counterproductive. But should that mean we should have this sterile environment without any passion? And does showing a passion really means aggression? I just don't think so.
- Sometimes one person's emotion turns into bluster that can be unwittingly intimidating to others.
- Emotions should be an input into a meta-rational process, not something that can override it.
- The goal here is getting the most buy-in and problem solving out of a group of people. In my experience going into a decision with eyes open about the tradeoffs is always a good thing.
"Debata" is even just one letter away from "debate"
The article is not talking about constructive debate. The article is talking about emotional dominance. Not a question of debating the merits of one thing and holding a position and defending it against legitimate questions.
Instead it's talking about making threatening and emotional overtures in order to get the other party to submit. She belabors that point in the first paragraphs to make sure that's what's being conveyed.
It's not a matter of having a correct opinion, it's about acting in a way that causes another person to concede, maybe because they don't want to fight. I'm certain you've been in a meeting where someone in a position of authority has told you to do something that you didn't agree with, in a harsh tone of voice, and you've done it because despite the fact that you didn't agree with it, it wasn't worth the fight.
Maybe you have spoken up about it but despite the fact that your argument is better, his is louder and he has authority over you, so you submit.
Now move that situation to co-workers on an otherwise equal level, now you try to debate, but your co-worker starts to very stubborn and raises his voice. You don't want to make a scene so you back down.
Now say you don't really want to back down. He raises his voice, so you try to rationally discuss the merits of your idea and he just keeps parroting his idea loudly and angrily, maybe you stick in a jibe about how he is getting too emotional, maybe not, but at this point you know you can't just debate, you have to beat him at a different game. You either make him self-conscious, or you make him feel weaker than you by yelling over him. Your only other option is to submit.
This is something I see in normal day to day work. Not outright yelling, but the power dynamic of "I disagree with you, but I'm not willing to engage in an escalating fight, so I'll let you have your way."
Unfortunately, if you're in a situation where that kind of culture dominates, someone who always backs down will never get their way. You can't win through rationality in those circumstances. The only way you can win is to represent a more dominant position than the other person. This is a strictly emotional scenario and because of it it does suck for women. Because while a guy might tolerate being outdebated by a woman, to be socially dominated by a woman is something that is still really taboo.
I mean, if two stubborn men both hold a position, both believing themselves to be right, and they both raise their voices, and one guy ends up making the other back down by belittling him and making him feel it's not worth the fight, that's annoying, it's awkward, but it's sometimes life.
On the other hand if a stubborn man and a woman hold differing positions, and they both raise their voices, and the woman ends up making the man back down by belittling him and making him feel that it's not worth the fight, well that's a terrible thing. She's got to be some sort of crazy bitch to not listen to his opinion rationally.
And flipping that around, if a the man ends up making the woman back down by belittling her and making her feel it's not worth the fight, then the woman feels like it's a terrible thing, but people tell her that she should have stood up for herself more, that she needs to be more assertive, that it's her fault that he won the battle.
But the whole thing is that the article is not talking about the "debata" side of things. The article is talking about the "hadka" side of things. About forcing your opponent to submit to your idea, not because you have convinced them through fair discussion, but because you undermine your opponent's credibility, resort to ad hominems, and use personal attacks.
She's not talking about whether talking with co-workers about the merits of some tool is bad or not. Simply about the culture of "I'm right because nobody is willing to say I'm wrong".
I also am not sure what you mean about "It's also amusing that she blames engineer's arguing for the competitive atmosphere, while being from the US, which has this hyper-competitive capitalist culture, which I rather despise and I am not the only engineer who does"
The culture that she's talking about is a US trait, and if you despise it, I'm wondering why you're arguing against it. Maybe you feel that she is generalizing to you, or other countries?
I think you might just be misunderstanding the article. She's not talking about disagreements or logic. She's talking about, in her own words "The use of aggressive opposition", which is using "personal remarks, interrupting, speaking much more loudly, entering someone's personal space" as opposed to "logic, facts and better information."
If you are in a situation where that never happens, then great, you're not the people that she's talking about. I've seen workplaces that operate very much entirely on the rule of aggressive social dominance, to ones that are very rationally handled. It really depends on management and culture. American startup culture is often described as much more like the former. A lot of arrogance and little management expertise. A lot of young people and little perspective.
But she's not saying that challenging other people's opinions is wrong. She's saying that a culture where what is right is decided by who is the person who people are most afraid to stand up to is dangerous. Look for example of how lauded Steve Jobs is and how tyrannical he was to his employees. You don't get into an argument with him, you don't even want to get his attention. Not because you might be wrong, but because he has more power than you and you'll just end up fired. There's no rational business reason for that decision, but he did like to show that he had the power to make you sink or swim.
In cases where you are arguing with peers, I think people back off in debates in cases where their own argument is not very strong. If I tell someone strong in Java, say, let's do it this way, and he (loudly) says "no way", without explanation, I may think, "OK, this guy knows Java really well, I respect his authority on the matter, then probably my idea is not very good". And I may decide to drop it, not worry about it, and do more useful things. If I think I have a strong argument, I may pursue it and let him explain his reasoning. This is actually not submitting to authority, it's respecting it. If I think he doesn't know Java, I would always pursue. It may be sometimes wrong to do it, but it's also very efficient most of the time, not to have endless debates with people who know what they are doing. That's why it's always a call, and if you want to be really professional, you should not be afraid to pursue a good argument, regardless of what the other party is doing. (And if you work for a boss/authority who doesn't recognize it, I suggest change of job.)
I work for American company, and I can tell you, American act far more "professionally" than Czechs, and sometimes it is indeed really nice. Czechs are also a bit more honest - if they feel something is wrong, they will tell you straight. So trust me, what she describes has not much to do with competitivness.
Now what? :-(