Skip to main content
Commonmark migration
Source Link

##Criticism and disagreement versus contempt

Criticism and disagreement versus contempt

The most important point for me as product manager and the recipient of much of the feedback (constructive and not) on various metas is how the feedback is delivered. We aren't going to agree all the time. That's okay. But how we disagree and how that disagreement is communicated says a lot about who will listen to the feedback and even who you are communicating to with the feedback.

Serendipity is amazing. The other day I was listening to a political podcast and it made this point so much better than I could.

Civil disagreement is where you want the other person to hear you and the other person to respond. Uncivil disagreement, which is contempt based, is one in which you're playing to your own audience. - Ezra Klein Show on How to disagree better

An occasional problem with comments and answers on meta is that they seem more interested in scoring points (actual and metaphorical). Instead of responding to the post, they speak to others who are equally upset about whatever product/UX change is being made. The result is that the commenter uses over the top language, denigrates the changes and or the people who made them, calls into question their abilities and shows general contempt for my team.

This approach may get up votes, but those votes don't influence the product team. A respectful argument will.

When changes occur, they will be in response to feedback that:

  • explains their perspective/use case,
  • considers available information on the motives for and goals of the changes, and
  • treats the recipient of the feedback as a valuable, intelligent and capable human being.

There are two things that the community can do that will help to combat this problem:

  1. Work to edit out unhelpful language from post.
  2. and, I like to respectfully ask you to hit the reset button on our relationship.

My team is committed to improving Q&A for you and all our users. If we can let some of the stuff from the past go and work together to develop mutual trust, then we can collaborate and make significant enhancements to the sites that you love.

##Criticism and disagreement versus contempt

The most important point for me as product manager and the recipient of much of the feedback (constructive and not) on various metas is how the feedback is delivered. We aren't going to agree all the time. That's okay. But how we disagree and how that disagreement is communicated says a lot about who will listen to the feedback and even who you are communicating to with the feedback.

Serendipity is amazing. The other day I was listening to a political podcast and it made this point so much better than I could.

Civil disagreement is where you want the other person to hear you and the other person to respond. Uncivil disagreement, which is contempt based, is one in which you're playing to your own audience. - Ezra Klein Show on How to disagree better

An occasional problem with comments and answers on meta is that they seem more interested in scoring points (actual and metaphorical). Instead of responding to the post, they speak to others who are equally upset about whatever product/UX change is being made. The result is that the commenter uses over the top language, denigrates the changes and or the people who made them, calls into question their abilities and shows general contempt for my team.

This approach may get up votes, but those votes don't influence the product team. A respectful argument will.

When changes occur, they will be in response to feedback that:

  • explains their perspective/use case,
  • considers available information on the motives for and goals of the changes, and
  • treats the recipient of the feedback as a valuable, intelligent and capable human being.

There are two things that the community can do that will help to combat this problem:

  1. Work to edit out unhelpful language from post.
  2. and, I like to respectfully ask you to hit the reset button on our relationship.

My team is committed to improving Q&A for you and all our users. If we can let some of the stuff from the past go and work together to develop mutual trust, then we can collaborate and make significant enhancements to the sites that you love.

Criticism and disagreement versus contempt

The most important point for me as product manager and the recipient of much of the feedback (constructive and not) on various metas is how the feedback is delivered. We aren't going to agree all the time. That's okay. But how we disagree and how that disagreement is communicated says a lot about who will listen to the feedback and even who you are communicating to with the feedback.

Serendipity is amazing. The other day I was listening to a political podcast and it made this point so much better than I could.

Civil disagreement is where you want the other person to hear you and the other person to respond. Uncivil disagreement, which is contempt based, is one in which you're playing to your own audience. - Ezra Klein Show on How to disagree better

An occasional problem with comments and answers on meta is that they seem more interested in scoring points (actual and metaphorical). Instead of responding to the post, they speak to others who are equally upset about whatever product/UX change is being made. The result is that the commenter uses over the top language, denigrates the changes and or the people who made them, calls into question their abilities and shows general contempt for my team.

This approach may get up votes, but those votes don't influence the product team. A respectful argument will.

When changes occur, they will be in response to feedback that:

  • explains their perspective/use case,
  • considers available information on the motives for and goals of the changes, and
  • treats the recipient of the feedback as a valuable, intelligent and capable human being.

There are two things that the community can do that will help to combat this problem:

  1. Work to edit out unhelpful language from post.
  2. and, I like to respectfully ask you to hit the reset button on our relationship.

My team is committed to improving Q&A for you and all our users. If we can let some of the stuff from the past go and work together to develop mutual trust, then we can collaborate and make significant enhancements to the sites that you love.

Source Link
Joe Friend StaffMod
  • 16.5k
  • 11
  • 58
  • 69

##Criticism and disagreement versus contempt

The most important point for me as product manager and the recipient of much of the feedback (constructive and not) on various metas is how the feedback is delivered. We aren't going to agree all the time. That's okay. But how we disagree and how that disagreement is communicated says a lot about who will listen to the feedback and even who you are communicating to with the feedback.

Serendipity is amazing. The other day I was listening to a political podcast and it made this point so much better than I could.

Civil disagreement is where you want the other person to hear you and the other person to respond. Uncivil disagreement, which is contempt based, is one in which you're playing to your own audience. - Ezra Klein Show on How to disagree better

An occasional problem with comments and answers on meta is that they seem more interested in scoring points (actual and metaphorical). Instead of responding to the post, they speak to others who are equally upset about whatever product/UX change is being made. The result is that the commenter uses over the top language, denigrates the changes and or the people who made them, calls into question their abilities and shows general contempt for my team.

This approach may get up votes, but those votes don't influence the product team. A respectful argument will.

When changes occur, they will be in response to feedback that:

  • explains their perspective/use case,
  • considers available information on the motives for and goals of the changes, and
  • treats the recipient of the feedback as a valuable, intelligent and capable human being.

There are two things that the community can do that will help to combat this problem:

  1. Work to edit out unhelpful language from post.
  2. and, I like to respectfully ask you to hit the reset button on our relationship.

My team is committed to improving Q&A for you and all our users. If we can let some of the stuff from the past go and work together to develop mutual trust, then we can collaborate and make significant enhancements to the sites that you love.