What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

I've seen this article before, but I've only just read it through and realised that the author's right, something that can seem harmless can have serious repercussions.

it's basically discussing the generalisation tht women are more emotional than men, and how men can dismiss the issues and focus on controlling the expression of the emotion rather than listening to women and addressing the underlying cause.

And how this can lead to serious accusations receiving a dismissive and sceptical response.

It reminded me of Freud, basing his Oedipus Complex on his dismissal of female patients' accounts of sexual abuse as children:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damon-young/men-just-dont-trust-women_b_6714280.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000046

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freudian_Coverup

[eFestivals]

23 hours ago, feral chile said:

I've seen this article before, but I've only just read it through and realised that the author's right, something that can seem harmless can have serious repercussions.

it's basically discussing the generalisation tht women are more emotional than men, and how men can dismiss the issues and focus on controlling the expression of the emotion rather than listening to women and addressing the underlying cause.

And how this can lead to serious accusations receiving a dismissive and sceptical response.

It reminded me of Freud, basing his Oedipus Complex on his dismissal of female patients' accounts of sexual abuse as children:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damon-young/men-just-dont-trust-women_b_6714280.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000046

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freudian_Coverup

And yet an emotional response isn't necessarily a logical response and therefore might not need addressing, and instead it can therefore be the expression that needs controlling.

I've not read the articles, but what I've laid out there can be at least as justifiable (dependent on the underlying issue, of course).

Just because someone might want pandering to doesn't mean they should have their wish fulfilled.

[feral chile]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And yet an emotional response isn't necessarily a logical response and therefore might not need addressing, and instead it can therefore be the expression that needs controlling.

I've not read the articles, but what I've laid out there can be at least as justifiable (dependent on the underlying issue, of course).

Just because someone might want pandering to doesn't mean they should have their wish fulfilled.

it's a very fine line, granted, between giving in to emotional blackmail and controlling behaviour, and dismissing genuine concerns.

The danger comes in not acknowledging feelings, though - even if you disagree with what's being said/felt, if you discuss it, at least, the person has been heard.

 

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, feral chile said:

The danger comes in not acknowledging feelings, though - even if you disagree with what's being said/felt, if you discuss it, at least, the person has been heard.

tho that presumes that there's someone who sees it as their job to acknowledge

Just because someone might be pissed off doesn't get to mean it's my job to care that they are.

[feral chile]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

tho that presumes that there's someone who sees it as their job to acknowledge

Just because someone might be pissed off doesn't get to mean it's my job to care that they are.

Ah, I'm talking about some kind of relationship - colleague, parent/child, friend, significant other - further than that, I think I'd try to see the other perspective, and explain mine. it doesn't mean you have to give in to someone's feelings, often understanding them helps you to make your refusal in a clearer way that they can't misinterpret.

I'm not talking about manipulation here, the opposite to game playing, in fact. And even recognising the passive aggression and the reasons for it, in manipulative people, can help to deal with them without escalating or capitulation.

This is me quoting theoretical advice, by the way, in practice I have at least as many bad habits and communication issues as everyone (which is exactly why I read this sort of stuff lol).

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Ah, I'm talking about some kind of relationship - colleague, parent/child, friend, significant other - further than that, I think I'd try to see the other perspective, and explain mine. it doesn't mean you have to give in to someone's feelings, often understanding them helps you to make your refusal in a clearer way that they can't misinterpret.

I'm not talking about manipulation here, the opposite to game playing, in fact. And even recognising the passive aggression and the reasons for it, in manipulative people, can help to deal with them without escalating or capitulation.

This is me quoting theoretical advice, by the way, in practice I have at least as many bad habits and communication issues as everyone (which is exactly why I read this sort of stuff lol).

But you're also talking about there being a valid reason behind why that person is pissed off.

A colleague can be pissed off, but nothing about that gets to mean they're right to be pissed off or that me as their colleague needs to address them being pissed off.

You say it's not about manipulation, but I disagree. What you mean is that it might not be *consciously* about manipulation, yet conciously or not it does manipulate people.

Your whole idea is based within presumptions around that emotional-ness which only actually apply to someone who has already bought into the place you're coming from - and the whole thing you're saying is trying to suggest that anyone who isn't already there is somehow faulty.

I say bollocks to that. You don't get to dictate what i think or feel, and what i think or feel is as valid as your own.

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But you're also talking about there being a valid reason behind why that person is pissed off.

A colleague can be pissed off, but nothing about that gets to mean they're right to be pissed off or that me as their colleague needs to address them being pissed off.

You say it's not about manipulation, but I disagree. What you mean is that it might not be *consciously* about manipulation, yet conciously or not it does manipulate people.

Your whole idea is based within presumptions around that emotional-ness which only actually apply to someone who has already bought into the place you're coming from - and the whole thing you're saying is trying to suggest that anyone who isn't already there is somehow faulty.

I say bollocks to that. You don't get to dictate what i think or feel, and what i think or feel is as valid as your own.

Valid from whose perspective? If a colleague is pissed off, you'd need to know what impact the situation is having on them. (That is their validity). Then you need to explain the other side (yours if you're the colleague they're pissed off about, the needs of the business if it's a business decision). That is the validity of the cause of the pissed-off reaction.

Then see if there's a compromise around it, depending on what the impact is. Sometimes it's just a discussion to say the situation is unavoidable, giving the rationale.

most pissed-offedness comes from feelings of powerlessness, so yes, I agree it's to do with control, or the lack of it, and feelings of autonomy. Sometimes this can be mitigated by explaining properly, because then the pissed off person is included in the decision instead of feling like it's been imposed on them.

This is idealistic, I realise this.

And also 'consultation' has to be sincere, not box-ticking. or else the pissed off quotient rises even further, because you can add being patronised to the list of grievances

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Valid from whose perspective? If a colleague is pissed off, you'd need to know what impact the situation is having on them. (That is their validity). Then you need to explain the other side (yours if you're the colleague they're pissed off about, the needs of the business if it's a business decision). That is the validity of the cause of the pissed-off reaction.

Then see if there's a compromise around it, depending on what the impact is. Sometimes it's just a discussion to say the situation is unavoidable, giving the rationale.

most pissed-offedness comes from feelings of powerlessness, so yes, I agree it's to do with control, or the lack of it, and feelings of autonomy. Sometimes this can be mitigated by explaining properly, because then the pissed off person is included in the decision instead of feling like it's been imposed on them.

This is idealistic, I realise this.

And also 'consultation' has to be sincere, not box-ticking. or else the pissed off quotient rises even further, because you can add being patronised to the list of grievances

You're placing obligations onto other people, when other people are not responsible for that person's emotion (dependent on circumstances, of course).

 

Edited December 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

You're placing obligations onto other people, when other people are not responsible for that person's emotion (dependent on circumstances, of course).

 

Doesn't social interaction involve obligations? we're talking about responsibility for the cause of the emotional reaction, if appropriate, and an acknowledgement of the emotion. Not taking responsibility for anything outside our control, or that we don't want to do.

'I appreciate you feel' (whatever they think is unfair) is sometimes about as far as you can go. it might then end with 'nevertheless, this is how it is' (or a socially acceptable way of saying the same thing).

Anything further depends on what needs to be resolved, if anything more than letting someone vent.

Edited December 21, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Doesn't social interaction involve obligations?

it also involves the freedom to choose.

 

7 minutes ago, feral chile said:

we're talking about responsibility for the cause of the emotional reaction, if appropriate, and an acknowledgement of the emotion. Not taking responsibility for anything outside our control, or that we don't want to do.

just because i might have caused someone to have an emotional reaction doesn't make their reaction my responsibility. All sovereign beings hold self-responsibility at all times.

The obligation remains theirs alone. If I choose to react to their reaction, it's my choice to.

You're attempting to define a social rule that (I presume) suits you, and trying to place an obligation onto others to implement your rule.

I'm pointing out that's precisely what it is - YOUR rule, not mine.

It's any individual's responsibility to negotiate themselves around all versions of the world, rather than try and make the world fit them. Trying to make the world fit yourself is an expression of selfishness.

[feral chile]

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it also involves the freedom to choose.

 

just because i might have caused someone to have an emotional reaction doesn't make their reaction my responsibility. All sovereign beings hold self-responsibility at all times.

The obligation remains theirs alone. If I choose to react to their reaction, it's my choice to.

You're attempting to define a social rule that (I presume) suits you, and trying to place an obligation onto others to implement your rule.

I'm pointing out that's precisely what it is - YOUR rule, not mine.

It's any individual's responsibility to negotiate themselves around all versions of the world, rather than try and make the world fit them. Trying to make the world fit yourself is an expression of selfishness.

well it is a rule, I suppose, if you look at it that way. It's based on an assumption that you care that you've pissed that person off.

Most people are pissed off because they think the person who's pissed them off (or they're telling regarding what's pissed them off)doesn't care. So the above is based around ways to demonstrate they're wrong.

But I don't suppose you could make it a rule that people should care. It depends on if the pissed off person is important to you in some way, and whether you want to smooth things over with them.

And speaking from another POV, sometimes people need to be pissed off in order to prompt any kind of engagement at all.

it really depends what you're trying to achieve - the above is supposed to help resolve situations when people are being pissed off, to resolve conflict.

And it's also not for anyone to judge whether someone 'should' feel a certain way about something. people feel what people feel.

you've got 2 separate issues here - one is acknowledging emotions, whether you feel they're warranted or not.

The other is dealing with the source of the emotion.

Edited December 21, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

It's based on an assumption that you care that you've pissed that person off.

Even if that's the case, it doesn't have to follow that the right way to respond is to pander to their emotions.

For an easy example, with some people the times when they're at their most emotional is the least suitable time to pander to their emotions, because they've become unreasonable/unresponsive/etc/etc/etc, and the better answer is to leave them alone until they've returned to some sort of normality.

 

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

Most people are pissed off because they think the person who's pissed them off (or they're telling regarding what's pissed them off)doesn't care. So the above is based around ways to demonstrate they're wrong.

But similarly, a person might giving a show of not caring precisely because in the past they've pandered to it and their good nature is now being abused because of it.

There's a million different scenarios, and a million different right responses. And not any single rule.

 

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

But I don't suppose you could make it a rule that people should care. It depends on if the pissed off person is important to you in some way, and whether you want to smooth things over with them.

Or alternatively, whether there's a need to smooth things over with them.

 

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

And speaking from another POV, sometimes people need to be pissed off in order to prompt any kind of engagement at all.

I don't disagree.

What I do disagree with is that from 'sometimes' is an idea saying 'always'.

 

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

it really depends what you're trying to achieve - the above is supposed to help resolve situations when people are being pissed off, to resolve conflict.

But it's based in the idea that everything is equal. It's a bollocks idea. People are not reasonable, particularly where emotion is involved.

To my eternal shame, I subjected myself to several attempts at mediation with my ex over access to my kid. It was based in the idea of "lets forget all that's gone before and reach a reasonable compromise now" - a very fine idea in theory. But then you get one side lay out the same unreasonable terms in a pleasant manner and have this oh-so-clever-and-smug mediator say "that sounds very reasonable, why don't you go along with that?" BECAUSE ITS NOT FUCKING REASONABLE!!!!

What you're advocating is just another version of social control, that is no better than the (supposed) social control you were highlighting in the first place - which might not actually be that social control in the first place (it depends on the circumstances of the conflict), but very definitely is in your replacement.

Good social management is about what is right and well-placed, and the dismissal of what is not to re-state the social rules. One version for all circumstances is about trying to gain control by the person giving that version.

 

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

And it's also not for anyone to judge whether someone 'should' feel a certain way about something. people feel what people feel.

Bullshit, because it doesn't stay as just 'feeling'. It becomes a demand of another, the ultimate me-me-me-ism.

Right and wrong and right response and wrong response are within the starting circumstances and not within the reactions to that initial happening.

 

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

you've got 2 separate issues here - one is acknowledging emotions, whether you feel they're warranted or not.

The other is dealing with the source of the emotion.

You can acknowledge emotions in all sorts of ways.

I've made you cry? How sad, never mind.

We're back to you wanting them acknowledged in particular ways, and not merely acknowledged. It's more of an issue of control than existed within your starting comment of this discussion.

 

[feral chile]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Even if that's the case, it doesn't have to follow that the right way to respond is to pander to their emotions.

For an easy example, with some people the times when they're at their most emotional is the least suitable time to pander to their emotions, because they've become unreasonable/unresponsive/etc/etc/etc, and the better answer is to leave them alone until they've returned to some sort of normality.

 

But similarly, a person might giving a show of not caring precisely because in the past they've pandered to it and their good nature is now being abused because of it.

There's a million different scenarios, and a million different right responses. And not any single rule.

 

Or alternatively, whether there's a need to smooth things over with them.

 

I don't disagree.

What I do disagree with is that from 'sometimes' is an idea saying 'always'.

 

But it's based in the idea that everything is equal. It's a bollocks idea. People are not reasonable, particularly where emotion is involved.

To my eternal shame, I subjected myself to several attempts at mediation with my ex over access to my kid. It was based in the idea of "lets forget all that's gone before and reach a reasonable compromise now" - a very fine idea in theory. But then you get one side lay out the same unreasonable terms in a pleasant manner and have this oh-so-clever-and-smug mediator say "that sounds very reasonable, why don't you go along with that?" BECAUSE ITS NOT FUCKING REASONABLE!!!!

What you're advocating is just another version of social control, that is no better than the (supposed) social control you were highlighting in the first place - which might not actually be that social control in the first place (it depends on the circumstances of the conflict), but very definitely is in your replacement.

Good social management is about what is right and well-placed, and the dismissal of what is not to re-state the social rules. One version for all circumstances is about trying to gain control by the person giving that version.

 

Bullshit, because it doesn't stay as just 'feeling'. It becomes a demand of another, the ultimate me-me-me-ism.

Right and wrong and right response and wrong response are within the starting circumstances and not within the reactions to that initial happening.

 

You can acknowledge emotions in all sorts of ways.

I've made you cry? How sad, never mind.

We're back to you wanting them acknowledged in particular ways, and not merely acknowledged. It's more of an issue of control than existed within your starting comment of this discussion.

 

Ok think of someone who's lost a pet. you ould have someone really dismissive of it, because they don't particularly like animals, or they deal with things differently.

that pet could be the last link with a deceased family member, the pet owner might live alone, and be extremely dependant on the pet for companionship etc.

or, the classic one, is laughing at kids when they're upset about something you think is silly, instead of just giving them a hug.

I'm not going to comment about your bad experience, it's not my place, it's too personal to you. And this is exactly it - once emotions are involved, there's loads of ways actions can get misinterpreted. (And I'm not trying to make out I don't get irrational when something pisses me off, or that I can always respond calmly to someone else's frustration, either).

but in a general sense, I can't see any issue with 'I'm sorry you feel like that. I feel .....'

or the equivalent. it's not about giving in. it's more, showing you're aware they're not happy, and then deciding whether you're able or willing to do anything about it.

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

but in a general sense, I can't see any issue with 'I'm sorry you feel like that. I feel .....'

In a general sense I can't either.

But no situation is a general sense, it's complex series of different factors all with different personal weightings. Which means that there is no cover-all for every situation, which further gets to mean there is no social rule which says you have to go along with things in a particular way just because some might like you to.

Your suggested solution is worse than you identified as the initial problem, which only existed because of a misplaced expectation. It's not cured by trying to formalise that expectation as a further layer of expectation.

Edited December 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In a general sense I can't either.

But no situation is a general sense, it's complex series of different factors all with different personal weightings. Which means that there is no cover-all for every situation, which further gets to mean there is no social rule which says you have to go along with things in a particular way just because some might like you to.

Your suggestion solution is worse than you identified as the initial problem, which only existed because of a misplaced expectation. It's not cured by trying to formalise that expectation as a further layer of expectation.

The coverall is recognising that everyone has different triggers, it's as general as that. My stressors are different from others, and I'm as surprised at theirs as they are of mine, no doubt. Mine are no more valid/invalid than theirs, and vice versa.

Do you still think that's too much social control, or were you thinking of something more rigid?

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The coverall is recognising that everyone has different triggers, it's as general as that. My stressors are different from others, and I'm as surprised at theirs as they are of mine, no doubt. Mine are no more valid/invalid than theirs, and vice versa.

Do you still think that's too much social control, or were you thinking of something more rigid?

Everyone has more than just different triggers, they have a different everything - which is one of the reasons why I feel a one-size-fits-all solution isn't appropriate.

Here's your original words again.....

 

On 19/12/2015 at 9:55 AM, feral chile said:

it's basically discussing the generalisation tht women are more emotional than men, and how men can dismiss the issues and focus on controlling the expression of the emotion rather than listening to women and addressing the underlying cause.

And how this can lead to serious accusations receiving a dismissive and sceptical response.

What you're discussing there is an unfulfilled expectation - that the man should respond in a particular way, but doesn't.

You then see that unfulfilled expectation as a problem, and you look for a cure. Fair enough.

Your suggested cure is to make all of the men behave in the way you say, which will fulfil that unfulfilled expectation.

Can you not see how daft that is?

It assumes that it's always right to meet that expectation, but it's actually only your expectation and because everyone is different that means it doesn't always apply.

It assumes that the issue behind the emotion deserves such an expectation to be met, or that there's some sort of 'equality of expectation' behind what both people might want, when none of that is necessarily true. If it's all an over-reaction why is it wrong to treat it an over-reaction? If there's some unreasonableness within it all, why is it wrong to treat it as unreasonable?

And when someone might not meet an initial expectation, why might you think they'd then meet your new expectation that they should meet the initial expectation?

And at the end of it all it ends up re-enforcing the weak little woman idea, where platitudes are given for expectations sake.

And if a man was saying today "because I'm not getting everything I expect from my woman, women now have to work to this new rule to keep me fully satisfied"......!!!!???!

 

[feral chile]

I just want to make it clear that I'm not necessarily saying important decisions should be based on emotions, in case I've given that impression. Acknowledgement is not the same thing as taking them into account in the decision making process, unless they're relevant to that decision.

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Everyone has more than just different triggers, they have a different everything - which is one of the reasons why I feel a one-size-fits-all solution isn't appropriate.

Here's your original words again.....

 

What you're discussing there is an unfulfilled expectation - that the man should respond in a particular way, but doesn't.

You then see that unfulfilled expectation as a problem, and you look for a cure. Fair enough.

Your suggested cure is to make all of the men behave in the way you say, which will fulfil that unfulfilled expectation.

Can you not see how daft that is?

It assumes that it's always right to meet that expectation, but it's actually only your expectation and because everyone is different that means it doesn't always apply.

It assumes that the issue behind the emotion deserves such an expectation to be met, or that there's some sort of 'equality of expectation' behind what both people might want, when none of that is necessarily true. If it's all an over-reaction why is it wrong to treat it an over-reaction? If there's some unreasonableness within it all, why is it wrong to treat it as unreasonable?

And when someone might not meet an initial expectation, why might you think they'd then meet your new expectation that they should meet the initial expectation?

And at the end of it all it ends up re-enforcing the weak little woman idea, where platitudes are given for expectations sake.

And if a man was saying today "because I'm not getting everything I expect from my woman, women now have to work to this new rule to keep me fully satisfied"......!!!!???!

 

I think it's because it reminded me of Freud, and the fact that he dismissed the recurring complaint from his female patients that they had been abused as children. he chose to believe that the women were being 'hysterical' rather than accept the prevalence of abuse. it's more situations such as this - particularly in light of recent revelations regarding vulnerable children.

All I'm really saying, is that dismissing something as overly emotional can be a grave error of judgement.

Particularly while you're speaking to the person experiencing extreme emotion. it'll feel like you think they're faking it.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I just want to make it clear that I'm not necessarily saying important decisions should be based on emotions, in case I've given that impression. Acknowledgement is not the same thing as taking them into account in the decision making process, unless they're relevant to that decision.

If they're not relevant to the decision, then why does their emotion towards it have to be acknowledged?

As they're irrelevant to the decision, it cannot be wrong to treat their emotion about it as an irrelevance too. That doesn't mean that it can't be acknowledged, but it does make it wrong to obligate that it is.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

If they're not relevant to the decision, then why does their emotion towards it have to be acknowledged?

As they're irrelevant to the decision, it cannot be wrong to treat their emotion about it as an irrelevance too. That doesn't mean that it can't be acknowledged, but it does make it wrong to obligate that it is.

'have to'....advisable, maybe. depending on the value you place on your relationship with the person in question.

personally, I try to act on rationality, rather than emotion. the only time I ever give anyone the silent treatment is when I know I need to cool down, and NOT say all the things that are angrily running through my head.

On a wider point, I don't think women are more emotional than men, it's just more acceptable.

Historically, a man could literally get away with murder, because his wife was supposed to have told him he had a tiny penis. And yet a woman who had been systematically beaten, would get no such consideration if she had attacked him as he slept, no matter how much fear had motivated her.

You'd think that women would be less likely to act emotionally, given the physical consequences if they pick on the wrong one.

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

All I'm really saying, is that dismissing something as overly emotional can be a grave error of judgement.

No, you were saying a lot more than just that.

I absolutely agree, it can be wrong to dismiss something as overly-emotional.

The problem with what you've said comes because it can also be right to dismiss something as overly-emotional, yet you want to obligate men to treat all female emotions as well-placed.

It would be just as ridiculous to say that women should treat all male emotion as well-placed..
(Saying that out loud might help you think of the many angles you can consider that from, btw )

I say that context is everything, and if we over-rule that we pass thru the gate to the land of stupidity.

 

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Particularly while you're speaking to the person experiencing extreme emotion. it'll feel like you think they're faking it.

The problem is for your proposed solution is they might be - while you've demanding they're treated seriously even when they are faking it and been sussed as faking it.

 

[feral chile]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No, you were saying a lot more than just that.

I absolutely agree, it can be wrong to dismiss something as overly-emotional.

The problem with what you've said comes because it can also be right to dismiss something as overly-emotional, yet you want to obligate men to treat all female emotions as well-placed.

It would be just as ridiculous to say that women should treat all male emotion as well-placed..
(Saying that out loud might help you think of the many angles you can consider that from, btw )

I say that context is everything, and if we over-rule that we pass thru the gate to the land of stupidity.

 

The problem is for your proposed solution is they might be - while you've demanding they're treated seriously even when they are faking it and been sussed as faking it.

 

You might be misunderstanding me. Acknowledgement is different from agreeing with them, it's simply accepting their pissed-offedness, I don't think there's anything to gain by trying to work out if they're genuinely pissed off, because whether it's emotional or rational, they're stating a position.

Acknowlwdgement makes no statement that they're rfeasonable, or justified.

it;'s just a confirmation that they've been heard:

'I can see this is something you feel strongly about' type of thing.

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, feral chile said:

You might be misunderstanding me. Acknowledgement is different from agreeing with them, it's simply accepting their pissed-offedness, I don't think there's anything to gain by trying to work out if they're genuinely pissed off, because whether it's emotional or rational, they're stating a position.

Acknowlwdgement makes no statement that they're rfeasonable, or justified.

it;'s just a confirmation that they've been heard:

'I can see this is something you feel strongly about' type of thing.

I have a bit of an issue with that (the bit I've bolded). It assumes they have something sensible to say. It gives a right for idiocy to be heard.

As a theory I don't have much of a problem in even idiocy being heard, but in real life real people might have better things to do, so an obligation shouldn't be put on them.

Context is used to create what an individual might decide to be the right balance of response - and that response could and should have all options open.

I'd say you're getting mixed between some sort of (mis?)sense of equality, and the balanced view gained thru context.

For a slightly different angle on it, consider the BBC's obligation to give balanced reporting but how that doesn't get to mean equal-time reporting. To get the right balance, should (say) climate change deniers get equal airtime with climate scientists? Or should a wider context of each view be used to create the right balance of reporting?

(and those climate change deniers get very feckin' emotional about what they consider as 'not fair' and they make damned sure they're heard too ... but any sensible person is no longer listening, having told them to fuck off long ago. )

And I don't believe your solution is any solution, either. If a person knows their 'thing' *has to be* listened to it will give them doubts as to the sincerity of the process and so create in-fact the very problem that might not have existed in the first place.

But hey, for you managing the process, job done for you. You've shifted (and grown) the problem, but it's not within your responsibility now so you can chalk that off as a good job done. Isn't modern management great?

 

Edited December 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

50 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I have a bit of an issue with that (the bit I've bolded). It assumes they have something sensible to say. It gives a right for idiocy to be heard.

As a theory I don't have much of a problem in even idiocy being heard, but in real life real people might have better things to do, so an obligation shouldn't be put on them.

Context is used to create what an individual might decide to be the right balance of response - and that response could and should have all options open.

I'd say you're getting mixed between some sort of (mis?)sense of equality, and the balanced view gained thru context.

For a slightly different angle on it, consider the BBC's obligation to give balanced reporting but how that doesn't get to mean equal-time reporting. To get the right balance, should (say) climate change deniers get equal airtime with climate scientists? Or should a wider context of each view be used to create the right balance of reporting?

(and those climate change deniers get very feckin' emotional about what they consider as 'not fair' and they make damned sure they're heard too ... but any sensible person is no longer listening, having told them to fuck off long ago. )

And I don't believe your solution is any solution, either. If a person knows their 'thing' *has to be* listened to it will give them doubts as to the sincerity of the process and so create in-fact the very problem that might not have existed in the first place.

But hey, for you managing the process, job done for you. You've shifted (and grown) the problem, but it's not within your responsibility now so you can chalk that off as a good job done. Isn't modern management great?

 

Agreed, this is definitely a problem, if it becomes a box ticking exercise and you don't feel like you genuinely have any input. I remember as a student, one of our lecturers arranged a meeting to discuss which of two options we wanted, saying he could only run it if there were enough takers. one option got overwhelming support, so he said there were too many of us, and he'd run the other option. Which we all knew was his pet project. So the group reaction was a sullen silence, and my reaction wa 'why bother pretending to consult us if you'd already made up your mind'. (to his face in ther meeting, not privately to muyself or anyone else)

And yes, if he hadn't pretended to give us an option, and presented us with a fait accompli, it would have caused less resentment. (and maybe his reasons were genuine, none of us believed that though).

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, feral chile said:

Agreed, this is definitely a problem

a cure for a problem that's a problem is not a cure for a problem.