Respectful Discourse Followup
Why does this matter?
This matters to me because when I envision the future of software testing I see intelligent people who are able to discuss the pros and cons of ideas they are passionate about in a way that doesn't alienate and exhaust those who are trying to follow it and learn from it. It also matters to me because in the last three years I've seen females leave the software industry. At the same time, I've seen some people stop sharing testing ideas entirely because they are tired of the negativity and constant bickering. Software testing is a young profession still and while some of the culture is already defined, some of it is being created and changing at this very moment. To see it become more cut throat, less tolerant, and more "male" in character is something I oppose. It matters to me because the users of software are becoming more and more diverse while the group who have employment in testing software is becoming less diverse. I fear a world where all software is designed, created, and tested by men from a few countries with a tiny minority of token women thrown in. I'd like to see the group of possible professional testers be a subset of those with the talent and interest as wide as the group of possible users we target.
It isn't just the lack of diversity of origin that I fear, but the lack of diversity in ideas. When new and unfinished ideas are nipped in the bud rather than explored collaboration isn't possible and often innovation is snuffed out before it can begin. I wrote an entire blog about my strange upbringing which may shed some light on why I am so touchy about gender bias and diversity. I feel that the ability to have respectful discourse when it is agreed upon by both parties can help software testing grow as a profession and can also create a safe sandbox to test out new ideas for some testers who are just getting started. I'd like to create a safe place for people to explore their own ideas and learn without fear of personal attack so that you can try ideas on without making it your "final answer".
And where does this suggested protocol come from?
This suggested protocol comes from my observations of the past several years and it is my opinion. It is more than just my opinion though. It is also what I see working to keep debate on topic and respectful. There are other types of discourse, but I think that respectful discourse is especially useful. Disrespectful online drama will gather a large crowd, but the difference between an audience and a mob is intent and purpose. If site visitors are the goal, by all means, tear someone to shreds and gawkers will come out of the woodwork to watch the carnage. The problem is, who is going to step up for discourse the next time? What kind of person are they? How good are their ideas?
I want as large a pool of testers to exchange ideas with as possible for collaboration. That is where these suggestions come from. The list is intended to be a start for other people to add to, but I hope it can help more "point/counterpoint" discussions to happen.
What exactly is name dropping?
Name dropping is not just using a name in conversation. If you quote someone else and it applies to the point you are making, that is not name dropping. Name dropping is trying to bolster your own importance or credibility by hiding behind a name, or mentioning a name to impress someone.
One common example that drives me crazy is when a tester says, "The proper way to prioritize test cases is from priority zero to five with these exact meanings because that is how we do it at Microsoft." Hiding behind the name or a certification, or an organization is weak content in most discourse and I'd like to see that sort of content regularly omitted. It is harmful to quality discourse in my opinion, which is why I bring it up as content to avoid. It is disrespectful because it is weak, not because it is offensive.
Name dropping: "Next week when I'm having dinner with Bill Gates your petty testing idea will be the last thing on my mind."
With a name, but NOT name dropping: "I consider myself a skeptic in the mold of Pyrrho." This is descriptive. You aren't hiding behind that name or bolstering your credibility with it. You are trying to describe an aspect of your personality.
Oneupmanship
What exactly is wrong with using words like "regardless?" I don't see that as one-upmanship. I see that as using words of the English language to communicate.
Nothing is wrong with these words by themselves. My suggestion should be more specific. What I mean to say here is that these words can be used in a dismissive way and they can make your tone seem egotistical and arrogant when overused. It's the subtext of "You are stupid and I'm not listening", "I am better and smarter than you are and you are an idiot", or "What you say and think doesn't matter" that is the problem. I think an example would help explain.
Normal Use of both regardless, whatever, and actually:
Tester A Says: "Performance is undervalued and should have a higher priority than it currently does."
Tester B Says: "Regardless of the performance of the application, whatever the testing results actually are have to be communicated well so that the user impact is understood.
Oneupmanship using the same words (with a few other ego problems thrown in):
Tester A Says: "Performance is undervalued and should have a higher priority than it currently does."
Tester B Says: "Whatever. Actually, at Sprockets, Inc we need to hit our milestone. Here in the real world we've got deadlines."
Tester A Says: "That could harm the reputation of your software. Don't you have ethical concerns?"
Tester B Says: "Regardless, we're the number one Sprocket company out there, so we don't need to do more."
Capital Letters
Why advise us not to use capital letters? Why not instead advise people not to lose their s*** when THEY see capitals?
Because people who are uncomfortable around yelling and find it unsafe will not be able to do that. Fear is not rational. It is much easier to avoid triggering the feeling of being attacked than it is to suppress that feeling once it is invoked. If you want to see how people react to being pushed or when they feel attacked, your intention is for a different kind of discourse, one that I wouldn't consider in the category of respectful unless they consent to it. Sparring is only fun if you feel safe in it and have established some trust first. Otherwise it isn't sparring on both sides.
Also, consider that some of us simply hate lots of noise. One example is at Christmas one of the adults got a new RC Helicopter and he was having a blast flying it indoors. The dogs went wild and were running into things and barking and everyone was talking and I wanted to flee. I didn't care that it was good natured, I wanted it to stop and pretty much I wanted them all to die I was so frustrated. It wasn't fun to me. Do I begrudge dogs playing? Do I hate RC Helicopters? Am I a Grinch? Not at all. I just think loud barking out of control dogs and flying items in the middle of a holiday discussion is annoying and inappropriate in the house. I want to opt out of that. Also, I think it is rude of him to get the dogs all riled up inside the house, so I think him putting his comfort and desire in front of the well being of the larger group was inconsiderate. So, if capital letters are part of the agreed on culture, there is no problem with that, but it will change the audience from a comfortable conversation to lookie lous staring at the side of a car accident. It depends on what kind of audience you are going for.
Here's my effort to people like me who get annoyed by yelling: If you find yourself regularly feeling victimized you may want to do some work to figure out why. Conflict avoidance causes far more important missed opportunities than just the ability to discuss your ideas with a wider range of people. There are way more important reasons to delve into this than I can list in my blog, but consider staying and debating even with the fear and uncomfortable feelings if you can. I can tolerate much more than I used to. I just find it draining. It takes energy that I could use to do something else, so I will when it is worthwhile, but there has to be a good reason. Also, I know my limits. I can tolerate it, but I don't enjoy it.
So, to summarize the reason why I advise you not to use capital letters is because of human nature. People remember how you made them feel more than anything else. They don't remember what you said, what you did, or what you wore. They remember how they felt. This isn't true for everyone, but it is true for most of us. Women in particular may not remember what they had for breakfast, but they remember 10 years ago the smallest detail about an event with emotional resonance. This is why great speeches have little to do with logic and lots to do with human psychology and motivation. When I want to get to know someone I often ask them about the best and worst day of their life so far, because people nearly always can remember in detail.
Also, this focus on feelings has two sides to it. I don't care much what other people think of me, but I care very much how I make them feel. For example, James Bach, who asked me these questions is pretty much my hero in software testing. One reason is because his enthusiasm gives me courage to try new things, like this blog for example. I've stretched my abilities and continue to try teach myself because of his seminar on self-education. It would be acceptable if he disagreed with me or felt I was going backwards in professional maturity sometimes. I make mistakes and I'm also not as smart as he is. However, If I made him feel disrespected and unappreciated? That would really bother me.
That goes for the people who read my blog too. If you disagree I invite you to comment and to email me. If you think my ideas are silly and won't work, that is also not a problem. If I make you feel disrespected and discourage you from voicing your own ideas though? I would hate that. Your feelings matter to me more than your opinion.
This matters to me because when I envision the future of software testing I see intelligent people who are able to discuss the pros and cons of ideas they are passionate about in a way that doesn't alienate and exhaust those who are trying to follow it and learn from it. It also matters to me because in the last three years I've seen females leave the software industry. At the same time, I've seen some people stop sharing testing ideas entirely because they are tired of the negativity and constant bickering. Software testing is a young profession still and while some of the culture is already defined, some of it is being created and changing at this very moment. To see it become more cut throat, less tolerant, and more "male" in character is something I oppose. It matters to me because the users of software are becoming more and more diverse while the group who have employment in testing software is becoming less diverse. I fear a world where all software is designed, created, and tested by men from a few countries with a tiny minority of token women thrown in. I'd like to see the group of possible professional testers be a subset of those with the talent and interest as wide as the group of possible users we target.
It isn't just the lack of diversity of origin that I fear, but the lack of diversity in ideas. When new and unfinished ideas are nipped in the bud rather than explored collaboration isn't possible and often innovation is snuffed out before it can begin. I wrote an entire blog about my strange upbringing which may shed some light on why I am so touchy about gender bias and diversity. I feel that the ability to have respectful discourse when it is agreed upon by both parties can help software testing grow as a profession and can also create a safe sandbox to test out new ideas for some testers who are just getting started. I'd like to create a safe place for people to explore their own ideas and learn without fear of personal attack so that you can try ideas on without making it your "final answer".
And where does this suggested protocol come from?
This suggested protocol comes from my observations of the past several years and it is my opinion. It is more than just my opinion though. It is also what I see working to keep debate on topic and respectful. There are other types of discourse, but I think that respectful discourse is especially useful. Disrespectful online drama will gather a large crowd, but the difference between an audience and a mob is intent and purpose. If site visitors are the goal, by all means, tear someone to shreds and gawkers will come out of the woodwork to watch the carnage. The problem is, who is going to step up for discourse the next time? What kind of person are they? How good are their ideas?
I want as large a pool of testers to exchange ideas with as possible for collaboration. That is where these suggestions come from. The list is intended to be a start for other people to add to, but I hope it can help more "point/counterpoint" discussions to happen.
What exactly is name dropping?
Name dropping is not just using a name in conversation. If you quote someone else and it applies to the point you are making, that is not name dropping. Name dropping is trying to bolster your own importance or credibility by hiding behind a name, or mentioning a name to impress someone.
One common example that drives me crazy is when a tester says, "The proper way to prioritize test cases is from priority zero to five with these exact meanings because that is how we do it at Microsoft." Hiding behind the name or a certification, or an organization is weak content in most discourse and I'd like to see that sort of content regularly omitted. It is harmful to quality discourse in my opinion, which is why I bring it up as content to avoid. It is disrespectful because it is weak, not because it is offensive.
Name dropping: "Next week when I'm having dinner with Bill Gates your petty testing idea will be the last thing on my mind."
With a name, but NOT name dropping: "I consider myself a skeptic in the mold of Pyrrho." This is descriptive. You aren't hiding behind that name or bolstering your credibility with it. You are trying to describe an aspect of your personality.
Oneupmanship
What exactly is wrong with using words like "regardless?" I don't see that as one-upmanship. I see that as using words of the English language to communicate.
Nothing is wrong with these words by themselves. My suggestion should be more specific. What I mean to say here is that these words can be used in a dismissive way and they can make your tone seem egotistical and arrogant when overused. It's the subtext of "You are stupid and I'm not listening", "I am better and smarter than you are and you are an idiot", or "What you say and think doesn't matter" that is the problem. I think an example would help explain.
Normal Use of both regardless, whatever, and actually:
Tester A Says: "Performance is undervalued and should have a higher priority than it currently does."
Tester B Says: "Regardless of the performance of the application, whatever the testing results actually are have to be communicated well so that the user impact is understood.
Oneupmanship using the same words (with a few other ego problems thrown in):
Tester A Says: "Performance is undervalued and should have a higher priority than it currently does."
Tester B Says: "Whatever. Actually, at Sprockets, Inc we need to hit our milestone. Here in the real world we've got deadlines."
Tester A Says: "That could harm the reputation of your software. Don't you have ethical concerns?"
Tester B Says: "Regardless, we're the number one Sprocket company out there, so we don't need to do more."
Capital Letters
Why advise us not to use capital letters? Why not instead advise people not to lose their s*** when THEY see capitals?
Because people who are uncomfortable around yelling and find it unsafe will not be able to do that. Fear is not rational. It is much easier to avoid triggering the feeling of being attacked than it is to suppress that feeling once it is invoked. If you want to see how people react to being pushed or when they feel attacked, your intention is for a different kind of discourse, one that I wouldn't consider in the category of respectful unless they consent to it. Sparring is only fun if you feel safe in it and have established some trust first. Otherwise it isn't sparring on both sides.
Also, consider that some of us simply hate lots of noise. One example is at Christmas one of the adults got a new RC Helicopter and he was having a blast flying it indoors. The dogs went wild and were running into things and barking and everyone was talking and I wanted to flee. I didn't care that it was good natured, I wanted it to stop and pretty much I wanted them all to die I was so frustrated. It wasn't fun to me. Do I begrudge dogs playing? Do I hate RC Helicopters? Am I a Grinch? Not at all. I just think loud barking out of control dogs and flying items in the middle of a holiday discussion is annoying and inappropriate in the house. I want to opt out of that. Also, I think it is rude of him to get the dogs all riled up inside the house, so I think him putting his comfort and desire in front of the well being of the larger group was inconsiderate. So, if capital letters are part of the agreed on culture, there is no problem with that, but it will change the audience from a comfortable conversation to lookie lous staring at the side of a car accident. It depends on what kind of audience you are going for.
Here's my effort to people like me who get annoyed by yelling: If you find yourself regularly feeling victimized you may want to do some work to figure out why. Conflict avoidance causes far more important missed opportunities than just the ability to discuss your ideas with a wider range of people. There are way more important reasons to delve into this than I can list in my blog, but consider staying and debating even with the fear and uncomfortable feelings if you can. I can tolerate much more than I used to. I just find it draining. It takes energy that I could use to do something else, so I will when it is worthwhile, but there has to be a good reason. Also, I know my limits. I can tolerate it, but I don't enjoy it.
So, to summarize the reason why I advise you not to use capital letters is because of human nature. People remember how you made them feel more than anything else. They don't remember what you said, what you did, or what you wore. They remember how they felt. This isn't true for everyone, but it is true for most of us. Women in particular may not remember what they had for breakfast, but they remember 10 years ago the smallest detail about an event with emotional resonance. This is why great speeches have little to do with logic and lots to do with human psychology and motivation. When I want to get to know someone I often ask them about the best and worst day of their life so far, because people nearly always can remember in detail.
Also, this focus on feelings has two sides to it. I don't care much what other people think of me, but I care very much how I make them feel. For example, James Bach, who asked me these questions is pretty much my hero in software testing. One reason is because his enthusiasm gives me courage to try new things, like this blog for example. I've stretched my abilities and continue to try teach myself because of his seminar on self-education. It would be acceptable if he disagreed with me or felt I was going backwards in professional maturity sometimes. I make mistakes and I'm also not as smart as he is. However, If I made him feel disrespected and unappreciated? That would really bother me.
That goes for the people who read my blog too. If you disagree I invite you to comment and to email me. If you think my ideas are silly and won't work, that is also not a problem. If I make you feel disrespected and discourage you from voicing your own ideas though? I would hate that. Your feelings matter to me more than your opinion.
Posted by Testy Redhead at 28 Dec 2009 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: discourse networking quality testing
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: discourse networking quality testing
Thank you for taking my questions seriously and putting so much energy into your reply. I'm going to respond more specifically, soon.
Let me just say that the purpose of my first two questions was to highlight the problem of pluralism: Any statement about how people should behave necessarily comes from some cultural perspective, and there are many of those. There is no such thing as an "objective" or "natural" set of rules for behavior that all rational people must accept.
To be a pluralist is to accept that we are not going to get *all* of us to agree on much of anything. Pluralists don't necessarily try to get along with everybody, but we do believe in a society that allows different groups-- with different rules of engagement-- to co-exist without violence.
This creates an interesting paradox: As a pluralist, I simultaneously believe that people should TRY to get along but should not HAVE TO get along (please assume capital letters are italics). To have peace on a large scale, it's important to allow people to congregate into somewhat exclusive (or even completely exclusive) clubs as long as they understand the relativity and limitations of their own values.
In a plural world, by proposing rules of engagement, you're suggesting that people who don't already accept your rules to put aside their own ideas and go along with you OR ELSE leave your community and go play elsewhere. That is provocative (I almost wrote "aggressive" but I need a word that doesn't have connotations of unfriendliness), even if you feel peaceful and friendly while doing it.
My culture of communication is different than yours. I think my goals are a little different than yours. It would be easy to shrug and let you go and create your own testing world that works by a protocol that is comfortable to you.
But there's a complication: I want you on the same team as me; the same community. That means I have to negotiate. I must be willing to be give something, and maybe give something up, in order to recruit you.
This process of engaging, supporting, quarreling, disengaging, and negotiating is how intellectual history unfolds. (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, famously brought this perspective into the study of the progress of science.)
I hope that helps to frame what's happening, here. In my next comment, I'll say more.
Thanks again,
James
Reply to this
First of all. Thanks very much for your useful post.
I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here.
Please let me introduce you some info related to this post and I hope that it is useful for software testing community.
There is a good Software Testing resource site, Have alook
http://SoftwareTestingNet.com
Thanks again
simi
Reply to this
My reaction part 2...
On Name Dropping
You explanation helps. It sounds like you are complaining about an appeal to authority. I agree that such appeals should not be persuasive.
There's a separate issue that I think you're raising, which is that you are bothered by people who express a "who the hell are you?" attitude. I got that response in 1994 when I wrote the SEI with my criticism of the Capability Maturity Model. He wrote "The priorities of the CMM are based on expert opinion and consensus of the community." This is not exactly name dropping because no names were used. But it was an appeal to authority, and furthermore, it was an implicit assertion that I didn't count either as an expert or as part of "the community."
So, I was pissed. But of course he was right in one important way: I was not part of his community. By underscoring that, he was part of a process of inspiring me, and many like me, to create our own communities. The Agile movement came directly from that sort of stiff arming of dissent.
What I'm saying is this: what you are calling name dropping may in part be a common and natural form of signaling that the person we are talking to is not one of us. Invoking names of heroes is how people from different communities may refer to the boundary between them.
That may be a bad thing. But it's not necessarily a bad thing, is it?
What you seem to be arguing for is for less barriers between communities, so that more people can join the same party. I don't want less of a barrier, though. I don't want to be part of something that any old opportunist can exploit (the certification programs are like that). You mentioned that your grandmother got a college degree. Now, I don't believe in college degrees, but I bet you wouldn't either if they were given to anyone who begged for one, instead of working for one.
I want a reasonable and honorable kind of barrier against those who would join my community. A friendly, but firm barrier. For instance, perhaps we can agree that the community barriers should be based on a model of merit that is rooted in clear principle, rather than a cult of personality.
Reply to this