Quote from Emily on July 6, 2022, 1:57 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 5, 2022, 4:28 pm

Hey LOF, Kavalier, if you want feedback on this interaction, feel free to ask.

And same for @rwy and @mmc from this other thread.
If you guys want feedback, just let me know (and other members can also chip in if they wish).

And of course, don't feel forced to say "yes". Feedback on public interactions are thorny as people tend to be heavily invested and committed (and from a Machiavellian point of view it'd be a lot easier for me  to avoid it, but I feel they're tremendous opportunities for growth, so worth the risk, and almost a moral obligation to offer).

Of course, Lucio. Appreciate that.

I would like to know how to harmonize different perspectives (or "agree to disagree") in a cordial way.

(Just changed my display name so it's consistent).

Quote from MMC on July 6, 2022, 3:23 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 5, 2022, 4:28 pm

Hey LOF, Kavalier, if you want feedback on this interaction, feel free to ask.

And same for @rwy and @mmc from this other thread.
If you guys want feedback, just let me know (and other members can also chip in if they wish).

And of course, don't feel forced to say "yes". Feedback on public interactions are thorny as people tend to be heavily invested and committed (and from a Machiavellian point of view it'd be a lot easier for me  to avoid it, but I feel they're tremendous opportunities for growth, so worth the risk, and almost a moral obligation to offer).

Hi Lucio, I totally agree with you that writing a feedback is associated with a large amount of risks and costs -- I feel what you feel. People could believe that, you, Lucio, are kindly trying to provide value for us, while taking risks: that is, big-win for MMC and loss for Lucio. If this is the case, then, as a collaborator, I morally cannot enter a win-loss relationship.

At the same time, I totally agree with you that writing feedback can also be a tremendous opportunities for growth, for all sides; so, if you believe that you will also get personal benefits by replying directly to the points I made in my meta-analysis (in your link), I will be very happy to join the collaboration that all sides, including you, would win.

Of course, by "replying", I mean that you are welcome to agree or disagree with any points I wrote. As long as the agreements/disagreements are objectively focusing on the case, I am sure there will be nothing "thorny" from my side and there is no need to worry about it. Everyone is free to hold different interpretations and opinions, and please don't feel "forced" to give a positive reply.

Finally I want to thank you again for spending a lot of time reading my neutral meta-analysis/feedback for the Emily's case. I'd say I agree with most if not all of the points you made in your meta-analysis for Emily's case and I learnt a lot from it.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 6, 2022, 4:48 pm

This my opinion, and it's not in-depth, but jotted down relatively quickly (I haven't re-read either, so expect lots of mistakes).

Also, before starting, I want to make clear that from what I've seen both LOF and Kavalier are awesome guys and I'd be happy to meet them in person (LOF already did and BTW, I'll probably link up this summer again if you wanna join for that go-karting thing :).

So in my opinion this has been a case of miscommunication, and we can maybe learn something from it:

LOF / KAVALIER

1. Kavalier taken as an example was slightly demeaning to Kavalier, and fair for Kavalier to address

Albeit the first post seemed to have started great saying that Kavalier came up with blueprints, it then degraded those blueprints to opinions.

All good until here.

And, a bit less good for the example used, later proceeded to frame those opinions as of little value.

Ie.:

• "Opinions are NOT data, they are opinions"
• We should not let opinions move our beliefs, or not too much"

and the crucial one:

• "I have zero empirical evidence that this blueprint works (Not picking on you Kavalier, everyone does this all the time, we humans are like this)

We might discuss again whether or not Kavalier's "opinion" was valid -I think it was, and so thought the OP, but that's not the point-.
The point is that when you use someone for an example that is not positive and you don't power protect that person, you risk disempowering the "example".

A better way to go about it then is to first build up the example.
For example:

I pick Kavalier on purpose because he has dropped so much gold that he makes the perfect case study that more data would be helpful, even in the presence of golden intuition

NOW you can go ahead with the example, without disempowering Kavalier (and, by the way, also sticking to the truth).

Still, I don't think in this case it was bad.
Personally, albeit I'd have disagreed that it was just an opinion with little validity, I might have let it slip.

But I think it's fair for Kavalier to not to let it slip.

Kavalier points it out, LOF agrees, apologizes, and re-empowers Kavalier.
Kavalier replies accepting the apology and complimenting back.

All great until here.

2. The antifragile note and the dangers of fragile ego may feel like a power move on Kavalier because of the use of "you"

First off:

Both of you have agreed now that Kavalier's good points about chess and the lack of value added by the data-driven approach to chess weren't addressed.

I also agree with that.

LOF's reply used Kavalier's mention of chess as a quick bridge to something very different, and that might feel like a brush-off (Kavalier can confirm that or deny).

I've also previously noticed that LOF sometimes adopts a "free-flowing" debating style that does not always take much of the original reply into account.
That can irk the person who took time to write the post because the person feels ignored. The exchange doesn't feel like a two-ways influencing street as all exchanges between equals and people who respect each other should be.

When we feel we're open to being influenced but the other person skips our good points, the feeling is that we are giving with our openness, but the other person isn't.
So it's a sucker's trade of persuasion (ie.: it does feel like the other person is playing a win-lose game).

Ignoring large portions of what one says can be good when debating to win in front of a public, but it's something to be careful with when one wants to exchange opinions, build bridges, or learn, because the feeling is that one is not interested in exchanging ideas, but in monologuing and/or winning.

To avoid that issue, if LOF wants to avoid being sidetracked or stick to his proposal, he should first validate the other person's point of view, and clearly state that he's going to skip a longer reply.
For example:

Great message!
I partially agree with some but not with all. I will reply later if I find the time. As of now, I want to stick to the original idea of testing PU's ideas because I think there can be much added value there.

That note absent, and seeing his good chess reflections only used for a quick bridge, Kavalier was even more likely to read the note on "equipping oneself with antifragile ego" as a slight.

This part here indeed felt power-movey:

"What if they are wrong? Gulp!"

It seems written with a beginner audience in mind, which feels babying to a receiver who is not a beginner.

I think that to make this more effective and to avoid miscommunication, LOF should have more obviously included himself in the group that needs an antifragile ego, so to avoid the miscommunication of "me talking down to you".
He started doing it in that sentence saying "WE", which was great, but then switched to "you". And at the end of the sentence, the "you" far outweighed the "we".

In that sense, it wasn't a stretch for Kavalier to read into that an attack and a power move.

3. Kavalier flags it again as a power move, this time LOF rejects it

Kavalier raises the issue again.

Again, I personally might have addressed it as part of a larger reply to that original thread, but I respected Kavalier assertively going for it (and hence the like).

This time LOF rejects because his comment on antifragile ego wasn't addressed to Kavalier.
I think that if LOF wasn't referring to Kavalier, which is very possible, it was fair of him to reject an apology.

However, when what you say risk disempowering someone, that's exactly where you to be twice as careful: make it so clear that you're also part of that "fragile" group and/or that you're not singling out your speaking partner to the point where there can be no doubt.

One good way of doing is to "put yourself first in the firing line".

For example:

(fragile ego dangers bla bla bla... ) And I know that very well: I'm the first one who looks for confirmation, rather than evidence to the contrary

Generally speaking, when there is a precedent of miscommunication, one also wants to be twice as careful and, just to be sure, overweight the "warmth".

Finally, there was one issue in my opinion with refusing to apologize and compromise:

3. Lucio becomes example of antifragile ego and that can feel like an indirect attack on Kavalier

The frame in LOF's reply seemed to be:

Lucio had an antifragile ego, and that's why he went for it, and Kavalier didn't and that's why he's focusing on power moves rather than on discussing/embracing  my proposed data-driven approach.

I'd be careful with that construction because it can often be used as a covert power move (comparison power move, potentially even triangulation).

Such as:

• I don't attack you directly,
  BUT,
• I compliment this other person for doing the opposite of what you did

Such as, I indirectly say that you lack that good trait.

I can talk from first-hand experience of how upsetting that is since my mother used to drop comments of "how wonderful (my older brother's name) was" whenever I supposedly misbehaved (something I didn't miss to remind her of as an adult, of course :).

The other issue is that it calls a third person into the arena -and sets a bad frame for that third party, too-.
It sets a frame of Kavalier VS me and who's got more of an antifragile ego (and I don't want to be pitched against Kavalier, I want to be with him in the same team, and same team that includes LOF and TPM's members, BTW:)

So my advice is to always keep the discussion between the two, and never open it up to other folks.

Thoughts... ?

Feel free to let me know what you think.

And if anyone wants to chip in, I'm happy to read.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 6, 2022, 5:04 pm

Emily / MMC

This a simpler one in my opinion.

And I think the main thing there was that MMC's post largely took the side of Emily's attacker.

That's always a thorny thing to do, and you want to be careful with it, especially on a forum.

There were a few concessions that Emily's attacker had some issue, but still, the overall balance of the post was 90% defending the attacker.
Some passages also seemed to suggest the attack and disempowerment was mostly in Emily's mind, which is something that victims are (often rightfully!) very sensitive to since it's how gaslighting works.
Still, MMC's point of view is fair to share and it's also good to have different opinions... It's just that MMC may want to consider some more tact if he wants more social finesse, and to avoid the (expected) push back.

BTW, siding with the attacker can work great in real life... If one does it a certain way.
It's possible to take the attacker's side in real life when you have some social capital -or when you know you can rebuild social capital later on-.
It can be a great technique to initially take the third party side for shock value, to challenge the speaker to share more of their own faults, and to "steelman" the only person who can't defend himself in order to more quickly reach a slightly more neutral version of the events.

However, in real life, you then turn around and you also put yourself in the speaker's shoes -such as, you kinda of side with both, but generally end up closer to the speaker if a) they seem in the right b) they're your friends; c) you want to be Machiavellian-.

On a forum medium, when you only take the attacker's point of view, it's a lot more likely that it will just feel like siding with the victimizer for no apparent reason, and feels like a slap and a slight to the original poster.

Quote from leaderoffun on July 6, 2022, 7:27 pm

Thanks Lucio for the Analysis, very detailed and useful. I agree with most of what you covered. I do feel you left out the end part of the interaction (what Kavalier says after I reject the frame of having addressed him personally and power-moved him with 3 or 4 charges). Would you care commenting on it? I know you did a lot already and I'm in no position to ask, but I still will because I feel that was an important part of the interaction. I can write up my take but I prefer to do it after yours in case I missed something important there. This is an opportunity for me to learn.

Quote from MMC on July 6, 2022, 8:13 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 6, 2022, 5:04 pm

Emily / MMC

This a simpler one in my opinion.

And I think the main thing there was that MMC's post largely took the side of Emily's attacker.

That's always a thorny thing to do, and you want to be careful with it, especially on a forum.

There were a few concessions that Emily's attacker had some issue, but still, the overall balance of the post was 90% defending the attacker.
Some passages also seemed to suggest the attack and disempowerment was mostly in Emily's mind, which is something that victims are (often rightfully!) very sensitive to since it's how gaslighting works.
Still, MMC's point of view is fair to share and it's also good to have different opinions... It's just that MMC may want to consider some more tact if he wants more social finesse, and to avoid the (expected) push back.

BTW, siding with the attacker can work great in real life... If one does it a certain way.
It's possible to take the attacker's side in real life when you have some social capital -or when you know you can rebuild social capital later on-.
It can be a great technique to initially take the third party side for shock value, to challenge the speaker to share more of their own faults, and to "steelman" the only person who can't defend himself in order to more quickly reach a slightly more neutral version of the events.

However, in real life, you then turn around and you also put yourself in the speaker's shoes -such as, you kinda of side with both, but generally end up closer to the speaker if a) they seem in the right b) they're your friends; c) you want to be Machiavellian-.

On a forum medium, when you only take the attacker's point of view, it's a lot more likely that it will just feel like siding with the victimizer for no apparent reason, and feels like a slap and a slight to the original poster.

Thank you for your opinion and your time.

As I said, I provide neutral feedbacks and I did not take side. I kindly reject the frame that I team with an "attacker". Anyone will feel uncomfortable when you parallel him to "gaslighting". As a positive person, I kindly ask Lucio to stop putting his negative words, such as "attacker" or "gaslighting", into my mouth. I believe you as a rational and positive collaborator with growth mindset.

In a case study, the main character is not necessarily the writer himself/herself. We must be neutral and give all subjects the equal status.

Moreover, when analyzing a case, we must put truth first. Again, if anyone disagrees with any analytical points in my post, I am very happy to discuss or be convinced.

To be fact-based, let's objectively review the analytical points I made (of course, I am not a perfect guy and made mistakes: one of them is failing to properly credit the existing ideas to the first contributor; I am trying to salvage my mistake here):

Point 1: Some of Emily's wording sounds drill-sergeant like or teacher-like.

Both drill sergeant and teacher are positive or neutral words: "A drill sergeant is a symbol of excellence in initial entry training".

I cannot take the full credit for contributing this point. I must credit Lucio for bringing up a similar (but much more stronger) idea earlier than me. In the thread, Lucio noted that Emily's wording is "judgmental", "invasive", and down to "one-upping". My point, while being much milder, is heavily based on Lucio's ideas. I apologize that I did not cite/credit Lucio for the origin of idea and innovation.

If you disagrees with this specific point, I am happy to discuss. Emily is also free to disagree with any of the specific point.

Point 2: I will personally think twice before judging a person by his dating successfulness, tastes, career choice, or friendship choice: he could be low quality but more information is needed.

This point is just an expression of personal preference. It takes no side.

This point is not a new idea and I cannot take full credit for this contribution. I must credit Kavalier for coming-up-with a similar idea first.

Point 3: I guess some context of the quotations in the case-study might be missing. This is a neutral comment on the case-study itself, not on any personal traits.

Lucio repeated several times that there is a forum rule: one must try to post a relatively complete conversation to have a meaningful analysis; isolated sentences cannot be meaningfully analyzed. For example, if the writer quote "Him: Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true", the writer must also provide what the other party said right before that quotation.

I must credit John for first bringing up a related idea: not all of the guy's words are attacks by themselves.

Emily also explicitly admitted that a long message from her side was "omitted". If you disagree with this specific point, I am happy to discuss.

Point 4: The guy's wording seems unfriendly.

Point 5：The guy has no power over Emily. The guy cannot determine others' power. This is also nothing new. There are plenty of well-established sources on "not-giving a fuck" and "anti-fragile ego" that I cannot take their credits.

Point 6 (main point)：I repeated twice, in the beginning and the end, that the guy seems highly emotional.

If you disagrees with any of the specific points, I am happy to learn from your great wisdom. At the same time, to have a fruitful discussion and avoid the turkey's down-spiral, I must refuse any side-taking which has nothing to do with scientific debate. I sincerely believe you are able enough to practice objective case-analysis on specific points. TPM is science-based and we must put truth first.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 6, 2022, 8:28 pm

Quote from leaderoffun on July 6, 2022, 7:27 pm

Thanks Lucio for the Analysis, very detailed and useful. I agree with most of what you covered. I do feel you left out the end part of the interaction (what Kavalier says after I reject the frame of having addressed him personally and power-moved him with 3 or 4 charges). Would you care commenting on it? I know you did a lot already and I'm in no position to ask, but I still will because I feel that was an important part of the interaction. I can write up my take but I prefer to do it after yours in case I missed something important there. This is an opportunity for me to learn.

Right, I focused on the exchange.

It was strong, not sure whether I can say "too" strong or not.
Potentially fueled by the anger for feeling covertly attacked -a common reaction and Kavalier can shed more light if he so wishes-.

Feel free to go with your take on it.

Quote from Kavalier on July 6, 2022, 8:53 pm

Thank you, Lucio! I consider your assessment of the situation to be thorough and fair. Thanks for preventing this exchange from degrading to a turkey downward spiral :).

From my part, we are on good terms now and pretty much in the same team!

So my advice is to always keep the discussion between the two, and never open it up to other folks.

At first, this was intended as a feedback. The kind of feedback that we do here in the thread Feedbacks & clarifications is something that I don't give publicly in my daily life, as you say. I'd even say we really shouldn't, because pointing out what one thinks the other is doing is pretty much going meta. It's inherently confrontational, as you say in another thread. And even here things tend to quickly escalate, as many of the first posts show.

I was keeping the frame that LOF wasn't being intentional, but thought his style of communication was becoming a source of problems (certainly for me, and if it was his go to way of writing, very likely for others). But because this kind of miscomunication had already happened, I went slightly harder here while staying in neutral territory.

Still, I don't think in this case it was bad.
Personally, albeit I'd have disagreed that it was just an opinion with little validity, I might have let it slip.

I also think this was pretty within the green light. I would certainly have let it slip in most contexts. But if it happened repeatedly as it happened here, I would also just keep interactions strictly business. Instead of doing so, though, I wanted to take that thread as an opportunity for some exchange with a forum member I hadn't interacted much with yet. Why?

LOF and Kavalier are awesome guys and I'd be happy to meet them in person

Because this is a real possibility, and I'd be more than happy to meet awesome guys like Lucio, LOF and many others I have interacted with in TPM :)

But as I already had detected this pattern of speech from LOF's other threads I didn't want to join the dance before addressing that little issue (another feedback, LOF: it also might explain why sometimes this happens); in daily chat, this gets lost in the overall context, but not in writing. It looks like the person is always doing it. And, man, when one gets this each and every time, and after receiving feedback, the interlocutor not only continues to do so but thread-expands on it (LOF, you did it here, as Lucio pointed out, but also here), that is when we get to this. It really looks a lot like textbook social climbing by social pegging.

Now that Lucio pointed out that it was all all a case of miscommunication, we don't have to call it by these names. But it also wasn't a stretch for me to consider so, and that is when an apology becomes necessary for rebuilding goodwill.

From my part, I'm ready to recognize that here I was being my terrible self and, for all I said that was value-taking to you, LOF, I sincerely apologize.

 

Further feedback:

LOF, I still think this is worth addressing, but doing it respectfully this time:

This is a reference (name of authors, title of book, and year). If there's a source for an idea I'm using, and I know it, I'll try to write it because it helps with context. I will keep doing that Kavalier, I hope you don't see it as name dropping.

Referencing:

According to Joseph Ritson, roses are red, because violets are blue and honey’s sweet. Therefore, you are sweet.

Name dropping/appeal to (false?) authority:

According to Joseph Ritson, roses are red. Therefore, you are sweet.

The difference between the two sentences is that, in the first one, the argument is complete. So the reference is used as it should because its function in that sentence is just to point out that the writer is not the author of the proposition (to give proper credit) and make it possible for the reader to check the original source. The reader can still, though, assess the argument.

In the second one According to Joseph Ritson is doing all the heavy work behind the main premise. Then it becomes just name dropping. And it may be just a minor mistake, but it also can be a form of manipulation (it often is, by the way. Many scholarly works do that)

No babying intended, man, just wanted to explain my views on referencing while saying something nice :)

Good night to you!

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 6, 2022, 9:25 pm

Quote from Kavalier on July 6, 2022, 8:53 pm

I'd even say we really shouldn't, because pointing out what one thinks the other is doing is pretty much going meta. It's inherently confrontational, as you say in another thread. And even here things tend to quickly escalate, as many of the first posts show.

Absolutely, it's good to remind ourselves how challenging a thread like this can be (mental, emotional, power-wise, and all).

Talking about antifragile egos, a thread like this one is where you truly can put that to the test.