Feedbacks & clarifications
But in this case, it went down like a lead balloon.
I would like to clarify this point.
Sometimes I go meta in very great detail, and it comes across as over-reacting and taking it very negatively due to the law of social effort.
Which I thank you for explaining to me the underlying dynamics in another thread.
Due to the nature of this forum, I like to explain things in much greater detail for my own learning and clarity.
I felt perturbed but not angry.
But I expanded on that because I take any perturbation as a chance of reflection on what I build my self-image upon.
Following our discussions on vulnerability, that might have come across the wrong way.
Also, the expansion of the thread between John and myself may come across as we are taking the discussion very personally and seriously.
I believe that it's an intellectual discussion we are having. John can correct me if I'm wrong.
We are just going into more general topics to understand the adjacent concepts on the topic better.
The thing is that once you criticize something/somebody on a forum, then there is all kinds of interpretations going on. Our psychological immune system kicks in.
Then it's a mess to sort out.
I did my best to keep the analysis on the specific remark rather than the person.
So that it does not come across as criticism.
Maybe it is challenging to do so on a forum.
It is challenging. Any negative remark is by definition a criticism. And if the other person does not know or can not know your intention, then the confusion is in there. See our exchange. Maybe intentions need to be revealed when criticizing (which is a good thing).
I learned about the difference between giving negative feedback and criticism from this ThePowerMoves article.
Quoting the main part,
In Why Marriages Succeed or Fail Gottman introduces criticism as
A global attack on personality or character
I always kept this in mind.
Whenever someone makes a remark that you would like to clarify or discuss, always focus on the remark and never on the person.
In this case, I explained the remark by going meta so that I can express how I perceived the remark.
And, in this case, I expressed that I felt slightly uncomfortable about the remark in this specific instance.
For our conversation, I made sure to say "it is very minor" and "I would like to clarify because it is important for our relationship".
Indeed it was a very minor point around "Just saying".
And I intended to better understand how you communicate, so we can have more productive discussions.
From this thread, when you say:
Before I get accused of making assumptions I will say it: these are assumptions based on the text you're writing
On a previous feedback, I said that one of your messages felt to me like an assumption, but presented as if it was a certain truth.
So when I read that sentence, it feels like you didn't agree with that old feedback (totally cool), and that the "accusation" part was potentially a way of "evening the scores" (less cool in my opinion as that would be passive-aggressive).
If in-person, that line could work great as a joke, for example, if delivered with a smile.
In text, I think it could have been worded better.
The word "accusation" implies aggression, and feedback is not meant as an accusation.
To avoid misunderstanding, I think it would have been better to word it as something like "before someone might misunderstand this... " or "just to be clear".
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback
On a previous feedback, I said that one of your messages felt to me like an assumption, but presented as if it was a certain truth.
In this conversation I used the word "seems" which is an acknowledgment of an assumption. So I did not present it as a truth. So, I don't agree with the feed-back. and I'm not evening the score. So to tell somebody who's taking all the precaution and respect by saying: "it seems to me..." and tell them: "you're presenting your opinion as facts" is either wrong or dishonest. I trust you to be honest.
If you're telling me I'm making an assumption and I'm not (see the word "seems"). It's not a feed-back, it's a mistake. It's all good. We all make mistakes. A feed-back is an opinion, that is all. And opinions are debatable. Opinions are not facts. Would you not agree?
I said:
Before I get accused of making assumptions I will say it: these are assumptions based on the text you're writing
Yes, it was directed at you because of the mistake above that you did not acknowledge, and still don't BTW. It's not "evening the score".
Anyway, I saw this message now, I'm coming here for a clarification:
Oli: Hey Lucio, if we're mentioning one try quizzes - the When People Roast You For a Mistake (11.3) can only be completed once as well. Hope this helps ?
John: Great assertiveness, Oli, way to go!
Oli: Hahah cheers John - right back at you!
John: We're making progress, dude! Right on!
Lucio: LOL, thank you, Oli, fixed.
John: What do you mean by LOL?
Lucio: LOL = "laugh out loud", internet geek-slang. In this case, acknowledging the humor in the previous messages back and forth.
John: Thanks for your answer. I know what LOL means. However I might have missed it. What humor?
Once again, thank you for your answer, could you please clarify? Thanks a lot!
PS: Since I changed email, I don't see anymore the email notifications as I don't use this email often, thank you for your understanding.
John,
Beyond the specifics of this or that situation, what I think is most important is that it feels to me like you push back very hard, and sometimes too strongly, against feedback or clarification.
And that makes it more difficult for the feedback giver to provide either feedback, or clarification.
VIGOROUS DISAGREEMENT
Let's call this attitude "vigorous disagreeing".
When people feel like feedback or clarification with the vigorous disagreer is going to be an issue or a struggle, they might give less feedback and bring up fewer issues -or none of them at all-.
The result is that the vigorous disagreer might miss out on people, potentially important people in their lives (including partners), who are growing angry, or resentful, but who never speak up because they're afraid of doing so, and/or because they feel they're not going to be heard.
Instead of speaking up, people might simply stop putting themselves out there, grow more disconnected, or fall out of love. Potentially, even disappear without notice.
Or if it's work, they might withhold precious information from the vigorous disagreer because they fear it might lead to some big upset.
That I feel it's going to be a struggle to provide you with feedback or clarification is my feeling, and as such, it cannot be either wrong, or dishonest: it's my reality.
My reality can be atypical, and not generalizable, of course.
So, to keep it simple, it's either you push back a little too vigorously and/or do not easily accept feedback, or I give bad feedback and/or I'm too sensitive against push back (or a mix of them all).
If anyone has any feedback on this, please let us know, this is our chance to grow emotional intelligence.
LOL - CLARIFICATION
I'm glad you wrote here about that, actually.
I stopped replying because I didn't want to go off-topic first and foremost and because it felt like it was too much investment over nothing.
So, what was the meaning of that "LOL"?
There was a lighthearted back and forth between you and Oli before I read the thread.
So before I wrote my piece, I put "LOL" as a way to say "I've read that, also found it funny, and I'm acknowledging it".
A sort of "pacing the reality" before I provided the news that I fixed the issue I had to fix.
Even in real life, it's best to match or say something that matches the mood of the environment before moving to a different topic with a different vibe.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback
Interesting, we’re getting to the core of the issue. I’ll answer you later more completely. Thanks for your answer!
I finished the book "Difficult Conversations", and it is a gold mine.
I had a challenging conversation yesterday about how to share information and set expectations within a team with another person.
I have never been more thankful to have access to resources on assertiveness training and conflict resolution skills.
We came out understanding each other's situation, boundaries, and how we think better.
There was an appreciation of being able to make difficult talk with each other.
I will give my perspective as a third-person.
I could certainly evaluate my observations wrongly.
A call would probably resolve this much faster, but probably we can share this experience for everyone on this forum as well.
Gut Feeling of the Other Person and the Relationship
Evaluate the other person and the value that this person brings to your life.
This is important because the principles of assertiveness and conflict resolution are different for more genuine, value-adding people against the Machiavellian, value-taking counterparts.
From my time on this forum, Lucio and John seem to have added value to each other in terms of intellectual discussion and the pleasure of sharing experiences.
From this observation, we can assume that both parties are not out to get each other.
Key Issue Here
On this forum, we are always going meta.
Lucio gave the first feedback here in meta style.
Meta is incredibly helpful for learning and uncovering power dynamics.
That being said, we usually discuss the power dynamics of a third-party event.
Now Lucio is involved in the situation itself and giving feedback.
That is why going meta in this case could be viewed as slightly accusatory.
Going meta is an interpretation of the dynamics of the event.
When the other party does not agree, the person may interpret the remarks as accusatory.
Maybe what we can do on this thread is to put phrases at the start like
- Going meta from my perspective
- Opening up a discussion for clarification
Analysis of the Conversation
Let's use the 3 pillars of difficult conversations:
- What happened?
- Feelings
- Intentions
1. What happened?
It is a forum. So incredibly challenging to understand "what happened" exactly.
Words betray the complexity of our intended meanings.
2. Feelings
And feelings can be so challenging to convey even in person.
Now we are in a forum! Not even WhatsApp or texting where it's more personal.
Yes, this is ThePowerMoves' forum, and I do love how we express and discuss so much over the written word.
At the same time, this is the physical constraint of the forum.
3. Intentions
Lucio and John are guessing about each other's intentions.
Rather than understanding how each other could have contributed to a misunderstanding.
As such, the conversation will stall and not progress because Lucio and John do not understand each other's true intentions but rather guess each other's intentions.
Specific Segments For Discussion
From this thread, when you say:
Before I get accused of making assumptions I will say it: these are assumptions based on the text you're writing
On a previous feedback, I said that one of your messages felt to me like an assumption, but presented as if it was a certain truth.
So when I read that sentence, it feels like you didn't agree with that old feedback (totally cool), and that the "accusation" part was potentially a way of "evening the scores" (less cool in my opinion as that would be passive-aggressive).
"You didn't agree with that old feedback (totally cool)."
can come across as judgemental and accusatory because John may not have that intention, and he may be interested in coming in to clarify.
"Didn't agree" frames the discussion as black and white.
There may be some areas where John shares the same perspective and other areas where John differs in perspective.
"It seems that we may have a different view of my old feedback. I would like to hear your point of view again."
states the area of conflict directly and gives the other person a chance to clarify.
Avoid a black and white frame. Opens up the conversation.
Comes across as assertive.
On a previous feedback, I said that one of your messages felt to me like an assumption, but presented as if it was a certain truth.
In this conversation I used the word "seems" which is an acknowledgment of an assumption. So I did not present it as a truth. So, I don't agree with the feed-back. and I'm not evening the score. So to tell somebody who's taking all the precaution and respect by saying: "it seems to me..." and tell them: "you're presenting your opinion as facts" is either wrong or dishonest. I trust you to be honest.
If you're telling me I'm making an assumption and I'm not (see the word "seems"). It's not a feed-back, it's a mistake. It's all good. We all make mistakes. A feed-back is an opinion, that is all. And opinions are debatable. Opinions are not facts. Would you not agree?
Here John has a different view of the situation than Lucio.
He views the feedback as set in stone but does not agree with the perspective.
He may have felt judged negatively and would like to dispute the frame.
As such, he frames the perspective as a mistake and being dishonest.
The result is that the remark sounds like an accusation.
This is how difficult conversations escalate.
Spending time understanding how each other interpreted the situation, feelings involved, and each other's intentions would sidestep this issue.
Beyond the specifics of this or that situation, what I think is most important is that it feels to me like you push back very hard, and sometimes too strongly, against feedback or clarification.
And that makes it more difficult for the feedback giver to provide either feedback, or clarification.
VIGOROUS DISAGREEMENT
Lucio does feel like "John pushes back very hard".
100% fact because, as Lucio says, your feelings are always true.
At the same time, this could be reworded from a first-person perspective by not directing the sentence at John.
Because John may not have the intention of pushing back very hard.
And John may interpret this sentence to be an accusation.
To put this across from a first-person perspective,
When you label my feedback as a mistake, I feel unacknowledged and misunderstood because I have put the time and effort into giving you feedback that potentially may not have been received well. We may have a difference in perspective, and I am always here to have an open discussion to iron out any potential misunderstandings.
Avoids the black-and-white agree/disagree frame.
States assertively what you are feeling while not sounding accusatory.
Gives John the chance to chip in his perspective.