•Re: A modest request of Merlyn

[merlyn]

I know it may be splitting hairs, but I always see a person's actions as separate from their person. When I say "some fool", that's a shorthand for me of "someone who has exhibited a foolish action". It's still not a personal attack, because I myself exhibit foolish actions from time to time. Of course, my goal is to minimize that amount of time.

Please, rest assured, this is not a statement of your general character. Only that in this case, you did something foolish, and you hopefully learned from that.

[castaway]

I can't resist asking how this theory of actions being separate from persons is supposed to work. If this were so I could do all sorts of naughty things, and then just claim 'it wasnt me, I was just acting like that at the time' .. ?? Also, surely the reason (deep down somewhere), that we do all this cool stuff is so we can walk tall amongst our peers and say 'look I did that', the opposite is also true, if something stupid or unclever is done, we feel responsible/stupid ourselves, when it's pointed out.

Or do you like to distance yourself from your code so that you can't be held responsible when it goes haywire?

I could go on for a while.. But I hope I made some sort of point already.. If the comments are just meant for the code, and not the writer, surely its not too hard to say 'foolish thing to do' rather than 'fool'.

Myself Im convinced you mean exactly what you say and how you say it, and the disclaimer is just to mislead.. But hey, Im going to continue being responsible for my code, and think myself stupid for doing stupid things, and so on. (Just spent several days being responsible for someone elses, since they're on vacation during the customer acceptance test, but such is life..)

C.

[merlyn]

You are confusing responsibility with identity.

Choosing to identify with your actions (or your code) solidifies you as an object in a sea of objects, not an actor with moment-by-moment choices. Thus, an attack on your actions (or your code) is seen as an eternal blot on the object that you've now become. It is because you've confused a process with an object. This is why I keep saying "you are not your code, you are not your actions". I'm trying to reinforce the ability to take criticism as against a moment in time, not an eternal blot. I've found in general that choosing to identify with something that is actually a process leads to collectively more stagnant and limiting outcomes over time.

This is completely separate with the declaration that you are responsible for your actions (or code). This means that you welcome feedback, because you want to know how to adjust future behaviors based on past outcomes. And you can instead choose not to be responsible for your actions (or code), and that will lead to a different set of outcomes. I've found in life that choosing to be responsible generally leads to better and more flexible outcomes later.

There is nothing right or wrong about identity. There is nothing right or wrong about responsibility. But confusing one for the other, or not knowing the results of empowering one or the other, leads to outcomes that may not be desired.

I don't want people to "feel bad" (identity) about being a fool (a momentary process). I want people to make adjustments in their actions (responsibility) so as to not repeat the damaging actions in the future.

There. I hope that helps.

[rir]

I find your justifications unconvincing. I like much of what you have said in this thread about your motives. As an expert in Perl you demonstrate a good and generous social conscience by feeling and acting on "your" responsibility to correct "good" people.

People do persist and to some extent maintain state, I just called you a "Perl expert" this doesn't imply a momentary state. Your view of people as innately good also doesn't imply a momentary state. And "being a fool" doesn't imply a momentary state.

Much like two-thirds of programmers will err in judging $obj->new, many English speakers will mistake your meaning and be stung when reading "some fool comes along, this time it's $reader_name". That many here, myself included, are glad to have your expertise; and that many of us have become used to your poor tact; and that many of "the powers that be" know you in real life; and that some of us are just in awe of you--all those make Perl Monks a very forgiving audience for you.

The idea that politeness and effectiveness are either-or qualities of communication is erroneous. Compare politeness to good identifier names and good logic flow. "Fool" was not the best of variable names.

Your lack of skill in handling people has cost you a lot and I don't expect you to "get it" just because I write this; but as I see myself as more expert (close to normal) in this skill it is my duty to try to help you correct yourself. You are articulate but you have a small blind spot that leaves you insensitive to others regarding this sort of thing. Ugol's law is worth consideration.

I am warmed by a couple of your posts in this thread; the fineness of your intentions is not usually so well displayed. Perhaps you could craft a less abrasive standard disclaimer from things you have said in this thread. I volunteer my help if you want it.

Be well.

[castaway]

I'm glad you took the time to answer that as you did. The short form ("you are not your actions"), can easily be misunderstood, as apparently many have. Having said that, I think you're trying to make robots out of people. It's difficult to distance onesself enough from an action *just made*, in order to see critique as help, rather than an attack.

I think, in the first instance(s) after creating something, or doing something, or indeed in the process of doing it, we have to identify with our actions, as they are a part of us at that moment. It takes time to distance onesself enough to be able to be critical of ourselves.

This reminds me somewhat about a practice that (apparently) goes on in the army. If theres a problem of some sort between two people/soldiers, anyone that wishes to complain is supposed to sleep over it, and complain the next day, if there's still reason to. The reason being to both time to distance themselves, and understand their actions from a different perspective. I find it quite a good idea, and many a time I've wanted to reply to a post/person in some scathing manner, Ive waited a while to see if I still wanted to later.

Now, you're probably going to say that in some cases one just can't afford to wait, that its better for various reasons to avert disaster now, than wait until morning. And in many cases you'd be right. One should however still try to take into account many (young/new) programmers may take offense at such, even if, on the next day, what you said makes perfect sense to them too, and they maybe even feel foolish for not understanding your reply in the heat of the moment.

What I'm clumsily trying to point out is, that your choosing to be effective rather than polite may have the opposite effect than intended, because people may get so hung up on the fact that you are calling them fools (and not their actions foolish, which is apparently what you intended), and not actually realise which point you are trying to get across. (I know I have).

Anyway, this theory of 'wait and do it tomorrow' should also apply to the people that think "I'll reply to this thread with a funky solution to garner some XP". *These* people should at least think long enough to add warnings to their code when they know it's not a good thing to do, or indeed whether they should post it at all. (A technique also practiced by me on occasion, I make a note of what I wanted to post, and look again on the following day).

Thanks for the explanation. I'll try to keep it in mind next time I read some of your comments, though it won't be easy. Maybe linking to the above post (or entire thread) in your signature would help.

C.

[poqui]

I see it as a conflict between an Aristotelian view and an Operational one:
A: A Person "IS" something by definition.
O: A Person ACTED a cetain way at one point in time.

The Operational view is more accurate and scientific, it avoids prejudice and stereotyping because it focuses on what is measurable. ie.: How can you say a person "IS" un-trustworthy? You can look into the past and measure how many times they were un-trustworthy in similar situations, but that does not take into account what the person might have changed about their personality in the meantime. According to Aristotelian "ghost in the machine" logic, you should be able to divine some ineffable "trustworthiness" essence within the person; but it wouldn't be measurable.

Therefore, I think Merlyn is speaking Operationally, whereas Delerium has taken it as Aristotelian.


The Map is not the territory. The Menu is not the Meal.