I would love a conversation about this and for people to post their own experiences/conflicting opinions. 🙂
I was reading a thread on MDC about whether it is ‘rude’ to correct misinformation in a social setting. Specifically a chick was talking about how there is another mother in her mommy group who routinely spouts ‘facts’ about dealing with babies that are often not-great to flat out dangerous. So far no one in the group is willing to contradict her publicly. The course of the thread involves many many women saying, “Well if it is truly dangerous I might try to very tactfully redirect, but I never contradict people because it will make the others in the group uncomfortable.”
That. That right there is why I (and I project onto most of my closer female friends) do not get along with groups of women. If you are presenting something as a fact then it is either true or not true and pointing out the truth should not be rude. I think this avoidance of conflict is basically unhealthy. I know that this is the ‘just get along’ community minded stuff that women are known for, but I don’t see it as positive. I see this conformity-or-else mindset as what encourages misogyny amongst women. Most of my female friends are pretty quick to say that they don’t like women. When I point out that they are saying that to a woman they say, “Well not you.” I think this is what is really being objected to. Women who buy into this mindset seem to believe that being smart, being right, being a ‘know it all’ is something to avoid at all costs. Why? Why in the world is this a good thing? Noah made a long argument about how long ago in communal settings when women were getting together to do the work of surviving there had to be more consensus and getting along, but that’s not particularly relevant today. Noah points out that people just don’t evolve that fast, but pshhhh forget that noise.
This made me think a lot harder about Alpha dynamics in social groups and particularly in a mommy-group I tried to join. I regularly challenged the sitting Alpha when I disagreed with her and as a result people didn’t talk to me much. I stopped going because I was sick of having to support the one chick or just shut up. Not my thing. I have a lot of Alpha-type tendencies but I am really ok with other people being Alpha if they know more, if we are at their house, if I’m just not in the mood. So I think I am not a ‘true’ Alpha in the sense that most people use the word. But I am bossy and pushy and opinionated and ok with seeing that things happen. I think that my refusal to accept a set social position (Alpha or otherwise) and my insistence that groups remain dynamic in this sense is a lot of what makes me suck in groups. I just don’t fit in because I cannot and will not accept any set defined position.
It’s interesting. What do you think?
Hunh. Whereas I find, in general, that I don’t get along with groups of men because they pretend like they *do* know it all. Or, even if they do know it all, they present it as a moral victory because knowledge is a zero-sum game and if they’re right then everybody else is wrong.
Admittedly, the women I surround myself with would be horrified at the ‘never contradict people’ rule. They’re, by and large, geek girls who have a great deal of respect for data, for information, for the truth.
🙂 Well I think that everything can be done to a bad end. I’m personally of the school of thought that there can be many right answers, there does not negate the fact that there are many wrong answers as well. 😛 I am not afraid of conflict but I don’t enjoy arguing all that much, I just want correct information passed on. Once I get to the point of, “Hey we looked at the same piece of data and got different results because we have different end goals, rock on” I move on. 🙂
And that is one of the many reasons that you are awesome.
I think there are a lot of opinions espoused as facts.
In NLP, I was taught to recognize and distinguish the distinction between a claim about objective truth, (“My client is innocent”), and a statement of opinion, (“I think/believe my client is innocent”). IME, if everyone claims all statements as their own, then there really isn’t much conflict. There’s just not much to argue about if I claim that I believe in Santa Claus because I’m pretty much the final authority on what it is that I believe and we pretty much all agree that that’s the case. So the fact that I’m stating it pretty much makes it a consensus truth.
English is slightly broken. We currently and commonly use the imperative form both as a statement of fact, (“you must breathe”), as well as a form of command, (“you must return a guilty verdict”), intending to stand in as a more emphatic and yet softer seeming, (ie, indirect), command, (“return a guilty verdict”). The two statements are related in that they essentially pose an ultimatum – you must blahblahblah or something unthinkable will happen. If you don’t breathe, then ultimately you’ll die, but in the short term you could easily panic or pass out. If you don’t return a guilty verdict then the accused will go free, perhaps even getting away with their crime. This dynamic often slips into claims of fact, “democracy is good/better/best”, where what’s really intended is a combination of a statement of preference, “I prefer democracy” combined with a command, “you should prefer democracy too”.
Frequently, people will state as fact something that is true, but only in a small context. “Life sucks” is pretty broad. Has life always sucked? Since the beginning of time? Will it always suck through the end of time? Does it suck for everyone? At all times continuously without relief? What evidence exists to support the claim that “life sucks”?
NLP has two things called a “metamodel” which is slightly confusing. One of them is about the NLP modeling process itself. The other is about recognizing language like this and challenging it with subtle shifts. “Yes, I can see how your life might suck just now.” which is both a partial validation of “life sucks” as well as a partial redirection. It’s not a head-on challenge, but it does directly challenge the more gratuitous aspects of the original claim.
People who believe in absolute truth can be difficult to interact with. People who believe that assertion is a form of logical discourse are similar and there’s a lot of overlap. (I’ve certainly been a prominent member of both groups in the past.) Even attempting to realign their perspective into opinion, “I’m sorry you think that.” can be seen as an offensive challenge. However, IME, while the original person may be offended, most other observers will recognize precisely that it is true which will help steer the group.
The one I have trouble with these days is when I clearly own my opinion, “I don’t like onions”, and the person at the table who does like onions seems to take that as a personal affront because, afterall, “onions are good”. I really just haven’t found a good way to handle that one unless they actually speak words to that affect.
I also think that you’re right about the value of “peacemaking”. My value for it has grown over the years from pretty much zero to recognizing that I might want to double think a challenge in some cases. I still tend to elect challenge over peacemaking more often than not but I do consider both possibilities more frequently these days.
Hm. I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say that I am right about the value of peacemaking. There are times when I don’t initiate conflict–usually cause I’m just in the mood–but I don’t know that I do it out of peacemaking.
I mean that I think you’re right that it’s especially common with women and that I agree that it’s difficult to participate in a group where peacemaking is a particularly strong value.
Physical abuse survivors also have higher values for peacemaking than most folks and can be of any gender.
Hm. Interesting. (seriously!) I think it is interesting that you say ‘physical abuse survivors’ because no matter how you shake it the abuse done to me was at least sometimes physical and it is largely as the result of that stuff that I won’t keep silent anymore.
Hm. Interesting. 🙂 Peacemaking is overrated. 😀
I have spent (too) much of my life being that conflict-avoidant, so-not-an-Alpha-ever, woman. I’d certainly agree with you that this avoidance of conflict to the point of not correcting a falsehood is basically unhealthy. Politely pointing out the truth should not be rude.
For me, I think the root cause of my conformity-at-all-costs behavior was a combination of low self-esteem and not having any women around me to model anything different as I grew up (in a very Catholic part of the south). I don’t remember meeting/getting to know women who struck me as different in this regard until about the time I moved to the west coast.
Hmmm…and as I think about it, there’s also something coming up for me about wanting to make sure I wasn’t like a couple of my brothers, who were typically very know-it-all assholes, whether they really knew or not.
Your thought about not fitting in because you insist that the group remains dynamic is an interesting one to me. I could see how that might be the case for a lot of social groups.
I am also very willing to recognize that there are polite ways to point out the truth and impolite ways to do it and I’m not always polite. 😀 I try to be mostly polite without having to sacrifice honesty but I will sacrifice politeness long before honesty. It’s a quirk. 🙂
I think that there is very much the attitude of not wanting to be a know-it-all-asshole for a great many people but I want to know why being smart and knowing stuff is synonymous with being an asshole? I know a lot of ignorant assholes too.
It has been a really interesting thing for me to stop and consciously think about–the group dynamics bit. 🙂 I’ve been kind of poking folks I hang out with today on that topic and they seem to basically agree with my assessment of my approach. 🙂
That’s the sort of quirk I like to see in people I hang out with these days. Because of the two, I’d rather see politeness sacrificed first. I’ve gotten better about doing that myself in many cases, but I think it may be a lifetime road ahead of me in others.
Hmm. This is being some really interesting pondering for me. I think part of it for me is about the only peer-modeling I had for people who would contradict someone in favor of presenting the truth were male assholes. And part of it for me was about not trusting myself to be able to tell if I crossed a line from smart/knowing stuff into assholery; not being able to trust myself to be smart without being an asshole (that low self-esteem thing).
It’s really interesting for me to think back over my life and have NO strong or confident women role models come to mind until I was…in my mid/late 20s? Oooh. And then I think more about it and realize that one of my aunts was exactly that – strong and opinionated and confident (whether she was right or not). And I was strongly encouraged not to be like her as a kid. Gah. So glad I don’t live in the south anymore.
Anyway, I’ve no clue whether my experience is at all generalize-able, but it’s certainly giving me some interesting brain-food to think about. 🙂
but I want to know why being smart and knowing stuff is synonymous with being an asshole?
Many people seem to take a statement of fact as implying that you didn’t know it beforehand. That’s probably related to the “zero-sum game” thing somebody mentioned in an earlier comment.
If you assume that any assertion of fact is also an assertion of ignorance in the listener, you can see how being smart and outspoken would come to equal rude quite quickly.
I’m not sure this is why — at best it’s a hypothesis. But it makes as much sense as any other explanation I’ve heard.
In any case, the problem (whatever its cause) is certainly made worse by insecurity on the parts of the listeners, both insecurity about what they know and insecurity about what the speaker and other listeners believe they know (or don’t).
Geek groups tend to “solve” this problem by the unspoken social value “we don’t have time to slow our deluge of facts for your insecurity, Random Insignificant Listener.” While there are obvious down-sides, I *do* prefer it to the default 🙂
It depends on lots of stuff…
Generally, in a social setting, I take a long view of things: “Is this going to matter in a year?” If the answer is yes, then I correct. Otherwise, I smile quietly to myself and let them stay wrong.
It’s funny, what I read above about guys, because I find the same, exact thing about women. With guys I can say “you’re full of bullshit!” With women, I can’t and I’m *far* less likely to correct a woman.
I even leave the pontificating “know-it-all assholes” alone, mostly. I suppose because up until fairly recently, I used to be one of those people.
Plus, I have a Very Smart Uncle (I mean, like wicked, wicked, wicked, smart) who *never* passes up a chance to correct everyone and everybody around him – even tiny minor things. And you can be an asshole that way, too.
Of course it depends. 🙂 I know for a fact that I know the only correct way of folding laundry but I don’t really give a shit that the rest of you do it wrong. 😉
Why do you think you can’t correct a woman? This is interesting to me. I am well aware of my own touchiness around being corrected but I tend to manifest that in ways where I want to influence (ok to be honest: control) peoples tone of voice and approach, but I still want to be told I’m wrong when I’m wrong. I just want it done very particularly. Luckily I have some bitchin friends who are willing to humor me. 😀
I don’t even know where the focus on know-it-all-assholes came from. The original post I read was talking about correcting misinformation. Why does it make you a know it all asshole if you have correct information and you share it?! That’s the bit that really bugs me. Yes, approach is important. But it seems to me that there are a great many people who are happier to just sit around listening to bullshit than risk social censure by pointing out that someone is wrong once in a while. Why does that social censure exist? It seems stupid to me. I’m not talking about a know-it-all-asshole holding court and constantly interrupting *every* statement made by someone else. Why isn’t there a middle ground?
It’s good we both know the same way of folding laundry!
I think I have trouble correcting wymyns because A.) My mom smacked me whenever I dare suggest I might know more than her and B.) My wife *hates* it when I correct her and C.) Because all y’all tend to go off like firecrackers when you’re corrected “incorrectly” and D.) I’m so pussy-whipped it isn’t even funny.
But, when in any group dominated by a preaching/preening Alpha, instead of actually correcting, I like to simply and earnestly ask “Really? Where did you hear/learn that?” Usually, Alpha has no good answer. Their knowledge becomes suspect and *that* undermines their status while my status, as the wise questioner, is boosted. Plus, it lets them know that I know they don’t know what they’re talking about – that’s the most fun thing of all!
I can’t speak for others but, for me, the notion of a know-it-all asshole stems from people who think that “correcting” is nothing more than presenting the facts.
At the gym we have a black-belt whose martial arts technique is flawless. She’s nothing less than beautiful when she moves. She has a huge amount to offer the lower ranks. But she’s an island of knowledge because absolutely *nobody* will work with her. She constantly corrects every tiny little mistake everyone makes (and wonders why her daughter keeps pulling her own hair out at the roots). I know she can’t help herself – it’s some sort of control-freak illness – but that doesn’t make her any easier to tolerate.
We have another lady whose knowledge is not so deep. But she corrects in a kinder and gentler manner. Students flock to her for help. She does far more good for the group as a whole because she’s a Teacher and not merely a corrector.
I think reaching a middle-ground in sharing knowledge requires a lot of give-and-take and many people (as we know) aren’t very good at that. It’s extremely difficult to find a truly functional and dynamic group. That’s why most people DETEST working in groups.
I know it’s why I hate it.
I think I need to actually visit that thread.
Of course I am paraphrasing. 🙂 It’s in the main Parenting section. “Do you contradict peoples ‘facts’….” 🙂
I tend to gravitate towards people who speak their mind and who also value knowledge. Growing up, in my family, it was good to know stuff. It took me a long time to have a sense of the difference between Knowing Stuff and Spouting Off Stuff. Just because I knew it didn’t mean anyone else wanted/needed to hear it. I still struggle with this. It’s also taken me a long time to figure out ways of wording stuff such that other people will listen to it (for a great many contexts).
I used to greatly prefer hanging out with males because it was more acceptable to contradict or at least clarify (maybe the word I’m looking for is challenge?) with males than it was with females. Now I’m finding better ways to exchange and correct information with females. OTOH, this is mostly true for my personal relationships, which I’ve chosen at least partly on basis of interpersonal communication ability/enjoyment. So there’s a lot of self-selection there. I’ve tried spending time with the women’s groups in the kink community here, and I often run into old issues – either the women are very ‘sheepish’ (highly reluctant to voice opinions or to challenge statements, occasionally reluctant to initiate verbal or other social interactions of any sort) or they’re on the other end of the spectrum with constant challenging or dominating of the conversation. This isn’t to say there isn’t anyone in the middle. I just often find too many women at the ends of that scale for my taste. Thus, I prefer mixed groups if I’m going to engage in group dynamics. (FWIW – currently I’m finding it preferable to avoid organized groups of most sorts right now, “right now” being the last 2-3 years so far).
I find this a challenge in my work place as well. My work place is 98% women for co-workers, and when I have parent meetings, it’s 75-80% moms/female caretakers I deal with (the rest are dads/male caretakers or multiple caretakers showing up). Trying to make decisions or changes or accomplishing assigned tasks in our service teams often annoys the crap out of me. There’s too much “but what do you think?” and “well, I suppose we could… if that’s okay” for my taste. I found this in graduate school as well (another 98% female population for my department). One woman in particular drove me insane with her whole “well, this is only my personal opinion so it doesn’t have much value, and I’m sorry to take up your valuable time with my worthless contribution, and obviously I don’t understand what’s going on nearly as well as anyone else” attitude. She’d spend twice as long apologizing for opening her mouth as she ever did asking or saying anything. Geezus! Ask a question, make a contribution, or shut up! This is a great deal of why out of my class of 40, there are two people I still talk with.
These days in general, I’m finding myself not speaking up nearly as much as I (think I) used to, especially outside the comfort of close personal circles. I’m finding it’s not often worth it to speak up to correct opinons/erroneous facts. The person with the opinion/erroneous fact just gets pissed off and isn’t interested in the actual fact, or it’s an area I’m not sure enough about to make a challenge about the ‘fact’. Or I’m just tired of correcting the same ‘fact’ over and over and over, and frankly today is just not my day to be in charge of it. I’m better about it at work, but when just out in public, I rarely speak up anymore. Most of my interactions aren’t often long enough to warrant the energy it would take, IMCurrentO.
A lot of whether I speak up depends on the actual topic and the possible outcomes if the listeners follow the misinformation given. If the outcome isn’t likely to cause some type of harm (including physical, financial, and/or social harm) by someone’s following the misinformation, whether I speak up depends on my mood at the particular moment, more than whether or not I want to engage in the resultant brouhaha which speaking up may initiate. If I know the advice, if followed, is going to harm someone (either the person following the advice, or others impacted by their actions), I feel not speaking up makes me a party to the harm done.
How I speak up will certainly influence whether or not there is a resultant brouhaha, or the extent to which it is likely to escalate to a conflagration. Usually, I start by mentioning I have read/seen/experienced things which differ from what has previously been said — citing references, where possible. Pointing people to resources where they can do further reading and form their own opinions has had the best outcome for me. I usually try to soft pedal my own Alpha-ness when I’m responding to someone who’s obviously doing a lot of chest-beating in their original post — unless they catch me in a particularly pissy mood, and then, all bets are off.
My experience is that what’s described as peacemaking can sometimes be more conflict-avoidance than actual peacemaking. “Going along to get along” doesn’t really advance a constructive exchange of ideas, and it can lead someone to infer that the misinformation is not only True in the Alpha poster’s mind, but is accepted as True by the group. A person new to the group could recognize they’re dealing with a bunch of lemmings and keep moving on in their search to find a more helpful group, but as often as not, they accept what’s being said and find themselves tripping merrily down the Path of Unfortunate Outcomes.
If everyone feels safe in contributing their input to the discussion, even if what is being said may differ — *then* you have a constructive discussion that will allow everyone the benefit of the collective knowledge and experience of the group. This concept is the center of the book Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, which I highly recommend.
thank you for the book-link. At the least, the title alone made me think of two particular friends who are “stuck” in their lives and both have difficulty speaking up… could be a good book rec.