Re: RFC: endorse debian-mentors as entrance to our infrastructure projects

["Chris Lamb" <lamby@debian.org>]

Adrian Bunk wrote:

> […]

I'm not sure whether this particular sub-thread is salvagable but I
thought I might briefly share the below in order that it might prevent
parallel cases elsewhere.

There exists a particular argument style where one participant in the
discussion asks a collection of essentially reasonable "devil's
advocate" questions to the group.

Whilst this can superfically appear to be an instance of the Socratic
method this can unfortunately be inadvertently and subconsciously
interpreted as passive-agressive.

This is due to the way it can mask provocative positions as "mere"
questions but it generally shifts the burden of proof and — as it
requires an asymmetric level of energy to "answer" the implied
viewpoints — it can make as others feel cornered, leading to a
defensive and ultimately unproductive discussion.

Naturally, if there was any perception that this tactic was deployed
deliberately this will only heighten any antagonism felt by the group.
Do note that that it is not necessarily the questions themselves that
are considered the problem but rather that the response is constructed
predominantly of them.

Personally, I have been over-indulgent in using such "devil's
advocate" positions in the past, but after some feedback I realised
that it did not have the intellectually stimulating quality I was
hoping for and merely distanced myself from whom I wished to convince.
After reducing my usage and spending moretime & effort adopting
alternative modes of argument I found my attempts to connect with and
ultimately persuade others to be far more effective.


Best wishes,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-