
"Overreacting" considered harmful - bconway
http://raganwald.posterous.com/overreacting-considered-harmful
======
molbioguy
I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined
meanings. I have come to understand that there really are "poisonous" words;
words, phrases, attitudes that absolutely have impacts well beyond their
dictionary definitions and the speaker's likely intent. If you include these
things when conversations are tense or critical, the situation is likely to
destabilize and get worse. Making the conversation "safe" and non-threatening
is very important. Steering away from emotional arguments and focusing on
facts is also key. All of this is harder to do in any text message or email as
well, as body language and other social cues are unavailable.

Added:

This comes up a lot in employer - employee conversations. If you want your
team to function efficiently, you really have to create a safe environment for
comments and discussion.

~~~
unalone
> I used to think that words were just words, logical things with defined
> meanings.

Well, they are! But those defined meanings are different for everybody who has
a history with the word, and oftentimes you don't know that history going in.
The problem with "straight white male" privilege, speaking as a straight white
male myself, is that there are words which have _enormous_ baggage for one
group or another, yet I've simply never had to deal with such baggage myself.

That's where the overreacting canard comes from, and I don't think raganwald
fully empathizes with this in his post. Some people simply don't understand
why somebody might have a reason to be worked up about a particular issue
_because they've never had to care about that issue in their life_. I don't
just hear "you're overreacting" from people who can't comprehend that people
have bad days sometimes. In fact, assuming that the only reason a situation
might be personally charged is because somebody had a bad day can be just as
frustrating: it really sucks, I've learned, to be "forgiven" for your bad mood
when the forgiver has said something truly offensive. What's difficult, but
also truly necessary, is to be able to understand _why_ somebody's reacted the
way they have – to be willing to admit to yourself that even if something you
said didn't seem egregious to _you_ , that you might have crossed a line
somehow that you simply haven't learned to notice.

A lot of people forget that in any human-to-human interaction, the logical
endpoints are the humans. Language, as all aspects of communication, is human-
oriented; using it like it's a logical end unto itself is like trying to use
Python phrases in a C script.

~~~
raganwald
Excellent, thank you.

------
Millennium
I disagree with the assertion that it's impossible to overreact without
"deliberately" exaggerating for effect. People overreact all the time without
meaning to. Anyone who works with children can tell you that putting things
into perspective is a learned skill: we are born overreactors, every one of
us. Going too far is, as it turns out, the natural thing to do.

~~~
raganwald
I have two children. My five year-old recently was tired and hungry, and had a
fit when presented with a croissant to eat because it was slightly crushed
where I held it too tightly.

Overreacting? Well, that is what I would call an inappropriate reaction, and
of course it's part of my job as a parent to provide some guidance.

But it's still 100% the genuine emotion of the moment, and for that reason I'm
not going to use the word "overreacting" with a child or an adult. I'm going
to say (as I said, roughly) "I understand this isn't what you'd like,
however..."

Which is roughly what I'd say to an adult too.

~~~
Millennium
This holds that "genuine" emotional reactions are all equally valid. What
makes rage over a slightly-crushed croissant a valid emotional response?

There is also a question of what makes the "genuine" qualifier necessary. It
presupposes the idea of an emotional response that is not genuine: what would
this mean? What would a "false" emotional response look like, to the one
feeling it (and are they truly feeling it at all?) or to others?

~~~
DanBC
> This holds that "genuine" emotional reactions are all equally valid. What
> makes rage over a slightly-crushed croissant a valid emotional response?

It was from a five year old. Children haven't learnt how to regulate their
emotions. That's part of the job of parenting.

~~~
Millennium
That makes it genuine, certainly. Maybe even understandable. But does that
mean it's valid?

------
edanm
This is a post about word-usage, specifically saying that the word
"overreacting" is not a good word to use in conversation, because it carries a
lot of emotional baggage and doesn't foster productive conversations.

Funny enough for a post about word-usage, I only understood this point after
reading half of it. I think this post should've started with this sentence
(from the OP, posted as a comment in this thread): "Let me get the thesis of
the post out of the way first. The post asserts that the word 'overreacting'
is unproductive to discussion."

Having said that, I agree with the post and think it makes a very good point.

~~~
raganwald
Overly clever author is overly clever. Thank you.

~~~
edanm
I was just about to edit my comment to make sure you'd take it in the right
spirit (constructive feedback). I should never have doubted you raganwald.

------
F_J_H
Another really unhelpful thing to say in these situations is the variant "Calm
down".

~~~
raganwald
You're being too sensitive about this.

~~~
danielweber
What about when a guy has problems checking things into source control and
starts throwing things around the office?

What about the a guy gets a call from his home monitoring system and starts
yelling that his house has burned to the ground?

What about a guy who shouts "you aren't my manager and you never will be" to a
coworker?

I made none of those up. They all happened, from 3 different people. (At the
same company, for that matter.) Some people really do overreact and really do
need to calm down.

The failure for those people to be removed led everyone else to leave.

~~~
aredridel
Did telling them so ever help?

------
kstenerud
You're ignoring the subtext of the hypothetical tweet.

By asking "where are the caramel colored men?", you are implying that there
SHOULD be men, which further implies that it's the organizer's fault that
there are not.

I'd be pretty surprised if such a tactless comment did not offend.

~~~
raganwald
In my hypothetical story, she was offended (I used the word "pissed"). And if
you agree that this is reasonable, I think this make smy point stronger, that
the word "overreacting" is not helpful in having a productive discussion.

The end-goal of a productive discussion doesn't have to be me convincing her
that there should have been a tall, handsome Canadian on the podium. Perhaps
the end-goal could have been her convincing me that I need to see this from a
new perspective.

Either way, the word "overreacting" is not a good start. That's my thesis.

------
TeMPOraL
A million times yes!

I find the "overreacting" word incredibly annoying. What it basically amounts
to is: "I don't care about you, your feelings or your opinion; I know better
and I'm not going to have a rational conversation about it". It's an ugly
thing to say, it changes the conversation from discussing objective reality to
discussing the validity of someone's emotions. It's a very nasty and saddening
kind of dismissal. I can't help but to think less of a person who uses this in
a conversation.

------
jrogers65
Your sentiments on overreacting aside, why does it matter what gender or skin
colour the speakers have? If they are qualified and best of class then they
should be the ones speaking, no? Should we also invite granite rocks to
presentations so that they are equally represented?

~~~
raganwald
It may not matter at all. Why should there be "Tall, Canadian, Caramel
Privilege?"

~~~
jrogers65
I don't really understand where you're going with this. If the best speakers
happen to be Asian females then what is the problem, exactly?

There is not one caucasian person in the top 10 fastest 100m sprinters
(<http://www.toptens.com/sports-track-sprinters/>). Do you believe that this
is somehow problematic?

Genes and gene expression affect neurotransmitter levels and neurotrophic
factors which, in turn, affect cognitive performance - just as Jamaicans and
Africans are on average better at sprinting than English and French natives.
Particular genetic groupings are going to fare better at task X, not too badly
at task Y and terribly at task Z.

This is not privilege, it is reality.

[http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110809/genes-play-
big-...](http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110809/genes-play-big-role-in-
intelligence)

~~~
jacalata
Are you suggesting that the genetic grouping of white males is scientifically
accepted as being a better ruby conference speaker than non-white or non-male
people?

~~~
jrogers65
I believe that we're talking about Asian women being at the top of whatever
field the conference referenced in the blog post was about.

~~~
jacalata
right, I was thinking of the actual incidents that (I assume) prompted this
blog post. So you can re-state my question as, "are you arguing that it is
likely that Asian women are genetically superior to non-Asian or male people
in that field?".

~~~
jrogers65
Well yeah, that's what I'm arguing. Asian women are going to, on average, do
better in field X than individuals from other genetic groupings - just as
Jamaican men excel at sprinting.

Another example:

> Different studies have found different results, but most have found above-
> average verbal and mathematical intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews, along with
> below-average spatial intelligence. Some studies have found IQ scores
> amongst Ashkenazi Jews to be a fifth to one full standard deviation above
> average in mathematical and verbal tests.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence#D...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence#Does_a_group_difference_in_intelligence_exist.3F)

~~~
jacalata
ok. So to tie this back to the real world examples that came up recently - is
there similar evidence for white guys in Ruby?

------
olgeni
"At last, the conference drama overshadowed the Rails drama and everybody
lived happily ever after."

