
Argument Cultures and Unregulated Aggression - picks_at_nits
https://www.kateheddleston.com/blog/argument-cultures-and-unregulated-aggression
======
grandalf
If I am arguing with someone and I change my mind as a result of the argument,
I consider myself to have "won" because I gained knowledge.

If we accept all beliefs as provisional and only look to the argument as a
method of hypothesis testing, it can be part of a group's rational process.

However in my opinion the best way to approach group decision making is to
acknowledge that all decisions have tradeoffs and then evaluate various ideas
based on their relative tradeoffs.

Teams with a bullying culture find the tradeoff matrix annoying because it
deflates the intimidation tactics that some members use to get their way and
shut other people down. For an example just bring up Mongodb.

~~~
anaximander
This is an excellent perspective. Those tradeoffs are often the root of these
arguments anyway: Alice comes up with a solution that has some advantage x.
Bob comes up with a solution that has some advantage y. They'll argue
endlessly because neither one of them will say "Oh you're right, I didn't
consider x" or "I like your solution, but I don't know what's more important:
x or y. Let's focus on determining that instead."

~~~
grandalf
> "I like your solution, but I don't know what's more important: x or y. Let's
> focus on determining that instead."

Yes exactly. If only people were more rational, solution oriented, and humble.
Engineering is about design within tradeoffs.

------
throwawayf2o
The explicit separation of hypothesis generation and argumentation /
evaluation of alternatives is good advice.

It's also helpful to take an iterated "2 pass approach" the
argumentation/evaluation phase: first have everyone state their arguments,
then isolate the important criteria upon which the proposed alternatives truly
differ (e.g., team familiarity, fitness to application area) and try to
establish how these are related and make sure these criteria are related to
the end goal (e.g., quality product delivered on time and at cost). Then throw
out any arguments that aren't related to the most salient criteria and
iterate. This is a useful decision making process even when you're arguing
with yourself.

However, divorcing advocate from advocacy is not always a good idea because it
assumes everyone in the room has the same set of experiences. This is never
the case; people often suggest a particular solution precisely because they
understand that solution (or a proposed alternative) well enough to have an
experience-backed opinion; others in the room might not have the same
experience, and so are unlikely to make the same arguments for/against a
solution as other team members.

In general, the problem isn't argumentation. Argumentation, broadly defined,
will hopefully _always_ happen whenever two mutually exclusive options are on
the table. It is unavoidable unless you're willing to engineer by coin flip.
The problem is ego and lack of respect and empathy.

When team members respect and have empathy for one another, argumentation
won't lead to these problems. Similarly, a lack of respect and empathy or an
inflated ego cannot be solved by mediation of particular arguments; it's a
larger issue that should be dealt with on its own terms.

------
wvh
I work for a company that is very much like the bullet points described in the
post, and nothing gets done. Sure there are lots of endless meetings and
brainstorming sessions, but nobody bangs on the table and nobody steps up.
Nobody's negative in public, but returns silently resentful and sometimes even
demotivated to their own office. Sometimes the negativity comes out in a back-
handed manner, as gossip, or passive aggression. What fighting and discussion
gets replaced with is often at least as ugly and detrimental.

The previous company I worked for was the exact opposite, probably a good
example for the sort of aggressive and argumentative company the article talks
about. Things got done, but the atmosphere was not very good. It helped to be
dominant and make a lot of noise.

The writer tries to push for the environment she'd like as the best possible
way of achieving whatever that needs achieving, but having worked for several
companies on either end of that spectrum, I don't think it's all that clear
cut. You might like a non-confrontational style, only positivity and no
competing, but I don't think that's a company where everyone wants to work or
that would do well in every market.

Finally, I don't want to argue ;) -- but the word aggression is very ambiguous
and some of the examples refer rather to violence (war, physical aggression)
rather than with fighting spirit (like an athlete).

~~~
moomin
One strategy is to say "You seem frustrated." Another is "You're reading too
much into this."

There's so much wrong with a culture of aggressive arguing it's hard to know
where to start but consider this: we've got plenty of research that tells us
that women are disproportionately disliked if they act in an aggressive
manner. Men, on the other hand, are often seen as being "winners" or "leaders"
with _the same behaviour_. So you're de facto running a misogynistic culture
by promoting this behaviour.

And if there's much better ways for your firm to win than be more aggressive
than your competitors. There's serving your customers for a start.

------
anaximander
I feel like this article starts off on the wrong foot:

 _" An argument is the use of aggressive opposition to weed out weak logic,
keeping the strongest ideas possible. The philosophy behind using arguments
for problem-solving is that attacking the weak parts of an idea will leave the
best solutions."_

I'm with you so far. Being able to distinguish good from bad is the basis of
critical thought.

 _" The metaphor for argument in our culture is war. We think of people we
argue with as opponents ..."_

I know a lot of people who do this, but I certainly don't, and I consider it a
sign of maturity when somebody is able to separate ideas from egos. Remember,
we started off by talking about the good and bad parts of ideas; not good and
bad people. It's not a fight, it's a collaboration to share perspectives and
discover new insight.

 _"... we attack their position and defend our own, we can gain or lose
ground, and ultimately we can win or lose arguments—just like battles"_

Whether you're focusing on the idea, or the person who generated it, there's
really no use in considering them an opponent, and even less use in framing
things in terms of winning or losing. Ideas don't "compete" with each other,
any more than 1 and 2 compete to see which is the bigger number. There's only
truth. If you're winning or losing, you've already missed the point and you're
focusing on the wrong thing.

I think "aggression" is unfortunately not the real problem here, the real
problem is that people often aren't mature enough to admit they're wrong, or
to consider another person's perspective, or to say "I don't know".

I don't want to focus on this aspect of the article, but I find it really
discouraging to continually see these articles which try to spin things in
terms of gender. Developing this "men vs women" perspective is exactly the
kind of "adversarial mind" the author denounces in the introduction.

~~~
21echoes
Yes, it is possible to have absolutely, completely emotion-less arguments. No,
it is not easy, or particularly common.

If you truly feel like you & your work environment do have such pure-truth-
seeking arguments: _great_. However, please take some time to really
critically evaluate & test that assertion -- the people who are most at home
in such an environment are the people least likely to notice its negative
effects on other team members & potential hires. I'm speaking from experience
here: I love arguing (or "debating" as I prefer to think of it), and have been
on plenty of teams where it was a common interaction. It was only with some
time, helpful feedback from my direct reports, and critical examination that I
was really able to see the subtle ways in which it was hurting our org.

Re: gender -- I hope you see why gender was brought up in the article. No, it
was not some "spin" or needless us vs. them. Women are, as the article states,
the canary in the coal mine of toxic & aggressive interpersonal dynamics. Not
because of any weaknesses of women, but rather because men have been shown
over and over again to reject the arguments of assertive women no matter their
merits, and to accept the same arguments from equally assertive men instead
(cited in the article). In other words: an argumentative environment is one
which punishes women by putting them in a position where their peers judge
them in a gendered way.

~~~
anaximander
I guess I didn't mean to imply that I live in a world where everyone can have
these "pure-truth" arguments. In fact, it's a rare and often rewarding
experience if it does happen. I also know that there's a time and a place for
debating and it requires consent of all parties. It also requires that some
value is being generated, if we're talking about debating in the workplace.

I guess I am having trouble appreciating the relation of this article to
gender, for two reasons.

1\. The author is claiming that "men are aggressive" and then claiming that
"aggression" is the problem, so the point of the article really seemed to be
"men are the problem". I find this in some ways offensive, especially since I
(a man) think that I don't do the things mentioned in the article. Maybe I'm
overreacting to being accused of something based on my gender.

2\. The author states __" Crossing boundaries and using aggression to win an
argument includes making personal remarks, interrupting, speaking much more
loudly than an opponent, or entering someone's personal space." __I completely
agree that these behaviors are unacceptable. But, I think that these are all
gender neutral behaviors, and it harms people of any gender when they are used
against them. Is it really important to designate men as the ones who must
follow these rules?

~~~
21echoes
Mmm, I didn't get 1) from the article at all. Rather, I got "men and women can
be equally aggressive, but women are punished (socially & professionally) more
for it than men". Re: 2) -- not the whole article was about gender. It was
about the negative effects of having an argumentative workplace overall.

------
pnathan
So..... this article is making a good point, but it's not following from the
presented arguments.

It's almost a tautology that unregulated aggression is a bad idea and should
be dealt with.

but -

If you have an idea, how do you know it's a bad idea? That requires critical
engagement, taking it apart, putting it back together and performing analysis
on it. Doing this well will involve some fairly in-depth reasoning and
questioning. If someone is losing their temper in that process, then (1) they
are too sensitive/protective and/or (2) someone's being a jerk to the offended
party and it's time to knock it off. Egofree programming is an old ideal, but
not a bad one.

I also retain the mildly heretical notion that a really and truly aggressive
environment about code, design, and the quality thereof is probably a more
enjoyable place to work than one that focuses on relationships and keeping
them smooth. Wrong stuff is wrong, and should be called out and removed. IMO.
:)

I don't have any comments about gender here, because any gender comment will
draw down 'unregulated aggression', and I'm tired of reading such.

------
quanticle
I keep seeing references to the IDEO brainstorming process, but do we have any
actual evidence that the "shared safe space" for ideas actually produces good
ideas? The actual studies I've looked at (such as
[http://psp.sagepub.com/content/19/1/78.short](http://psp.sagepub.com/content/19/1/78.short))
show that the most productive brainstorming method is to have each person
think of ideas on their own, and then have everyone comes together to defend
their ideas in an adversarial setting. This is precisely the opposite of what
Kate Heddleston is arguing.

~~~
21echoes
Given that IDEO is still seen as the pinnacle of design consultancy shops, and
most other successful design consultancy shops have similar processes... that
seems like a pretty good evidence (yes, I know that is not a particularly
rigorous experiment). I'd love to hear from someone who's been at IDEO or frog
or wherever chime in with any experiments they've done in alternative
practices.

------
ableal
> There's an online meme that goes, "Arguing with an engineer is a lot like
> wrestling with a pig in the mud; after a couple of hours, you realize the
> pig likes it."

I'm an engineer. I've been online for over 30 years, including Usenet days,
and I never even once saw such a "meme".

This is slander, and I object to it.

~~~
mucker
I know right? She calls names at the start of the article and then attempts to
strike a superior pose. This is one of the worst articles I've read in a long
while. It is emotionalism writ large. The mere fact that she poisons the well
at the very beginning shows she is ignorant of argument.

~~~
12thr0wit
you guys should email her, and tell her she's wrong.

------
proveanegative
>Second, men are conditioned to be more competitive towards women than men. In
studies on boys and girls in gym class, boys try harder in competitive foot
races against girls versus their male peers [ 10 ].

The study this observation is derived from only talks about competitions of
physical ability.

~~~
gress
Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this
competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not.

If your answer is b), what evidence do you have to support this?

~~~
dikaiosune
If your answer is a), what evidence do you have to support this?

A claim requires evidence, skepticism is just asking for evidence to support a
claim. B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly.

~~~
gress
Sorry, B is not skepticism. B is another claim. It is the claim that men do
not compete more strongly with women than with men in domains outside of
physical activity. Unless you have evidence to support this claim, we should
be skeptical of it, especially in light of A.

~~~
dikaiosune
It's a claim only in the sense that any skepticism is a claim (which, sure, is
true in a narrow semantic sense). Skepticism is disbelieving an assertion due
to lack of evidence. All B is saying is that there's no evidence provided that
trends in physical competition can be used to extrapolate intellectual or
political competition. Extrapolation from one set of evidence requires more
than just gut feeling -- it requires supplementary evidence to show that the
two situations are more than coincidentally related.

Of course, I would expect men to be more competitive with women in a number of
areas (not just grade school PE races) based on my limited experience and the
cited study, but where's the evidence?

edit: speeling

~~~
mfisher87
> Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this
> competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not.

Just following along with you guys. B is another claim because it is not
disbelief, it is a negative claim:

> b) to think that it does not.

Maybe you misinterpreted it on reading, but it's very clearly not simply
disbelief, it is rejection. Neutral disbelief (read: skepticism) would be to
take neither position a nor b.

~~~
dikaiosune
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was more referring to the disbelief/skepticism in
the original comment:

> The study this observation is derived from only talks about competitions of
> physical ability.

This doesn't say anything about disproving the extrapolation to other areas of
competition, it's just pointing out the problem with relying on the cited
study for the assertions made. In that sense, I think it's fairly neutral. I
tried to make it clear, but probably not clear enough:

> B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly.

By "paraphrase it fairly," I was referring to proveanegative's comment, when
paraphrased in context and while honoring it's implied skepticism, as opposed
to rejection.

gress had rewritten it as a statement of rejection:

> a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that
> it does not

Although now that you point it out, maybe we've been talking past each other.
As I stated above, I think it's reasonable to assume based on gut heuristics
that this competition extends beyond the gym. However a new burden of evidence
is assumed when one cites studies to grant apparent legitimacy to one's
argument. I don't think that burden of evidence has been met here.

------
dukerutledge
There are two nice bullet points in the actionable part of this article. I
wish they had been mentioned earlier because I feel many will not make it all
the way through.

------
Negitivefrags
Here is what I do to diffuse arguments between me and my co-founder when we
have reached the point where all the information has been presented and it's
starting to get repetitious.

Agree that both options are off the table now and that a third solution must
be found.

Normally if there is an argument both parties do have actual legitimate
concerns that need to be addressed. The problem is that often once you get
into argument mode, your ability to be creative and modify your solution to
fit the other persons concerns can go out the window.

By removing both options you can go back into creative mode.

A lot of the time when doing this we actually have arrived at a much better
idea than either of the two presented before that makes us both happy.

Often you end up settling on an idea that is 95% the same as what one of the
people suggested in the first place, only now it also addresses the concerns
of the other person too and they will now feel on board with it, which is a
much better situation than if one person had "won" the argument leaving the
other bitter.

------
BurningFrog
The ability to leave your ego out of technical discussions is one of __the
__most important engineering skills there are.

"Winning" on an engineering team needs to be "we built a great product
quickly", not "I made the team do things my way".

This is hard, and your first task is to be a person who thinks and acts that
way. If you never had to change how you approach and think about things,
you're probably not doing that.

When you are angry/frustrated, you can't think clearly. So if someone has
reached that point, it's very hard to have a productive discussion.

------
kstenerud
This is precisely why I no longer argue with people I don't trust to seek the
truth over their own ego.

------
mrxd
> Creating an environment that encourages aggression gives men an edge

This is true. Lots of men feel humiliated and experience a loss of status when
they're defeated by a woman, which effectively means women can't engage with
men in that way. That's because the company culture or the men they work with
have sexist beliefs.

One workaround is banning arguments. But if you have the power to change the
culture that way, why not just ban sexism? That seems like it would do more
good.

~~~
mrits
As a male that has been defeated my women at a wide range of activities my
whole life I have a hard time understanding it. Even as a varsity basketball
player I would often get beat my a girl in a game of horse. The intellectual
playing field seems to be even so there is no reason for a man to get upset
losing an argument to a women anymore than another man.

I think the problem is that people just suck in general and a lot of people
are seeing it as man vs women.

------
Htsthbjig
As entrepreneur, with experience as manager and engineer I could tell you that
arguments and discussion are probably the most useful thing for any company.

More than two interesting people, with different backgrounds and beliefs
should always argue. It is a great thing for any institution.

Arguments discard weak ideas before the market does. If the market does you
have already spent enormous amount of money.

This should not be confused with keeping it civilized. My main job as a
manager was keeping a great environment for discussion.

Good quality debate and discussion should be teached in schools, like in
ancient Greece, when they were trained to defend their position, and then to
defend the opposite. This forces you to understand the other side.

Like in marriage, a great marriage does not mean no arguments, because if
there are no arguments it means simply that one party is surrendering to the
other. You can love and respect the other person and disagree, listen to the
other party, understand what they tell you and take a shared decision.

No arguments in a company means design by committee. Everybody's opinion is
equal an usually this means disaster, unless the people in the Round table are
already preselected like King Arthur's.

Brainstorming is something that you do before arguing. First you are not
critical, you expose all ideas that you have, you are creative, not rational,
but at the end end of the process you start trimming, cutting for getting to
decisions(witch etymologically means to cut branches) based on rational
decisions that make some ideas stand and the others perish.

~~~
Htsthbjig
PD: Some people will find the story of the atom fascinating because the atom
knowledge comes from "Argument culture":

[http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1fix14_bbc-atom-1-the-
clas...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1fix14_bbc-atom-1-the-clash-of-the-
titans_tv)

People like Edison getting mad with a young genius that was ALSO right. All of
those physicist fighting each other using arguments.

------
trhway
>An argument is the use of aggressive opposition to weed out weak logic,
keeping the strongest ideas possible. The philosophy behind using arguments
for problem-solving is that attacking the weak parts of an idea will leave the
best solutions. The metaphor for argument in our culture is war. We think of
people we argue with as opponents, we attack their position and defend our
own, we can gain or lose ground, and ultimately we can win or lose
arguments—just like battles [1].

the author probably has no idea about some wrestling and in general war
strategies. In many cases you don't need to aggressively attack the opponent.
Just let him fall using his own impulse and under his own weight... you can
even help him by adding to his impulse (like in many cases in judo :) In
corporate environment - just let the opponent develop his great idea in
details, ask helpful questions about inter- and intra- component integration,
performance, suggest the opponent do quick POC demonstrating all these great
characteristics of their idea ...

------
serve_yay
A good writeup. But who decides who is being aggressive? How do we avoid the
same short-circuiting that happens with "You seem really frustrated",
repackaged as "You're being really aggressive"? Are participants allowed to
accuse one another of aggression, or must that be done by an observer or
outside party?

If a participant is a member of a group that is stereotyped as "aggressive",
and that individual is accused of aggression, is this accusation automatically
an invocation of the stereotype -- and therefore an unfair attack? If not, how
do we separate such an accusation from one that truly rests only on the
individual's behavior?

~~~
walshemj
And is showing passion in an argument a bad thing I remember at a conference
on the last day some one stood up to speak on a motion "affiliate to the Anti
Nazi league"

This motion was always going to pass unopposed But Alan stood up and did a
passionate 4 minute tour deforce speech that is the only time I have seen a
real standing ovation

------
return0
Science and engineering are a lot more effective to reach truth than politics
or law. Code (or hardware,buildings,devices,drugs,engines etc etc.) speaks
louder than any words. The entire premise of this article is false.

------
mrwarn
I am Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!

“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in
a while, or the light won't come in.” Issac Asimov

------
asgard1024
Frankly, that's a terrible article, full of sexist stereotypes. She is reading
too much into it. Just briefly: Sometimes people argue because they genuinely
think their favorite tool is superior, and want to help others be more
efficient. Sometimes people speak loudly because they are genuinely excited
about something. I doubt there is any authority or respect to win by good
arguing about technology (especially on online forums). Furthermore, any
authority to be likely won by arguing only exists if people respect it; if one
stops caring about people "gaining authority" by arguing, then there will not
be any authority to be gained by that. [Edit: She also underestimates
curiosity - sometimes I argue and play devil's advocate just because I am
curious why the other smart person has a different opinion, how good is their
argument?]

The only valid complaint in the article is that people judge assertive women
more negatively than assertive men, which is true and unfortunate.

It's also amusing that she blames engineer's arguing for the competitive
atmosphere, while being from the US, which has this hyper-competitive
capitalist culture, which I rather despise and I am not the only engineer who
does. (Another fun fact - I am native Czech speaker, and we have two different
words for "argument" \- "debata" and "hadka", the former implying a civil one,
the other one meaning one where people are angry at each other. I am not
really sure which meaning the article uses, and I pretty firmly against the
latter - being a sensitive male, but I greatly enjoy the former.)

The article is very clever in one thing, though. Now anyone who argues with it
can be labelled as aggressive (or terrorist?). Humans and their mindgames, so
funny.

~~~
grandalf
Your comment is an example of the stuff she's describing... It can be broken
down structurally as follows:

\- Righteous indignation

\- Example with sample size of 1

\- Half-hearted praise

\- Jocular, superior tone

\- Name calling Zinger

~~~
asgard1024
Actually, I think this video sums up the main problem with the article:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ)

Would you say the guy in the video is aggressive? He certainly speaks loudly
and authoritatively, and uses a lot of emotional words and shortcuts.

Of course the answer is no. The article confuses, quite thoroughly, aggression
and passion. That's why I said "she's reading too much into it", because she
reads "aggression" where she should just probably read "passion".

~~~
grandalf
The speech in the video is political propaganda speech. Not only does it use
emotional words but it uses value-laden words extensively... both to reinforce
the character of the speaker and to underscore the speaker's message. The
speaker wishes to come across as passionate because of the persuasive power of
that kind of tone/tempo.

If a company's engineering culture is anything like that I'd be worried.

> The article confuses, quite thoroughly, aggression and passion.

Not necessarily. The speech doesn't have to be deliberately aggressive to
still create the negative effects that stifle rationality and make it more
difficult to rationally analyze the problem/decision.

~~~
asgard1024
Hm, interesting. This seems like a "Spock vs. Bones" type of worldview,
although I would have never guessed that I would side with Bones (age,
probably?).

Yeah, perhaps if you want fully rational discussion, then emotions are
counterproductive. But should that mean we should have this sterile
environment without any passion? And does showing a passion really means
aggression? I just don't think so.

~~~
grandalf
That depends, personally I prefer to have a rational discussion about
technology decisions. Sure we inevitably feel some emotion when we care about
our work... but:

\- Sometimes one person's emotion turns into bluster that can be unwittingly
intimidating to others.

\- Emotions should be an input into a meta-rational process, not something
that can override it.

\- The goal here is getting the most buy-in and problem solving out of a group
of people. In my experience going into a decision with eyes open about the
tradeoffs is always a good thing.

------
ryanobjc
but as a guy, its biologically fun to be aggressive.

Now what? :-(

~~~
throwawayf2o
Play sports before/after work and get it out of your system on the field. Or
be aggressive about your product winning in the marketplace.

~~~
mucker
Winning is badz according to this. I'm not sure you even read the article.

------
andyl
I really hope my competitors take this advice to heart, and put limits on the
aggressive personalities within their company.

