evidence
Related Topics
Ron Jeffries ronjeffr...@REMOVEacm.org
In the past few weeks we have seen very real evidence of what happens when we do, and do not, feed the trolls.
It's so hard not to. Does it work better when we don't?
Ronald E Jeffries http://www.XProgramming.com http://www.objectmentor.com I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide whether it's true for you.
Keith Ray k1e2i3t4h5r6...@1m2a3c4.5c6o7m
I think it works better we don't repond to trolls.
I still say: don't directly reply, and don't quote. To correct misinformation spread by a troll, respond on a slightly more abstract level in a another thread.
--
C. Keith Ray <http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/xpminifaq.html>
kayp ...@yahoo.com (Kay Pentecost)
Hi, Ron, I think it's better not to feed them, no matter how fascinated they are with us, and no matter how they try to provoke...
One gets a certain satisfaction, don't you think, at their feeble thrashing?
I don't know how long it takes to starve a troll, especially one who is being nourished by his own visibility...
Perhaps we can find out.
Kay And damn good advice it is, too, at least most of the time....<giggle>
Ron Jeffries ronjeffr...@REMOVEacm.org
What's the longest period of time I've ever spent in your penalty box? ;-> Ronald E Jeffries http://www.XProgramming.com http://www.objectmentor.com I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide whether it's true for you.
jgr ...@mo.net (Jeff Grigg)
Some threads have just been getting choked with...
"What you just did is a troll." "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!!!" "No it isn't!!!!!" ...etc...
(...or a great many more words that just boil down to the same thing. ;-) They need to think up a good question before I'll bother with thinking up a good answer. ;->
Otis Bricker obric...@my-dejanews.com
And for my part of it, I apologize. I really should know better.
IF you see me sticking fingers through the bars again, please slap me.
Otis Bricker.
Otis Bricker obric...@my-dejanews.com
If your in it now, he may not see this until 2005 or so.
Otis Bricker
jgr ...@mo.net (Jeff Grigg)
Nice question, from a philosophical point of view.
On 'comp.software.extreme-programming', I'd say that "active listening" would involve questions that relate to Extreme Programming techniques.
As for the deep philosophical issues, I don't feel qualified to address them at this time. And this certainly isn't the place for it.
_ _ _ Amateur? You don't strike me as an amateur. I've been reading your posts.
"John Roth" johnr...@ameritech.net
Active listening is intended to clarify the communication. Trolling is intended to elicit intemperate responses. One is (hopefully) accurate, the other is deliberately inaccurate.
Quote: In active listening, you repeat back what the other person said, using different words. In other words, you distort it.
Said by one of the NLP founders. (either Bandler or Grinder) John Roth
firstla ...@hotmail.com (Troll_4)
I was not refering to myself.
Active Listening is not an easily acquired skill. You can screw things up really good when you do it wrong. That is why there are a number of professions out there which require extensive training in its practice before they are let loose on the world (psychologists, some physicians, perhaps social workers, in theory clerics although I doubt that clerics are trained as such).
Rumor has it that Active Listening is one of the useful skills suggested by several of the XP spokesmodels. They probably even practice/attempt_to_demonstrate it on unsuspecting "Customers".
Gee, what does happen when the customer reacts "inapproprately"?
Does the project fail do to - it didn't work out?
Does the customer burn out?
Does the XP expert burn out?
Rather than point fingers at the practioneers, I will leave it to the reader to examine for (mis?)behavior patterns
kayp ...@yahoo.com (Kay Pentecost)
Hi, John, <snip> This is what I understand Active Listening to be: clarifying the communication.
It certainly allows the other person to perceive the question/comment as "deliberately inaccurate," but it is not intended to do so.
Active Listening is a *very* simple skill that is taught in just about every communication course, whether it's for teachers, managers, or anyone else.
It's a skill that, IMO, every human should learn.
It consists of these steps to show the speaker that the listener is actually paying attention to the speaker, and not to the listener's own inner dialog.
The steps are ENCOURAGING: nodding, saying uh huh, yes, etc., RESTATING: repeating back the speaker's words, REFLECTING: telling the speaker *how* you are perceiving the conversation "It seems to me that you feel that..." "you seem to be disturbed about..." and SUMMARIZING: "So you feel this way about X." The RESTATING step is frequently paraphrasing, that is, using your own words for the idea. This is where a lot of people lose rapport, because the words the use to restate don't match the speaker's intent: For example: Speaker: "This whole situation is foggy to me." Listener: "You feel trapped." Now, it may be that in the situation the speaker described, the listener would "feel trapped," but that is not what the speaker said.
It's the wrong varible. <grin> You do distort when you paraphrase. Even when you don't want to. So the communication *is* distorted.
I haven't studied with Grinder, but I know that Richard Bandler does not teach "Active Listening," and that he is opposed to paraphrasing when you respond to someone. Richard says the words a person uses are important, and you should use the same words (the same language) when you restate anything someone has said.
Here's a few links for anyone who is interested in communication and "Active Listening." http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/activel.htm http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/Work/Wfs/communication.html http://crs.uvm.edu/gopher/nerl/personal/comm/e.html http://www.poynter.org/Research/lm/lm_listen2.htm The last is the most simple.
Google will find more.
As for asking questions another cannot answer being "trolling," that lies, don't you think, in the intent.
When a person p***es themselves off as a "detractor," and I, (or anyone else) asks them to be specific about *what* they are detracting, they may feel they were goaded into attack... But that may not have been the intent.
My intention for the questions I ask on this forum is: 1) to get information about the subject.
2) to get information about the writer. (Do I trust that this particular writer has anything worthwhile to offer? Do they know what they are talking about?
and, occasionally, 3) to call the readers attention to a statement.
Two questions I've asked Gerold (and David, if he cares to provide any infomation) are 1) How does someone know that someone else is at their "growth limit"?? (Providing there is such a thing) and 2) Which are the practices that Gerold says are good, but not new?
When we make statements like "In XP, a person chooses his/her own tasks," we are making the pre ***umption that the person is able to make that choice. Notice that the ***umption is still true if the sentence is negated: "In YY, a person does not choose his/her own task." It seems to me that a pre***umption to XP is "people know how they want to grow," and that they and only they know if they have reached their own "growth limit." One programmer may not be interested in learning a whole lot more about the database, but that is NOT imposed from without: "Joe can't do database programming," but from within.
If a manager/team leader makes the decision from outside that someone has "reached a growth limit," they are operating outside their qualifications.
*Valid* criticism would be useful not only to the newbies on this ng but to the XP developers, who, I believe, would use it to improve the XP processes, and explanations. As it is, when some people post I pay attention, and when others post I ignore them.
I'm here to learn, and to share whatever knowledge I have, limited as it might be. <grin> Kay
jgr ...@mo.net (Jeff Grigg)
This particular technique, Active Listening, is not part of XP. It appears to be a teaching technique adopted by Ron Jeffries and other XP mentors. (Heaven knows Ron didn't always talk like that! He used to be *much* more obnoxious -- like some of the rest of us are still now. ;-) And as a teaching technique, it seems to be pretty effective -- most of the time. You, Mr. Troll_4, may be "the exception that proves the rule." I'm sure that anyone promoting XP would encourage all participants to develop their listening skills. Effective communication is *very* important in XP. People will be talking with each other nearly "all the time," so ineffective communication habits certainly need to be fixed.
However, I don't think there's been any significant discussion or recommendation of specific communication skills or techniques in XP, other than "put people next to each other and encourage them to talk." Maybe we *should* examine communication techniques more closely, for "official" inclusion in XP.
phlip_ ...@yahoo.com (Phlip)
Many winters ago on news:comp.object I tried to actually converse with Elliott Coates instead of just bait him or provide the usual lucid answers to his usual ranting.
I dropped the attempt with, "This is starting to sound too much like active listening..." I meant the cop vs. jumper kind - the rote meathead technique that makes the jumper feel like he's being listened to, while the cop's head could be anywhere. You just ask a positive but non-leading question about whatever the guy says last.
Then recently on this newsgroup I pointed out to Kay she was teasing someone using AL. Then the pro extremos started teasing each other about it. Then that someone started ranting that XP sucks because it uses Active Listening.
Folks, I don't go to forums where doctors are discussing medicine, listen to their debates for a while, and then start pestering them using their own terms as if I knew what I was talking about. I'd learn a little medicine first, then I'd ask questions, and only then would I feel qualified. Getting shunned does not prove me right.
I also had no idea Kay had heard of the term. She'd obviously studied enough to have been doing it without realizing it. And I trust her to use it deftly to an ... extreme.
--
Phlip http://www.greencheese.org/PeaceAndCalm -- Bad nanoprobe! Bad! --
firstla ...@hotmail.com (Troll_4)
Amusing, people can learn things without realizing it. Guess they don't have to learn a little medicine first. Seems to me that by definition, if you agree with me you have learned things without realizing it, otherwise don't consider yourself qualified. Politics and religion, not science and engineering Do be so kind as to not expect any subsequent follow up.
kayp ...@yahoo.com (Kay Pentecost)
Hey, Phlip!
Aha!! non-leading questions!! Then you pray that the question you are asking isn't the real reason the guy is jumping, or that you don't switch him from suicidal to homocidal. <grin> Right, you did that! I had no idea anyone might know about active listening... well, I knew people might know about it, and do it, like Phlip did, but I didn't think that people would know it by *name*!!
Yeah, that was funny. If I grow up, I want to be a pro extremo.
Why do people do that????
What gets me is that it's so *easy* to learn about XP. There's the books, the Wiki, the lists, the ng.
And I've asked lots of questions here, and gotten great answers. I don't know it all, and I don't pretend to, but some of the things that people have said about XP being "bad" show they know even less than I do... and I'm a total beginner at it.
I'm not sure they even get that.
<giggle> I love words. I love this ng....
I love being a newbie... it means I can ask stupid questions and learn...
Kay XP Newbie / Groupie & Mistress of the Word...
"Phlip" phlip_...@my-deja.com
How do you feel about people who ***ume XP uses Active Listening just from misinterpretting getting flamed on this newsgroup?
--
Phlip
firstla ...@hotmail.com (Troll_4)
Who said anything about another, not me. There are questions which simply can not be answered EVER. Some even have long histories. Say just how many fairyies can dance on the head of a pin? It has long been asked. Many people have even tried to answer it. Why I bet there is even a treatus on the subject. (probably written by a theologist) It is one thing to ask a foolish question, another to ask a question for which you know there is no answer, and a third thing to THEN expect the unanswerable question to be answered.
Intent - the last bastion of the plausible denyability defense Often closely followed by the mia culpa exoneration plea No. When a tree falls in the forest it does make a sound. Philosphers just try to confuse you with silly *** arguments.
"John Roth" johnr...@ameritech.net
<>...
<>...
If you ask the wrong question, you'll get silly answers. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin is the wrong question. The question that was actually asked in medieval theological circles is whether angels had substance - if they did, then the answer to the pin question was: some specific number, and if they didn't, then the answer was: as many as cared to do so.
Again, the wrong question. The question being asked was whether "sound" was independent of the listener. In other words, are we talking about the physical world or the subjective world of what we are aware of, and is there a difference.
I consider it a silly argument, but it doesn't help when you don't know the terms of the discussion.
John Roth
Bil Kleb W.L.K...@LaRC.NASA.Gov
"Please do not feed the trolls."
--
Bil Kleb NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia, USA
kayp ...@yahoo.com (Kay Pentecost)
Poor, misunderstood things.
I think XP should *start* using Active Listening just to make them feel better.
Maybe it could be the 13th practice...
Code: I don't want to be a subroutine, I want to return a value!!!
Programmer: I hear you say you don't want to be a subroutine. It's my feeling that you want to return a value... am I understanding you correctly....There, there, little code. Here. Now you're a function.
C: But I want to return a BIG value...
Nawwww, it'll never work...
Kay
| To Top |