atw: Brainstorming and precision on ATW [WAS RE: Re: Let's calm down, apologies, and other things]
- From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:40:17 +1100
Hi Christine,
I'm not sure that this list (or any list) is ideally suited to brainstorming
(if by brainstorming you mean the list-wide accumulation of ideas through
free association, with quantity of ideas taking precedence over quality
prior to sifting out the wheat from the chaff). That's likely to lead to an
unworkable barrage of mini-posts. And just as folk prefer to read the final
draft of a paper rather than every single intellectual nook, cranny and cul
de sac along the author's discarded roads between idea and final draft, most
people, I suspect, would rather just read about the outcome of your
brainstorming than about the processes you took.
But I suspect that you don't really have that idea of brainstorming in mind.
Rather, I suspect you mean hypothesising, extrapolating, interpolating and
all those other leaps-intellectually respected leaps-from isolated hints and
ideas to more general suggestions (and possibly truths). If that's so, then
this list accommodates such argumentation. Moreover, you don't need a
subject-line prefix to warn readers that that type of posting follows.
But a prefix might be necessary in the body of your posting if you don't
make it clear to readers that you are, at some particular point, merely
hypothesising, extrapolating, interpolating and the like. A hypothesis is
not necessarily a truth, but a careless construction can make it sound like
one. And this brings me to your second request, that you be exempt from my
wish that posters "craft their messages carefully, leaving no ambiguity in
place". If you are not going to fuss about ambiguity, precision, vagueness
and those beastly qualifiers you are tired of, then you run the risk yet
again of being misunderstood, and we run the risk yet again of a barrage of
misdirected responses (a pain even if they are flame-free). Knowledge is
frighteningly complex. When we talk about it, we do well to keep the
qualifiers handy. Those qualifiers also earn you respect. They tell the
reader that you are on top of your subject and appreciate its complexity. On
the other hand, a bald, hypothetical generalisation without qualifiers can
just so easily make one sound like an ignorant fool. (And note the
qualifiers in that last sentence!)
We can be precise even if we are only hypothesising. Pretty well every
scientific journal is proof of that.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:56 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Let's calm down, apologies, and other things
Thanks for this Geoff.
Can I take it one step further? We don't tend to use prefixes in the
subject, as other lists do, but I would like to introduce at least one that
is something like brainstorm (the naysayers will love BS as an abbreviation
for that). At this stage in the lifecycle of any idea, "challenge" is
pointless. You might actually be right that I didn't want to be
"challenged".
The rules of brainstorming are that you allow a free flow of ideas, from the
most sensible to the most radical on a given topic, to see where it goes.
No-one is actually allowed to challenge in a formal brainstorm because it
discourages creativity, honesty, trust and all those other warm fuzzy things
that are necessary for people to feel free to air their crazy ideas.
What I wanted when I started the topic (I realise in hindsight) was a
brainstorm - to see if anyone else spotted this, whether it something we
need to be thinking about, has someone seen something similar or related in
a different context etc, is there a picture building up? Those who haven't
seen it or something related to it have no place in this discussion as all
they can do is say "you are wrong" which is counter-productive to the
purpose of the discussion. If no-one responds, you know that no-one else has
spotted this - research done, idea gets shelved for now. On the other hand,
if lots of people respond with lots of ideas, you know something is afoot.
But please don't ask us to "craft [our] messages carefully, leaving no
ambiguity in place" as this also destroys free flow of communication,
spontaneity and creativity. I have become right royally bored with putting
in endless maybes and mights when the whole topic is a maybe and a might.
They are a given when I start speculating and I simply won't do it. My
personality and my style is to write freely with a ton of hyperbole. That's
who I am and that's who I intend to stay.
More important, I think, is that we make the assumption that the other
person is intelligent, and we read everything they write from that position
of respect. We also need to take a bit of notice of the personality behind
the name. Once we did seem to know one another, even if we had not met.
The personality was able to come through the list, so everyone knew that I
talk in hyperbole, and Warren charges in, and Steve Hudson threw temper
tantrums, and Geoff intellectualises, and Michael makes jokes, etc, (I have
used names I can trust not to take offense), but that diversity of
personality seems to have been driven underground.
Let's get the fun back.
Christine
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Sunday, 22 November 2009 12:54 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Let's calm down, apologies, and other things
Hi austechies,
There have been some sharp, some blistering and some downright nasty
postings on this list this week. I no doubt contributed to this with a
fairly sharp posting myself (prompted by my interpretation of a statement by
Christine-now patently disproved-that she wished to be excused from being
challenged). Michelle, Janice and others have pointed out what really didn't
need to be pointed out: there are ways of challenging people that are likely
to spark a flame and those that are not. My apologies to Christine, and to
the list, for choosing the former.
This would be a dull, indeed redundant, list if all it offered were tool
tips and techno-raves. But there are long periods when that is all we see on
it. I set up this list eleven or so years ago to be a forum about technical
communication, and technical communication is much much more than tools,
operating systems and the like. Moreover, it seems that it is now more
important than ever to be discussing the core issues of technical
communication (especially their continuing relevance). Hence I want to
encourage discussions that go beyond tool tips and techno-raves, to
encourage discussions like that initiated by Christine.
But I think we all need to remember that email is not an ideal medium for
even moderately complex discussions. We cannot see the body language of a
message poster, and emoticons are, obviously, a weak substitute for
communication. We mostly have just the words in front of us to go on. It may
be wise, then, for message posters (initiators and responders) to craft
their messages carefully, leaving no ambiguity in place. For it seems that
much of the heat in recent discussions has been sparked by literal
interpretations of what later turn out to be misinterpretations (although
understandable misinterpretations). That said, it might also be wise for
responders to consider if a statement they take exception to might have been
meant in another way, and then to seek clarification rather than pounce
blindly. And that's advice for me too.
My fear for this list is that many of those who could make valuable
contributions to it turn off or churn out because of the vehemence of some
of its threads. (I know that this is already happening from the emails I get
as the list administrator.) It's in all out interests to minimise such
churn, and it's in all our interests to encourage more discussion and
debate. We are all sure to learn something, no matter how long in the tooth
we are. But discussion and debate will dry up if we don't show each other a
little more respect.
So let's all calm down. If we don't, I fear that this may have to become a
moderated list (which carries the risk of it being abandoned altogether).
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
Other related posts:
- » atw: Brainstorming and precision on ATW [WAS RE: Re: Let's calm down, apologies, and other things] - Geoffrey Marnell
