I’d rather encourage everyone to do a better job interpreting “you’re wrong for these reasons” as well-intentioned, potentially correct input, than encourage everyone to beat around the bush.
Seeing examples of deeply nested obviously emotional defensiveness (especially devolving into tit-for-tat time-wasting posturing) surely makes me feel “I’d like to avoid that!” (by not participating in general).
This can be avoided not only with less aggressive “you’re wrong!” deliveries, but also with more receptive/honest/vulnerable listening to how you’re maybe being wrong. High-status models of the latter are rare (for obvious reasons), and I’d like to see more. The former is fine too, as long as it doesn’t cost all the readers more than it saves the one person being (maybe) corrected.
I’d rather encourage everyone to do a better job interpreting “you’re wrong for these reasons” as well-intentioned, potentially correct input, than encourage everyone to beat around the bush.
Seeing examples of deeply nested obviously emotional defensiveness (especially devolving into tit-for-tat time-wasting posturing) surely makes me feel “I’d like to avoid that!” (by not participating in general).
This can be avoided not only with less aggressive “you’re wrong!” deliveries, but also with more receptive/honest/vulnerable listening to how you’re maybe being wrong. High-status models of the latter are rare (for obvious reasons), and I’d like to see more. The former is fine too, as long as it doesn’t cost all the readers more than it saves the one person being (maybe) corrected.