I didn’t attend JSConf.eu, but I did catch the video of Chris Williams’ speech, An End To Negativity.
At the risk of being such a bearer of negativity, I will admit to disagreeing with some of what was sold in his speech. I am not “trolling”. I am offering my opinion, which also couples as a neutral critique.
I don’t feel that negativity is the problem. I think the real problem is deriving self-worth from validating or invalidating remarks from our peers. But at the same time I recognise this as an unchanging quality of human interaction.
If you say my code is cool, then I feel great. And if you say it’s not, then I feel upset. Whose to say which one of these reactions is the right one? Are we to dispel negativity, full stop, or are we to dispel the deriving of self-worth from such remarks? Is the positive to go as well?
Isn’t feeling pride of one’s own work merely an intellectual dishonesty when at the same time one will condemn both the occurrence of negativity and the feelings it rouses?
And let’s not forget, negativity is undeniably subjective in definition. What’s negative to you isn’t universally negative.
Maybe we should care less about the subjective polarity of the remark (good, bad, nice, mean). We should instead care about the remark’s content, i.e. its intellectual validity in the scene or thread in which it occurs.
Chris references an internet community that craves self-worth and thus derives it from online interactions (commenting, feedback, critique, “trolling”). This is an occurrence across the web, and isn’t something that plagues any particular sub-culture or sub-community uniquely.
We are only human. We are socialised animals, who have, through this socialisation, acquired a supposed weakness that makes us rely on others for validation and equally, condemnation. I know it’s wrong to steal my coworker’s food because I have been socialised to form that empathetic response that tells my mind: “No, that’s wrong.” It is via public condemnation and equally, public praise, that we acquire our values, preferences, and behavioural characteristics. Why shy away from this reality?
Negativity for the sake of itself is probably pointless, and I’m sure a great deal of what Chris refers to is just that — negativity without substance. But negativity (remember — it’s subjectively defined!) for the sake of intellectual or technical critique should be no less welcome than positivity.
Thanks for reading! Please share your thoughts with me on Twitter. Have a great day!
Its a generally accepted practice that we voice disagreement with one another in a constructive way and choose not to use harsh words that pass judgement on someone else. In a professional space this is expected, and I would say its expected in a tech community as well.
I know that, to me as someone who has worked in areas and studied topics to which the concept of blaming the victim is important to understand, I was able to easily latch onto the use of that phrase and concept in Chris’s talk. My takeaway in this context is that blaming the victim is to say that it is the victim’s responsibility to have thick skin, despite an obvious argument that the type of behavior exhibited by the aggressor would not fly in more structured environments.
I think what is being said here is that the appropriate response is to continue to blame the victim, though I’m sure that it wasn’t written with that in mind – it is a complicated topic. Western cultures have put a lot of value on certain personal characteristics, however little or much they are healthy or reflect reality, and I’m hearing a tone here that reminds me of some of those characteristics. However, I don’t want to fully frame the response in that light, however much I see it at play here.
Humans are social beings and we respond accordingly to positivity and negativity, regardless of our personal variations in reaction. It is beneficial for both parties in a conversation to approach it with a congenial tone. Its the difference between criticism and constructive criticism. It feels like this post demonizes emotional reaction to feedback as a weakness and I’d reject that on many fronts. Most practically, it takes nothing away from innovation or productivity, only adds to it, to rephrase disagreement and to turn criticism into evaluation. I can’t think of a single instance that this wouldn’t be a boon to the situation.
With regard to trolling and the like, just because a particular dynamic is common doesn’t mean that we should condone or replicate it. Again, there is not really an argument as to why this would be a useful response.
I feel like its very easy to be idealistic about these sorts of things and to expect others to respond the way that we do. The fact is that ideal is rarely reality and everyone is different and to be a part of a group we have to respect that.
I haven’t seen Chris’ talk but I can assume he’s referring to the sometime very aggressive and caustic comments that seem to come from people who have a holier than thou attitude. It seems that as JavaScript development has matured, so has the notion that everyone needs to do it in a specific way or “your code sucks”.
Granted, it’s not the majority that are like this. The unfortunate part is that there is a vocal minority who seem to have either forgotten how to effectively communicate with their peers, were never taught how to do so, or just don’t give a crap.
So yes, offering constructive feedback and criticism is a very normal part of the process but when the “constructive” part goes to crap, that’s where feelings are hurt and egos are bruised.
One other part is that there are plenty of developers who need to develop thicker skins and learn how to take feedback.
@Theresa, I agree with what you’ve said. I think, though, that Chris’ talk came across as less of a “Be constructive in your feedback”, and more of a “Don’t be mean like those kids at recess!”…
That makes sense, I guess, but who is “we”? It seems that Chris and his supporters have decided on a “we” that doesn’t really have any bounds. I mean, they don’t know who they’re referring to when they say “JS Community” — it’s quite vast, and not everyone is as active as everyone else. It’s not a community that one actively joins or leaves… it’s fluid, and therefore, IMO, foolish to define and pigeon-hole its collective preferences and philosophies.
If there is a social problem that’s bleeding through into this “community” then it’s not a characteristic of the community itself. I believe it’s outside of a single person’s, or a single group’s (JSConf attendees), control.
@Rey, I agree. People probably just need to develop thicker skins. I believe there are egoistic issues on both sides of this playing field. I see so many similarities between this loosely defined “JS community” and “everyone else”. There’s nothing that makes us special. I don’t even think “us” can be defined in any way other than “people who write/like JS”.
hey, i just came from reading a blog from this girl and she was, oddly enough, saying things that resonate with your blog. “I think the real problem is deriving self-worth from validating or invalidating remarks from our peers.”
http://bit.ly/vMh618
-john
Finally, some common sense on the issue!
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with the root of the problem being that many seem to be “deriving self-worth from validating or invalidating remarks from our peers”. They need to remember that old adage of “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt”, but it’s just as applicable for online interactions as it is for playground name-calling. If someone makes a comment that is rude, mean, or otherwise nonconstructive, then just delete/hide/ignore it!
Agreed, completely. Also, the problem of *creating* “victims”, is a very real one. What in the end is victimized is diversity, which the creators of victims often claim to desire most.
In that way it’s sorta like neo-colonialism.