Quick Talia communication guide: When I propose something, I expect people to counter it by raising concerns combined with potential solutions, then I'll counter and propose in response, and so on until we reach consensus.
Similarly, when someone else proposes an idea, and I counter it by raising concerns and potential solutions, I am engaging excitedly and in good faith to work toward consensus.
The frame is collaborative: let's work together to think of better ideas than either of us could think of alone!
Sometimes consensus isn't possible, and we just fundamentally disagree. In that case, I like to end the conversation when we know how much common ground we have, and where we disagree, and whether there are any solutions that cover that common ground.
Sometimes more information is needed before we can know if consensus is possible. In that case, I like to end the conversation with a concrete next step to determine that information so we can continue to work together.
When people engage with me this way I view it as a sign of profound respect. But only if the solutions are offered, not just the concerns.
I've been told some Americans expect me to ask "well then what would you do?" to prompt the solutions, and I almost never remember this is a thing one can do 😅 it just feels implicit that if I'm shooting out an idea I expect people to counter with their own ideas!
See also: iorworld.com/resources/isra… (problem solving) which is very much how I communicate and grew up communicating
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Researchers' trust probably won't be regained without a more individual approach to this, though. We are a small and tightly knit community; there is not really a way to regain trust while ignoring damage to individuals in our community.
That Google can't see this is concerning. Also, losing researchers' trust has a contagious effect in the engineering recruiting pool by way of faculty opinions.
I guess to people confused, my research community is now discussing whether and, if so, how to remame a proof assistant called Coq. The name is meaningful in French, but the English innuendo was known and a part of the "joke" when it was first named decades ago.
The person who named it this has a pattern of acting harmfully.
And multiple women in the community (myself included) have been at best laughed at and at worse harassed for talking about our work in public or to students.
I really need a break from communities run by and for men, honestly. I know I sometimes come across as aggressive, but I rarely do in spaces run by women and other gender minorities. It's just that to exist as a woman in this area, it feels like you constantly have to fight.
And you have to be careful to fight just hard enough for the amount of power and privilege you have at any point, and in the right ways. And the last few months for me have been reminder after reminder that this is true. These are important things to know, but also exhausting.
I know it's minor, but every pronoun use seeds the internet with more data, and I like seeing societal efforts to fight normative pronouns for professions
This is the main reason I switched from alternating pronouns to using entirely she/her and they/them in my papers.