People really like to have both sides of conversations. You’d think this is a sort of stylized performance element but it isn’t. Many people have a real style that a,punts to: have both sides of a conversation, get mad when live counterparty goes off script, to force them back onhttps://twitter.com/leftistexe/status/1330386159176982529 …
-
0:53Show this thread -
It’s like a telemarketer script but with every alternate layer modeling their response being a Procrustean bed: Q: Have you thought about wage theft? A1: [Procrustean bed 1] A2: [Procrustean bed 2] Q2.1: [GET BACK ON THAT BED!] Q2.2: [GET BACK ON THAT BED!]
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
A failure mode in any helping profession with a principal-agent asymmetry (lawyers etc) is being so script-locked you can’t hear. Good ones rise above, viewing the (procedurally necessary) script as an eventual compile target rather than a way to confine a free-form conversation.
1 reply 0 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
Where this asymmetry is lacking because there is no significant *procedurally defined* expertise on the helping side (consulting, many types of therapy), the lack of scripted leverage and steering authority can be anxiety provoking. So people make up bullshit processes.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
I’m convinced half of all business consulting “process” models are just ways to avoid the real stress of live play sparring conversations. Any actual content in say “lean startup” can be made prerequisite pre-reads so the actual conversation can stay unscripted.
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
A lot of things that aren’t really education get cast in educational molds simply to provide conversational control. The OP is an obvious example. It’s indoctrination pretending to be education. A lot of business “courses” fall into the same trap *cough* lean six sigma *cough*
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
If you do solve the problem in the immediate conversation, you still have to solve it one degree removed. In consulting, you are forced to operate on the evidence of one side of the story: your client’s. And immature ones will often report stylized scripts+diffs.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
The “data” of the consult will be one-sided highly unreliable hearsay reports of conversations *they*had. Unconsciously these reports will have a) caricaturing of counterparty b) consistency editing removing the revealing glitches c) embellishments to make themselves look good
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
It’s not a court so you can’t get testimony from other side. They’re unconsciously looking for validation but if you cave and supply it, you’re useless and they’ll eventually realize it and end the gig You can’t cross-examine like they’re a hostile witness: you’re on their side
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
This problem is hard. My solution is to... 1. Only work with people mature enough to be above this dynamic, or to at least want to be above it 2. Work long-term (> 4-5 meetings over 6 months) so you can reinforce better self-witnessing behaviors
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
Broke thread. Continues herehttps://twitter.com/vgr/status/1330929347792834561 …
Venkatesh Rao added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.