saying more by saying less

let the court jester speakKnowing when to let go is one key to effective communication.

Whether we like it or not, we’re in a world where the transparent, open-source nature of online activity has fundamentally changed the way people and businesses have conversations. In thinking about how it works and trying to figure out how best to participate, this is the most difficult yet important lesson I’ve learned:

Always let a fool have the last word.

Modern communication has meant a breakdown in authority. Online comment systems and, more broadly, “social media” have given every individual an opportunity to not only have his or her voice heard instantly, but to have it given near-equal weight to that of the original author.

There are plenty of cases, as with Errol Morris’ recent examination of a Crimean War photograph, where this system works marvelously. Strong original content is supplemented and, ultimately, enhanced by the discussion beneath it.

In many cases, however, the results aren’t quite as good. That’s because it’s almost inevitable, in a conversation with enough people involved, that one or more of those people will prove to be a fool. They’ll chime in with something provocatively irrelevant and attempt to draw attention and derail the conversation. This is as true online as it is among a group of individuals at a party or bar; as true with a personal blog as it is with a marketing or service strategy.

Since you usually can’t simply dispatch with the fool, either online or in person, what do you do?

You let him have his say, and leave it at that.

Healthy argument and debate only work when everyone’s a willing participant, and no amount of reason or good sense is going to convince someone whose only goal is to throw a monkey wrench. At the same time, trying to dismiss that person or shut him up will usually just make him go that much harder.

That and it makes you look like a dictator, which you never want to be.

So, give him the last word on the point and move on. Doing so might mean a short-term hit to your pride, but in the long run it helps you build credibility with the people you’re really trying to talk to.

Putting this strategy in place and applying it consistently won’t keep fools away, but it will generally keep them from having any fun. Meaning, ultimately, that they probably won’t stick around for long.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]






20 Responses to “saying more by saying less”

Bravo! I think this post really hits on a topic that is a substantial problem in social media. What compounds it is that many people comment anonymously and say things that they would never say if their name was attached. Maybe this is a naive thing to say, but I feel that if you are adding to a discussion you should have the conviction to attach your name to your words. This is authenticity, and can lead to more productive conversations and debates.

John DeCesaro added this on Dec 05 07 at 9:44 am

Yes, yes. I agree. Arguing is useless.

I like to comment myself now and then. And I often read them.

On the whole, however, it has only served to convince me that, no matter how cogent or informative a piece may be, a lot of people will think it purely crap.

I wonder if it’s better not to know that.

Walt Kania added this on Dec 05 07 at 10:39 am

what a completely ridiculous argument with no empirical evidence to back it up. ;)

Brandon Weber added this on Dec 05 07 at 11:48 am

Unfortunately, fools are often numerous, persistent, and influential. Worse, errors left unchallenged gain the perception of truth. So it’s often the case one must continually confront fools, because the consequences of not doing so are grave.

Zen Faulkes added this on Dec 05 07 at 12:33 pm

If your desired audience doesn’t recognize a Fool when one appears, do you have a responsibility to educate that audience (i.e., reach them effectively) by correcting the Fool?

“LOL OMG, U SUX!11!!” “reasoned and valid criticism deserving of a response”, and where on that continuum does one draw the Fool Line?

Casey Aconia added this on Dec 05 07 at 1:50 pm

Dealing with Fools…

By way of Seth Godin’s Blog comes the article from Slant Six Creative, Saying More by Saying Less:
Whether we like it or not, we’re in a world where the transparent, open-source nature of online activity has fundamentally changed the way people…

NLPhilia Blog added this on Dec 05 07 at 2:00 pm

Excellent point:

“When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man,
The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.” Proverbs 29:9 (NASB)

Kevin Meath added this on Dec 05 07 at 3:13 pm

Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest of us could not succeed. ~ Mark Twain

Leonard Klaatu added this on Dec 05 07 at 3:39 pm

Thanks for chiming in, folks. I have to admit that in writing this I was pretty worried that I’d find a bunch of folks testing my theory right off the bat. Still might happen, of course, but I’m glad it hasn’t yet.

I’m going to check out all of your sites, as well, and hopefully offer something up to the conversations there.

neal added this on Dec 06 07 at 12:02 am

You’re really smart, and I want you to look as smart as you are. So will you please correct the spelling of the word “provocatively” and then delete this suggestion?

MaggieW added this on Dec 06 07 at 12:34 am

-What about when speaking up is a moral issue?

-How can one move on if the point of discussion is to come to a conclusion about an action?

Foolish ideas need to be challenged in the open.
Zen Faulkes mentioned above that “errors left unchallenged gain the perception of truth.” On the other hand, many seemingly foolish ideas in the short term turn out to be game-changing in the long run.

Ignoring the fool brings to mind children sticking fingers in their ears. Maybe its ok to ignore the fool if the subject matter didn’t matter to begin with. If the communication never mattered, then you were probably talking with yourself all along.

Mike added this on Dec 06 07 at 12:35 am

MaggieW, thanks for pointing that out. I’m fixing the mistake but no way am I deleting your comment. You’re right, after all.

neal added this on Dec 06 07 at 12:54 am

@ Mike and Zen:

It’s a good point. I would never argue that we should ignore dissenting voices, nor would I argue that we shouldn’t have a healthy debate. When I speak of “the fool” I’m speaking of that person whose only goal is to draw attention to himself and derail the conversation. It happens again and again, and I’ve spent more time than I care to admit trying to debate and/or engage those folks. The truth is that they don’t want the debate, they only want the attention and the controversy. The best way to deal with those people is to give them the space to speak and let them have the last word. The important issues — the issues you’re hinting at — will ultimately be worked out elsewhere.

neal added this on Dec 06 07 at 1:04 am

Healthy debate creates a meaningful conversation. Those that have good points and genuinely add to the conversation therefore by definition cannot be “fools”. Disgruntled or bitter fools who take joy in personal attacks do not contribute anything other than self satisfaction in bringing others down. In my experience, they usually miss the point, focussing on something trivial and off subject, which in turn takes the conversation in a completely wrong direction.

Correcting potential fools once to try and get the conversation back on track will usually clear up a miscommunication or validate their “foolishness”. Those that are deliberately looking to throw a wrench in with no other reason than to cause trouble will continue to do so!

Mike added this on Dec 06 07 at 1:56 am

I’m not sure how or why the “fool” voice should be allowed? Where is the line between, say, fool and spam? Should every nattering voice be heard? If you use the party example, I’m not going to invite a fool to it. If someone causes trouble or derails a conversation at a party, I’m going to ask them to tone it down or leave.

I do agree there’s no “winning” an arguement like this one way or another with someone determined to stick to their contrarian views. What troubles me is the idea of leaving an well thought out post, then having some “fool” leave an insulting comment below it. Why give them the “airtime”?

I’m not sure how this gives me credibility?

Aside from that, there’s the added issue of liability. What if a commenter insults another business or person - could we not be held liable for that?

This ia good post, that raises interesting questions.

Thursday added this on Dec 06 07 at 4:01 pm

Do people these days expect this type of conversation to deliver a concensus?

I generally skim them, categorise the responses and decide what I can take away. For this stream, for instance, the three categories I took away from this were
- “Bravo: dead right!”
- “Yes, but you can’t just let the bad guys win” and
- “You have a duty to probe the apparently foolish ideas to test their merit”

This is of course a subjective process: different groupings may work better for different people.

But if I want the Sure and Certain Truth, I talk to my children.

Will Ross added this on Dec 07 07 at 7:42 am

In other words: there’s no engaging in rational argument with an irrational idiot. Sometimes the sharpest condemnation is the sound of crickets.

Chris Kottom added this on Dec 12 07 at 3:17 am

Interesting that an article titled “saying more by saying less” spends a dozen paragraphs saying “do not feed the trolls”. ;)

Chief added this on Jan 08 08 at 10:52 pm

Arguments online will require a newer version of blogging that enables threads where the debaters can join into a virtual circle and go at it … and a Moderator to keep the train on the track.

Adding an intelligent comment is useful … then again most people who get the chance to “be” online take it as part of their 15 Minutes of Fame to talk about themselves, or worse, play The Fool to get attention.

I suppose one can suffer fools gladly, I personally would moderate them into cyberhell…

One final comment worth note … if a fool can write like a sage, then it’s the readers who suspend disbelief who are the fools.

David Grebow added this on Jun 26 08 at 10:01 am

i think that was a good info…
i like it

kabonfootprint added this on Sep 11 08 at 2:45 pm

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image