Subject: Social Science and the IETF

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:50:28 +0000

I am concerned that in the recent IETF discussion of interpersonal
dynamics, insufficient consideration has been given to the innate
personal characteristics of individuals that participate in the
IETF process.

Using the Myers-Briggs characterization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
members of the 16 types can have difficulty understanding
arguments presented by another type. The nature of  MBI-type
induced misunderstanding has been subjected considerable
research by the social scientists and is well documented. There
is a danger that the normal deduction of one MBI-type will not
be followed by another, and in the absence of an understanding
of that thought process, it might be assumed that an ad hominem
has been presented in place of an argument.

Whilst, of course, people have a right to be treated with respect
at all times, the IETF needs to be careful that consideration is given
to the personality types of those that take part and that it does not
institutionally prevent any MBI-type legitimately contributing to
discussion.

In the recent discussions that have taken place in the IETF on matters
related to social interaction, I have developed concerns that the
IETF is at risk of taking decisions outside its core competence.
In matters of organizational design and the creation of rules
that relate to interpersonal interaction, the IETF should, in my
view, be seeking wider professional input from those qualified
in the social and organizational sciences.

Stewart

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 09:59:06 +0000

strong +1. We seem to obsess with eat-dogfood application of a
documentation/discussion/consensus mechanism which frankly is a poor fit
for many endevours, and a remarkably poor fit for organizational dynamics
and behaviours.

Stewart is on the money: we need to stop believing its in an RFC or else it
doesn't apply, when it comes to how we act, as a social construct.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 11:25:55 +0000

Hi Stewart

I agree with you totally. I will add that the problem is that IETF says
that all inputs are IETF contributions, so if one disrespect input from one
known participant to a newcomer or from minority, and others
majority including managers don't stop that disrespect, I will conclude
that IETF is possibly a disrespecting organisation or unsocial
organisation.

AB

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 13:29:29 +0100

Folks,

I've not had time to read Stewart's mail, but it looks like a
useful contribution, or at least a good starting point for a
constructive discussion.

AB,

As for your addendum - I just want to point out that there is a
difference between "ignore" and "disregard" on one side and
"disrespect" on the other.

I've followed your proposals for wg and IETF processes, and found that
I can safely disregard/ignore them - lack of insight, experience and
constructive contribution - I will continue to do so.

/Loa

On 2014-03-08 12:25, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> that all inputs are IETF contributions, so if one disrespect input from
> one known participant to a newcomer or from minority, and others
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 13:52:08 +0000

Stewart,

I'm in broad agreement. I am reminded of programmers trying to interpret legal rules, and tying themselves in knots where someone with legal training interprets for intent and purpose. (formatting of copyright statements in code comes to mnd)

however, on Myers-Brigg, psychologists I know don't place much stock in in it. seems to be sub-Freudian in reputation.  I've found the test outcomes repeatable for a person - but do they really have meaning?

And which MB type is most concerned with dignity, and likely to demand to be treated with respect at all time? not a usual  IETF trait, I'd hazard. ad hominem is in the eye of the beholder.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant [[email-masked]]
Sent: 08 March 2014 09:50
To: IETF Discussion
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Social Science and the IETF

Stewart

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 19:50:19 +0000

Sure. I suspect (and I'm braving some individuals' ire here) that most
people mean well most of the time, but they often don't have the knowledge,
skills, or perhaps the ability, to communicate in ways that feel good to
all listeners.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:42:39 +0000

> Using the Myers-Briggs characterization
...
> in the social and organizational sciences.

Stuart,

Forgive me, but what discussions are you referring to?

The ones that I am aware of covered harassment and bullying, with some 
later discussions considering the professionalism of how one voices 
personal frustrations with another participant.

None of these is a matter of mismatched personality types, whether 
formulated by M-B or any of the vast array of competing personality and 
interaction theories.

Harassment and bullying are forms of intimidation seeking to marginalize 
a participant.  They are not "interaction" problems; they are attacks.

Some are frontal, attempting the verbal equivalent of blunt force 
trauma.  Others try to be more clever and subtle, such as when the 
attacker pretends to be a victim, or the attacker questions the victim's 
motives.  Whatever the form, they seek to undermine the person, rather 
than deal with technical substance.

The draft I wrote goes into these in some details, including citing a 
array of professional papers:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct/

Further, my understanding is that the Anti-Harassment Policy formulated 
by the IESG and the more recent draft by Adrian and Pete all have had 
professional input.

Please take the 12 minutes needed to look at the cited video. It 
includes some discussion of the difference between "communication" 
problems and bullying:

      Workplace Bullying
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAgg32weT80,

Since your note made no specific references, perhaps you have some other 
conversations in mind?  Please do be specific.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:35:14 +0000

On 11/03/2014 08:42, Dave Crocker wrote:
> formulated by M-B or any of the vast array of competing personality 
> and interaction theories.
>
> Harassment and bullying are forms of intimidation seeking to 
> marginalize a participant.  They are not "interaction" problems; they 
> are attacks.

One person's attack is another person's interaction problem and vice versa.

Stewart

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:47:48 +0100

Hi Dave,

I agree with you totally. Your draft and Adrian/Pete draft are important to
stop attack behavior and the misuse if IETF facilities into wrong
activities. I feel mostly I am ignored or attacked, but I continuing to
think every day I am a new person and others are new persons (but IETF
cannot be that way, it needs new drafts and updates to its RFC policies to
become new) so that IETF can progress.

Social science input is needed (I requested that before this
subject-posted in my input after reviewing anti-harassment draft in message
1 below) as well to help IETF people understand that such drafts have
background support from science and social organisations.

AB

1.  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86218.html

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Harassment and bullying are forms of intimidation seeking to marginalize a
> participant.  They are not "interaction" problems; they are attacks.
>
> Some are frontal, attempting the verbal equivalent of blunt force trauma.
>  Others try to be more clever and subtle, such as when the attacker
> pretends to be a victim, or the attacker questions the victim's motives.
>  Whatever the form, they seek to undermine the person, rather than deal
> with technical substance.
>
> Further, my understanding is that the Anti-Harassment Policy formulated by
> the IESG and the more recent draft by Adrian and Pete all have had
> professional input.
>
> Please take the 12 minutes needed to look at the cited video. It includes
> some discussion of the difference between "communication" problems and
> bullying:
>
>      Workplace Bullying
>      Workplace Bullying <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAgg32weT80>,
>
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:42:27 -0400

If we are going to apply a theory, could we at least pick one that is
backed by empirical scientific observations?

Meyers-Briggs is a very efficient way for consultants to empty the pockets
of managers but there is no scientific backing for the idea that their
categories are innate rather than learned competencies.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:20:41 +0000

---- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:52 PM

Stewart,

I'm in broad agreement. I am reminded of programmers trying to interpret
legal rules, and tying themselves in knots where someone with legal
training interprets for intent and purpose. (formatting of copyright
statements in code comes to mnd)

however, on Myers-Brigg, psychologists I know don't place much stock in
in it. seems to be sub-Freudian in reputation.  I've found the test
outcomes repeatable for a person - but do they really have meaning?

<tp>

Yes, MB has meaning and can be useful.  It flagged to me why I was
always arguing with another person.  Trouble is, by then we had been
arguing for months (and probably still would be but for MB).  Despite
knowing MB quite well, and meeting several people who have done the
test, I am a bad judge of what someone else is - I really need people to
wear badges saying 'ENTJ' or some such - and lacking that information,
find the wisdom of MB hard to put into practice.

There is another (out of many) scheme which uses hilltops - 'Know Your
Hilltop' - which is much simpler - only three options - and I find that
to be of
more practical value in business.

Tom Petch

And which MB type is most concerned with dignity, and likely to demand
to be treated with respect at all time? not a usual  IETF trait, I'd
hazard. ad hominem is in the eye of the beholder.

Lloyd Wood
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
[[email-masked]]

Stewart

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:12:45 -0700

Stewart,

That's a bit like saying my shooting a gun in your direction is really a 
matter of your causing a self-inflicted wound.

In other words, the view you are espousing does not match that of  those 
experts you asked to have consulted.  (You really need to look at the 
material cited in the draft.  If you have an issue with that material, 
please state so, explicitly.)

And for some of the behaviors, it does not match the laws in many 
jurisdictions.

The fact that misunderstandings can sometimes occur does not eliminate 
the fact of real harassment or bullying.

d/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 05:11:23 +0000

> matter of your causing a self-inflicted wound.

Ah, Americans. Guns. Is the injury a burglar receives self-inflicted?
Is the castle doctrine sensible?

Do you _really_ want to go there with that analogy?

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker [[email-masked]]
Sent: 17 March 2014 03:12
To: [email-masked]; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Social Science and the IETF

Stewart,

d/

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:19:00 -0400

> From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>

> skills, or perhaps the ability, to communicate in ways that feel good to

I'm no expert in this field, but I remember an anecdote from someone
who had undergone formal training as a technical support specialist
(someone who handles complaints from customers about software
products).  One exercise that the training class underwent ran as
follows:

The students were divided into four groups based on their scores on a
simple Myers-Briggs-type test.  Each group was sent to one corner of
the room, where they were to decide upon the way that they would want
to have their complaint handled if they were a customer.

All four groups came to consensus very quickly.

All four groups reported to the whole class on their preferred way to
handle complaints.

The four preferred ways were *completely* different.

The treacherous thing about having good intentions is that other
people may not want to be treated as you want to be treated.

Dale