Tact...

[Merkin]

Once upon a time, I was a road warrior, and I was also a frequent poster on a discussion forum for horologists (watch collectors) known as 'TimeZone'. Great place, by the way. I used to make it a habit to try to meet up with members in many of the cities I visited. With only one exception I can recall, I truly enjoyed meeting everyone, and they were very much as I had imagined them to be.



Yes, I suppose that is true. I don't like false modesty, and I have trouble with acquiescing to things I strongly believe are incorrect for the sake of politeness.

All opinions are not equal on every subject. Some opinions are right and some are wrong. I've never subscribed to the theory that everybody's opinion is equally valid. If someone has an opinion that the earth is flat, they're wrong. I suppose I could nod and pretend their opinion is valid, just to be polite. I believe that would be hypocritical of me. Everyone's opinion matters, but not every opinion is valid.

And we're discussing each other's opinions here. Shall I cloak mine in the sackcloth of false praise and acceptance for the sake of getting along and not hurting feelings? I guess I could do that, but it feels...icky. It's like posting 'great shot' on someone's photo when I hate it. I don't post that I hate it, I leave it alone. If someone asks me if I like it, however...

I do try to make distinctions between subjects which I believe I am right about and those on which I merely have an opinion. But on the rare occasion I have met with an objection to my point of view that is intellectually compelling, I have acknowledged it and rethought my position - even changed my mind a few times. I'm brilliant, but there are brighter lights than mine in the firmament.

The problem is that a lot of the discussions in places like this are about things that cannot be demonstrably proven one way or another. Sure, if someone claimed that 35mm film out-resolved 8x10 sheet film, there is no reason to be afraid to tell the person that their opinion is completely wrong. When you get to discussions like "What is the best 75mm lens" or "Which is the best 100 speed color film," that is the place where more leeway is needed, where you need to consider everyones opinion at least quasi-valid (within reason, if someone sincerely claimed the best 75mm lens was a rubber chicken, I think I would certainly join in with the laughing mercilessly), because people's definitions of and criteria regarding what qualifies as "the best" vary. Take any given "which lens" discussion. Some people think the best lens is the sharpest regardless of speed, some think it is the fastest regardless of sharpness, some think it is the lens that has the best OOF rendering regardless of sharpness or speed, some think it is the smallest lens regardless of all three, etc, etc, ad nauseam...
All of those people would quite likely be correct based on their own sets of criteria and value judgements, and those sets of criteria and value judgements are quite likely different from the next twenty people. If person A, who believes that sharpness is king, tries to argue with person B (who believes that speed is king) that Person B's lens of choice is worse because it isn't as sharp as Person A's, that probably doesn't matter one bit to person B, but if Person C comes along and points out that Lens C is just as fast as Person B's choice but is also sharper, that might lead to a more constructive discussion. Until the day that someone invents a series of lenses that cover every prime focal length and all zoom ranges that feature an f stop range of 0.75 to 64, causes no diffraction, can focus down to 0mm, has sublime bokeh, is sharper at f/0.75 than any lens has ever been at 5.6 or 8, and has extremely small size and extremely low weight while being made entirely of metal at a price point of 25 bucks each, people will continue expressing their opinions on what is best for them, and try to persuade others that their opinion is the most correct (and even then, people would probably still stump for something else).

 

[dee]

Some with ASD can be direct - don't suffer fools gladly . I have no probs with this but others do take offence . Me ? I keep quiet , which is hiding really , which isn't so good .
But I know what it is like to be bullied and put down .

 

[wgerrard]

... I don't think that I'm tactless though.

Geez, no!

I once worked at a place with employees in many locations, inside and outside the U.S. It wasn't unusual to converse with someone via email or chat or IM for months and months before meeting them in person. Sometimes we meshed with our imagined conceptions of each other, sometimes not. But, meeting a person did impact our future online conversations, once they went home.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't like false modesty, and I have trouble with acquiescing to things I strongly believe are incorrect for the sake of politeness.

Dear Bill,

But there can also be a problem with false immodesty. I used to think I was pretty smart. I still do. But I also know that I can misread people, misunderstand them, and try to answer questions they aren't asking. I've also met a reasonable number of people who are smarter than I. An iota of modesty -- even if false -- is often more attractive than its opposite. I'd rather be liked than disliked.

For that matter, there's a big difference between things you strongly believe to be incorrect, and things you know to be incorrect. Thus I believe your views on Obama to be wrong, but I know that someone is wrong if they say that a 50/2 is faster (i.e. lets more light through) than a 50/1.4. In between there are questions of definition: for example, is it possible to be a good photographer, and to care about photography, without using a light meter (at least some of the time)?

For the most part, too, I have found that the cleverest and most knowledgeable people I know are often the ones who are the most modest, and who are most willing to say "I could be wrong." Geoffrey Crawley springs to mind. Dr. Hubert Nasse at Zeiss is another. Or Sir Kenneth Corfield.

Perhaps it is an unworthy wish to be thought cleverer than I am, but I generally find it a good idea to emulate the approach of these very clever people, and to let the other person form an opinion of my intelligence, knowledge, rectitude and the like, rather than to tell them stridently how clever, knowledgeable, brave and upright I am. I'll tell 'em what I know, but I try to let them form an opinion about its (and my) worth.

Hence, in large measure, this thread: about how each of us responds to challenges to his (or occasionally her) amour propre, and to those we find bombastic.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BillP]

Roger you make your points well, and I for one find them trenchant and accurate. I spend very little time on RFF because of the inordinately high signal to noise ratio, and the bombastic approach of some regular posters who, like tomcats, seem to feel the urge to make their mark on every thread even - or especially - when they have little or nothing to add beyond the repetition of their own self-aggrandising mantra. There is no pleasure to be had in trawling through the ego parade day after day so I simply don't bother. I suspect that I am not alone in this view.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Oops!

Oops!

Leigh, what does that mean?

Thanks

Hi Juan. Apologies for the late reply but I was heading for the pit (bed) when I spotted your question last night and I've only just got to my computer again.
I guess this is a very good example of how the use of words can obscure a meaning or result in a miscommunication. Something others in this thread have mentioned.
Firstly, it was a rather poor attempt at humour. Secondly it relied on a fairly common white anglo saxon protestant jibe which the "in group" might find slightly amusing but which others may not. It refers to the patriarchal image of God as a male figure presented by orthodox judeo-christian religion, and which is often refuted by feminists who say there is no proof of that and in fact "He" might be a "She".
Thirdly, your final remark that "God only knows" or words to that effect prompted the basis of my response in that God, in whatever form you may or may not believe, does not speak and therefore we'll never know what God knows.
Which all goes to show that I was a bit silly to post the remark in the first place and that it really has nothing to do with photography in the second place.
Sorry!

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Dear Keith,
But is Barry Humphries seen as being as funny in Australia as he is in the UK?
R.

Dame Edna is the nearest thing to Royalty that we've got! If we get a Republic she's the ONE!

I think Barry as Dame Edna is a bit passe now but can still be amusing. Barry as himself is an extremely talented man in some surprising areas and originally as "The Dame" he had us in stitches as he sent up so many aspects of Australian culture and sacrificed sacred cows, but there's not a lot new these days. And Sir Les Patterson still makes us cringe!

 

[Ronald_H]

This just got its author relegated into my ignore list:

"There's nothing wrong with the M6TTL. It is not built to a lower standard. It's the people who want their gear to provide them with a sense of validation who are the ones who rave about the MP, as if it is Leica's film version of the Holy Grail. There has yet to be any proven evidence that their photography has improved as a result of paying more for the MP model."

Hmm, this makes me worry in how many people's ignore list I am. Really. Yes, I know I am often (unintentionally) tac tless IRL, people never cease to point this out to me 😀

I also agree it is very difficult to get a bit of tongue in cheek or sarcasm across on the 'net and emoticons can be helpful.

But back to the statement that got somebody ignored. I don't find it offensive in any way really. The point is made a bit strongly but so what? I know for a fact that I have been saying things like that. Oops?

Even if someone makes his point or feels strongly about something, it doesn't mean they don't respect your feelings or opinions. I have to admit I can't get my head around the fact that Leicas are so unbelieveably expensive, yet a number of people must have the latest and greatest, or let's put it more tactfully, feel the (small?) gains they get by buying an MP or the next gen lens are worth it. You can fall in love with the optical performance of the lenses, the build quality, legacy and all that. I understand that. I own a M2 + a handful of lenses. But to me the amount of money you have to pay for most Leica gear cannot be justified. Ever. Sorry.

But still, I always have a very good time with my best photographic friend. He literally spends tens of thousands on Leica, Hasselblad and Linhof gear + some fancy computers, scanners, printers and digitals. He loves his stuff, I love it. I can even afford it. But I don't. I respect his choices, he respects mine.

This is turning into a rant... I hope I made myself clear and didn't offend anybody.

 

[JohnTF]

Dear Bill,


For the most part, too, I have found that the cleverest and most knowledgeable people I know are often the ones who are the most modest, and who are most willing to say "I could be wrong." Geoffrey Crawley springs to mind. Dr. Hubert Nasse at Zeiss is another. Or Sir Kenneth Corfield.

Perhaps it is an unworthy wish to be thought cleverer than I am, but I generally find it a good idea to emulate the approach of these very clever people, and to let the other person form an opinion of my intelligence, knowledge, rectitude and the like, rather than to tell them stridently how clever, knowledgeable, brave and upright I am.


Cheers,

R.

I agree, but I just hate it when they miss the trail of subtle bread crumbs I have left them, and they fail to comprehend this. ;-)

I now know how much you love emoticons, but I have to give some clues as to my intent, as you well know the written word is just not as clear as the spoken. However, you know that I am agreeing with you, but I suppose an explained joke is not much of a joke?

I have to add that this is the most tactful thread I have read.

I find it necessary enough to commonly re-read and edit my posts when I see my failure to clearly convey my intention, or in fact somehow imply something totally unintended.

I also seem to recall a quote attributed to Tennessee Williams (paraphrased from long ago in my memory, so if I totally muck it up, let me know and I will edit it ;-))

"I can forgive many things save a deliberate unkindness",

I think a reasonable reader also might give some time to consider an interpreted untactful post to consider if it is a simple error leading to understanding or miss communication, or indeed something else.

Perhaps the instance I see most occurs with newer posters.

I do not like to see a newer poster ignored, or treated in a cavalier manner, especially when the problem may well be due to inexperience or a language problem. Is a curt, impolite, response meant to elucidate the subject, or exclude the less experienced?

I would like to think that newer folks do contribute to a reasonable forum, and RFF a great opportunity to chat up serious photo folks like you Roger, along with others of serious expertise.

You know me from years back on old forums, and I probably have jumped in perhaps rather too quickly in conversations with the more venerable, and I have my share of stepping on my electronic tongue, and yes I post too long.

The ultimate "put down" of a poster may well be their posting of a "put down".

Regards, John

ps-- I caught up with Jorge on Skype in Uruapan, and he sends warmest regards for a speedy recovery. He does say Roger rather oddly, sort of loses the "g" a bit. ;-)

 

[John Camp]

Dear Bill,

But there can also be a problem with false immodesty. I used to think I was pretty smart. I still do. But I also know that I can misread people, misunderstand them, and try to answer questions they aren't asking. I've also met a reasonable number of people who are smarter than I. An iota of modesty -- even if false -- is often more attractive than its opposite. I'd rather be liked than disliked.

R.

I agree. I have become quite skilled at faking modesty. It's hard, though, because very few subjects are as interesting as I am.

<--- [irony alert]

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree. I have become quite skilled at faking modesty. It's hard, though, because very few subjects are as interesting as I am.

<--- [irony alert]

Or as my mother once said to someone who was unusually serious and pompous about the subject of bringing up children, "I always reckon that the most important thing in life is sincerity. Once you've learned how to fake that, you can fake anything."

Cheers,

R.