Show him how? We were talking on the phone. All he had to do was go to the Help for Visual Studio or SQL Server and look up "datetime". I directed him to the relevant info. There's a bit of an oddity, here, though: no respectable developer entirely believes documentation. The 100% correct documentation would mention date and time, but not mention word one about time zones, thus leaving room for doubt.
Originally Posted by onemoretime
Should *I* write the "test code"? He wouldn't trust MY test code, he'd have to write it himself.
No, the problem here was similar to one I've had in many instances, where I'm solving a problem with other technically adept people. I'll figure it out in about 10 minutes, while they're still barely getting started, and then I spend the next hour explaining it to them. This really isn't a big deal to me, and I patiently go through everything. What I hear very often, though, is "but it shouldn't work that way," or "that isn't how it's supposed to be," as if that were a rebuttal to my analysis. To which my reply is "I know ... that's why it's broken ... "
There is a mindset where it just takes a while to unlearn whatever it is you thought you knew and replace it with the new correct information.
Not really. This is a fellow who has managed to get into one-sided shouting matches with INTJ (me), INFJ (coworker) and INTP (another coworker) alike. He sits back all calm and collected, sure in his knowledge, and will never be convinced by anyone else's words, no matter how well-presented or reasonable. A typical trivial disagreement ends with "Oh, you mean <his version of technical term> where <more technical info>" "Yes, that's right." "Why didn't you say so in the first place?!" "I did. Over and over. A different way each time." If it's nontrivial, it's worse.
You do a good job of making it seem perfectly reasonable, but as evidenced by the exchange above, the other person may not have perceived it as reasonable whatsoever. Now, it may be because he's self-absorbed, as you assert, but might there be another explanation that doesn't lay the blame entirely at his feet?
His reply to each of my statements and re-explanations was "But I don't understand how that can be true," and variations on a theme. Basically, zero feedback for me to gauge where his misunderstanding lies. Remember, it took me two hours of digging to figure out where the misunderstanding was, and another two to finally convince him to verify it for himself.
You may be talking about just the facts, but there always is contextual meaning. Even things like voice tone, facial movements, and general demeanor otherwise around the person informs your statement, and injects shades of meaning, even if unintentional. The person is "supposed" to engage you as if you were another human being, and not a machine spitting out data, so you can't blame him if he does precisely that.
This is your Ti perspective. Half of the people on the planet don't think this way.
Where you say "is bogus", I think it is more accurately represented "they believe to be bogus." No one on this planet is in absolute possession of correct knowledge, no matter how well-read or informed that person may be. It also takes a lot of maturity to say "I was completely wrong", even if presented with contradictory, verifiable data... for anyone. It's just as easy to say "you clearly don't understand what I'm speaking to" as it is to reanalyze one's own data patterns. And that's not limited to one type, either.
It is implied when Te person A says "That's bogus" it means "I believe that to be untrue," and several clear reasons for the assertion will follow.
With an INTJ or INFJ or INFP, the "datetime" conversation would last 5 minutes. With an INTP, it would last maybe half an hour, as the INTP does some extra digging to fully understand what I'm getting at. The fellow in my example is rather extreme.
They have a right to say, "I don't believe that's true."
See, this is the part that bugs me. Someone else absolutely has a right to say "I don't believe you", even if they're wrong.
They have a right to say, "I believe what you just said is incorrect."
They have a right to say, "That's wrong."
They don't have a right to say, "I think you're lying."
The onus for communication is both on speaker and listener. It is the job of the speaker to present information as clearly as possible. It is the job of the listener to listen with an open mind: any preconception, especially any preconception that dismisses the possibility oneself being wrong, is an impediment to communication.
In that circumstance, they'll just have to deal with the consequences of their inaccuracy, but often, that's not that devastating. There is no onus on them to contradict your argument, but rather, the burden of persuasion is on you if you're trying to persuade! It surely would be nice if the facts spoke for themselves, but they very rarely do, because unfortunately, we don't have facts - we have subjective perceptions of fact.
In the specific instance, it was my job to provide correct information. That the information was correct was self-evident. It was as full of meaning as if I were saying "The apple in your lunchbox is red." All it takes is pulling out the damn apple and verifying it. If the listener is too lazy to do that, there's not much I can do.
Instead the effective dialog was:
"No, it isn't. My Mom put in a yellow apple."
"Dude, I looked in your lunchbox. It's red. Check it yourself."
"But I know it's yellow. There's no way it could be red."
Note that you began this with a question. I answered your question, and now you're just disagreeing with my answer, based on your original premise.
When you show credentials, demonstrate principles or appeal to authority, it's not because you're incapable of perceiving the facts. It's simply because for whatever reason, the other person may see things differently, and what's more, until you've established a reputation for seeing things correctly, the other person has no reason to believe that the way you see things is any better than the way he does.
The problem with "just the facts" is that it's never just about the facts - they have to have meaning. Either you take him down the path you took, or you use credentials to assure him that you're not lying in some way.
Why doesn't that seem "OK" to you?
I replied that it's insulting to imply that I'm lying or otherwise being intentionally misleading. It's OK to say I'm wrong, but not OK to say I'm lying. To say I'm wrong is to correct me, to say I'm lying is to insult me.
Note that YOU are saying that it should feel "OK" to me. This is precisely what Fi dislikes about Fe: it doesn't feel ok to me, and you don't get to say it should. Period. If you don't respect this alternative perspective, you will have some rough periods of communication.