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.
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 ... "
You can see why others would see that approach as arrogant, right? People generally like to think of themselves as fairly smart. Now, if you come across as always having it down so much quickly than others, then that's naturally going to build resentment. No one likes to be one-upped, a lesson I know all too well.
When they say "it shouldn't work that way", they aren't looking for a response that says "well it does"... because that's obvious to everyone. If I'd offer any suggestion there, it's that when you get that sort of response, instead of saying "I know it's not working the way it's supposed to", ask "how is it supposed to work?" What happens there is that when you've laid out the basic principles, and the logical steps, both of you can use your relative thinking strengths to come up with a working solution. So in that scenario, instead of just telling him that the date time variables don't store time zone info, how do you think he would have responded if you asked "do you think that would happen if the date time variables didn't store time zone information?"
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.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it... until it gets broke.
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.
Some people have issues. Sorry you have to deal with them.
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.
He probably takes great pride in his intelligence, and feels defensive if you try to attack it head-on. Unfortunately, we still have to deal with people when they're not on their best behavior. It would be nice if we could engage with people in our own way all the time, but as you see, it just ends up leading to conflict and wasted time.
This is your Ti perspective. Half of the people on the planet don't think this way.
That is an entirely too easy way to write off what I'm saying, and I don't appreciate it.
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.
Is that every time, or could it be "I'm in a bad mood and don't want to discuss it further" or "this doesn't fit my worldview?" Te doesn't have a monopoly on objective truth, and I sense a bit of a bias in that direction in your writings.
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.
Any of them could have responded that way. Any of them. Psychological complexes are not specific to type. They may correlate from time to time, but it's not a hard rule by any stretch of the imagination.
They have a right to say, "I don't believe that's true."
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."
They absolutely do. How do they know your intentions? If they don't know you, how could they know your intentions?
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.
This is positively false. If I am speaking to someone, I am trying to get information across. If the information does not get across, then I have failed, because I am the active member of the exchange. Like it or not, there is no way to "listen" better than simply paying attention.
Those preconceptions aren't something that can be controlled within a conversational exchange, because everyone carries their own preconceptions with them, and there is no way anyone can change that. Even "I must always be open-minded" is a preconception, and one that can clearly be untrue.
In the end, it is the one speaking who carries the burden of communication, and is responsible for its success or failure. That being said, failing to communicate with someone like the person you mentioned before is nothing to be ashamed of. It would take some of the most skilled communicators on the planet to get through to someone like that.
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."
And here's where the SJ approach comes in handy: "well, how do you know that" "I just do" "so you don't really know that?" "I mean, no, not really, but I'm sure of it" "OK, well let me know if it's red or yellow when you see it, because I saw a red apple."
So to go back to your original example, instead of saying something like "the date time variable doesn't store time zone data" ad infinitum, you could say something like "are you sure of that? How do you know? Really? Well if you want to keep doing it that way, that's fine, but I bet if you adjust for it, it'll work out right. I've given you all the advice I can, so good luck to you. Would you still like me to remain on the line?"
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.
You asked,
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.
So, the logical extension to that is why that insults you. People are told that they're lying all the time, when something's true, but the other person doesn't want to hear it. That doesn't mean that they are a liar, which I would agree, being called that would be a grave insult.
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.
No, that's not what I'm saying to you at all. What I'm saying to you is that we all have to deal with being called unpleasant things, and having our character questioned. The flip side to this is that none of us have a particularly special character (though we do have particularly unique characters), so I don't understand why it would seem illogical to you for someone to doubt your intentions when they know very little about you. You know you're not a liar, but there are liars in this world, and they ruin it for everyone. In the end, this is why we even have credentials - because we simply don't have enough time to get to that level of trust with everyone.
It's also why we regard betrayals by those with credentials, or those we do have close relationships with, as so much worse than that by someone who is unknown.
)
).
Why would I speak if I did not know what I was talking about?
)
