Witnessing another occurrrence of the #ReplyGuy anti-pattern this morning inspired me to write some thoughts about this social behavior that is so common on our #Fediverse that is based on #PublicSquare#Microblogging mechanics.
On the #SocialCoding forum I created a category for #SocialExperienceDesign (or #SX) patterns, and the "Reply Guy" #AntiPattern is the first entry in what might be turned into a pattern library collection.
It's interesting watching these conversations play out from the vantage point of software with different underlying interaction models. Though I'm assuming conversations, and that in itself isn't a universally supported interaction model.
There are so many ways to avoid anti-patterns to occur by how things are implemented in the app. And some apps, like the ones you are involved with, have a much broader range of functionality to choose from already.
Real challenge, as you say, will be to either find a universal interaction model, and/or ways to map between different interaction models in a broadly interoperable future Fediverse.
(Universal interaction model likely equates to "minimally viable social". Hard.)
@smallcircles There's a small change in wording that can help in all but the most extreme cases of "I DON'T WANT TO HEAR REPLIES!"
Switch out "you should go see a dentist for relief" for "have you been seeing a dentist?"
Telling someone what they should do is irritating at the best of times. That's not empathy. That's being pushy.
(Of course it's then up to the other side to accept expressions of empathy instead of, as is unfortunately more common, interpreting things as offence.)
@airwhale@smallcircles There are very few places where telling complete strangers what they "should do" is acceptable. (I'm not going to say there's none because the expanse of communication is literally awesome.) Doing so is by and large a bad habit that one particular sub-group on the 'net is very prone to doing.
"You should do X" vs. "have you done X?" is a world of difference in communicative style. One is imperative and assumes you know all there is to know; the other asks for input.
Totally agree, there’s a wide difference between “you should“ and “you could perhaps“ or “in this case, I would”.
My point was perhaps wider, in the sense that non-native speakers may struggle with nuance, while having the best of intentions. In Nordic countries, this imperative form is commonly used interchangeably as a kind suggestion.
Also, the OP is broadcasting their complaint to complete strangers too. If one doesn’t want any reactions, why post at all?
@airwhale@smallcircles Well I have to say I kind of agree about broadcasting personal problems to the body politic. This is something I never really understood except as, perhaps, a mild form of narcissism … especially if it's paired with HOW DARE YOU RESPOND! (to the non-imperative responses, I mean).
@zdl@smallcircles even then, this is not a helpful answer, most people know that dentists exist. This sounds more like an attempt by a lonely person trying to be nice, socially awkward, probably traumatized, with the internalized need to always help everyone with everything. But trying to help is often not the most helpful answer (that's a huge misconception). It only is if someone is asking for advice, in most other cases one should figure out that person's emotions and just do something to make the person not be upset anymore (it depends on the relationship between the two people, but i'm assuming they're complete strangers to each other). In that example, a "i hope it gets better soon" or if it was a town square asking if they want a hug or a soothing drink would be more appropriate.
It's like, someone complains about basic stuff being expensive and you respond with "have you tried destroying capitalism?". Yes, that would be the most useful solution to that problem, but neither you nor the person are in a position where you can achieve that - you can still give them something though if that's something they could use. No matter how much you want to change the world, and no matter how good your intentions are (and I'm sure they really are), in the end you can't fix other people's bigger problems. Only the small and immediate ones. Those you can help with, and then they will figure out how to tackle the root of the problem, at their own discretion.
@fabi@smallcircles Oh, I agree that it's not the most helpful answer. I'm just saying that there's even better ways to word the unhelpful variant.
The "you should" formulation is almost always going to cause a negative reaction (in, as @airwhale pointed out, in anglophone-native circles). At least with "are you seeing a dentist" you're not telling someone what to do.
Personally my own approach is simple: if a perfect stranger is complaining loudly in a public space I pass on by.
@smallcircles@zdl@airwhale
Yes.
I studied communication sciences, there's a very basic and useful model one can apply to such situations (the "Four-sides model"), and understanding it can greatly reduce the risk of misunderstanding a message, or giving an answer the other person doesn't want to hear, and analyzing a situation like this in order to not make the same communication mistake with that person again. It's very hard to do this in real-time irl conversations, but online, where you have time to think about what you're writing, it can be very useful and can even help with decyphering things like sarcasm.
To break down the dentist example from what I got from it:
Sender:
Factual level: My teeth hurt.
Self-revealing layer: I want attention, or distraction from the pain.
Relationship layer: You can give me attention or distraction.
Appeal layer: Say something nice to me.
Receiver:
Factual level: Your teeth hurt.
Self-revealing layer: You are in pain.
Relationship layer: You need help.
Appeal layer: Someone should fix your teeth asap.
As you can see, there's a difference in what the sender and receiver say/hear in the message, on several levels. It's of course impossible to always reliably know what a stranger actually wants to express or how they are going to react to your message, which is why it's important to actually say what you want and think about your own appeal, about what you want to achieve with your message, when talking to strangers (or in general, really).
I won't ask you to join the forum. Discussions forums aren't for everyone. But can I have permission to quote your toot in the discussion thread?
It will probably take quite some time for SX pattern library to shape up further. Social experience design (SX) is now still nothing more than some old research papers, where UX 'walsed' over them. But I'd like to keep track on fascinating angles in case things get to the pont of elaborating.
I see somebody else framed it as a living room problem and I agree completely. Audience selection and comment controls changes the dynamic completely. Because it allows you to communicate with "somebody" as opposed to "anybody". I'll shut up now.
I totally feel that that is the way forward for social networking. I always compare to real life, and witness precious few people there who like to stand shouting from public squares. 😄
Some social behaviors are named with #UrbanDictionary slang, that may feel good to brandish about, but don't foster an inclusive culture. (Even while the terminology may have emerged like that with good reason)
In the fight for #gender freedoms, that are so under pressure, it feels contradictory to use terms as #ReplyGuy and #Mansplaining. It is like saying: "I care about gender, but don't mind to discriminate people based on gender stereotypes".
In terms of renaming the patterns to be less emotionallly charged and more #inclusive.
I will use this terminology for now:
#ReplySigh: An exasperated reaction to a person who replies to someone else's post, offering advice or solutions that weren't asked for, or out of context.
#Oversplaining: A person reacting to someone's post and giving an explanation from the assumption that the original poster and/or other followers lack that knowledge, or posted just to showcase their smarts.
Yes, might be. I just thought of a temporary name for the pattern.
"Assumpsplaining" is a bit harder to pronounce, harder to tell what it may mean. I chose #Oversplaining because it is catchier. And in terms of conveying its meaning it is comparable to the saying that "one overplays ones hand" i.e. in that there's a "misjudgment" in it.
A misjudgment is equivalent to that wrong assumption, but goes a bit further, as it implies a process ("the process of misjudging").
Add comment