zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
Female founder friend (non tech space) was in a female focused incubator / competition. She got only one set of somewhat critical feedback - ie, lacks experience in X and Y which are key in product space Z.

She posted a comment on her social media focusing on this feedback as "criticism" that came from a sexist guy "of course". It was pretty easy to draw the line to the three panelists, one of whom was a guy. Ouch.

In a previous life, I'd worked in a awesome (female led!) product company. While I had no experience prior to this, I quickly realized that the product itself and its quality etc was almost irrelevant to success, the X and Y mentioned by the male panelist was unfortunately everything, which you'd only know if you were in the space itself. The female led company I worked for was bought out by a (male led) competitor, who then using much strong x and y skills - cleaned up. Company I worked for got basically nothing.

Fast forward - my friends business not doing so great, she asks me for feedback. I said nothing other than enthusiasm. Partly because I was really enthusiastic - she'd put her heart into this project. But her comment on social was in my mind - I had no desire to be next sexist guy "shooting down" an idea

She's out of the business I think mostly. Anyways, this parallels the take of the article.

>>random+zE
> lacks experience in X and Y which are key in product space Z.

Obviously you didn't post the feedback, but I wonder how this was phrased. If the feedback was "improve X and Y", I think I sympathize with the panelist. The feedback was solicited! If it was framed as "unlikely to succeed because inexperienced in X and Y" then I think that crossed a line from critical feedback to a somewhat demeaning comment, even if it was right.

Regardless of how it actually played out, there's a good lesson here that you should be mindful of how your communication is understood. It's not enough to be right, it's important to speak in a way that makes sure what you're conveying is delivered in a useful way.

>>bastaw+XJ
There are better and worse ways to communicate, sure. But fundamentally, you cannot control how people interpret the words that you say.

>>daniel+yL
I disagree.

Effective communication requires effort, but many people speak impulsively and fail to convey what they actually mean. If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood then either their thoughts need to be distilled further or the statement needs to be carefully worded.

If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?

>>ntr--+ZS
No matter how well you believe you have expressed yourself, it is always possible for someone to take your words the wrong way (not the way you intended them to be taken). You can, and should, take the time to craft what you say so that it best (given constraints) represents what you want the person to understand, but that is not always enough. Sometimes, people hear what they expect to hear, not what you say.

>>RHSeeg+121
Yup, language is a sort of compressed code that exploits model biases. If the receiver's model is biased in a different way than the sender's model decoding fidelity plummets.

Put differently, expectation is half of sensing. That insight goes back at least as far as Helmholtz.

>>_0ffh+ZC1
please also take into account that unlike theoretical systems the real world is a constantly moving target. the moment that I've formed an opinion it is probably already outdated within the nano-second an additional thought has entered my subconscious and is waiting to be integrated into what I think is my "truth".