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
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to be sure you're communicating thoughtfully.

>>bastaw+NY
In collaborative situations, the vast majority of the time you should try to trick others into critical thinking instead of using logic to explain things.

>>ErikVa+Le1
Ahhhh...is there a name for this, and does it have any sibling techniques?

>>mister+Vg1
Not sure why you're downvoted. I'm open to suggestions.

The Socratic Method is similar. But it differs because it is trying to expose a contradiction in thought about a particular subject through questions. Whereas you can trick others into critical thinking about a subject just by helping them think critically in general, and it can be done without the use of questions.

>>ErikVa+XE2
I get precisely -1 on 75%++ of my posts regardless of the content, I chalk it up to "one of those HN things".

Your trick a great idea though, thanks for raising it!

>>mister+QX3
Hello friends...let us test this one, shall we?

God bless. :)

>>mister+RI7
Where is the other manchild?

>>mister+jI8
Only one?