This is my vacation spot :). I just bought a piece of land here. Most likely I’ll just keep it as it is – instead of chopping these trees and building a house there, I’ll just tie a hammock :). Or follow one of the new “green architectures” or “organic architectures” where houses are designed to be built into and integrated with the original settings, with the intent of preserving as many trees and natural landscape as much possible — though I don’t know how that’d work with coconut trees (coconuts falling on your roof).

Nice place to just sit, read, or take a stroll. Usually come here with dad who also likes natural hangouts. Managed to get mom also; I believe walking barefoot on the soft gravel, let alone the fresh air and natural surroundings, ought to help any ailment get better.

I came across this interesting story some time ago: One day a farmer’s donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do. Finally he decided the animal was old and the well needed to be covered up anyway, it just wasn’t worth it to retrieve the donkey. He invited all his neighbours to come over and help him. They all grabbed a shovel and begin to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the donkey realised what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to everyone’s amazement he quietened down. A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked down the well and was astonished at what he saw. With every shovel of dirt that fell on his back, the donkey was doing some thing amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up. As the farmer’s neighbours continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and trotted off! Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt. The trick is to not to get bogged down by it. We can get out of the deepest wells by not stopping. And by never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up.

- Azim Premji, CEO and Founder, Wipro

• PSLV-C9 Launch
• Doordarshan
• ANI
• TimesNow
• Students

But how much more cruel is it than skinning animals alive for their fur, or butchering them while half-alive for meat, or having their throats slit and suffer the death throes and angst of bleeding to death under the hypocritical pretence of halal meat, or torturing them in animal testing in the cosmetic and pharma industry, which happens on a much more massive scale – as in the millions (and done by the more “modernized” people)…

I hope at least these chickens sufferings were not in vain, but at least serve as grim reminders of our cruelty (and greed), and that we may change. Just another harsh reminder (India is full of harsh contrasts like this). If everyone that is well off takes up at least just one cause to the society, things can change.

See these videos (warning: very graphic/disturbing images):

• Meat Industry
• Meet your Meat
• China – fur farms
• Canada – baby seals

Disclaimer: any resemblance to real life characters is purely coincidental.

A, B, C, D, E are all mid-level engineers (all of whom just happen to be women, and are all peers on the same team). Q is a senior level engineer (male, and also on the same team). The rest are all male engineers at the same peer level as A-E. I will start the story with E, and will get straight to it.

E is one person who is seen by her peers (i.e. most of the technical staff who have worked with her closely) as having integrity issues (lies, denies, hides, blames), very undisciplined, always breaks the process, blames just about everything and everyone (i.e. everyone/everything becomes the issue, not her), very condescending, arrogant, easily irritable, and puts down anyone she doesn’t like (i.e. anyone seen as better than her), sub-junior coding skills, no engineering skills, not a team player, and needless to say no team lead skills. On a scale of 10 points, the technical competency of E would be 2-3 (10 being the best; and 5 being the bare minimum). Even claims of E’s productivity is fraudulent as her productivity is a result of the efforts of ten other folks cleaning up after her.

Only thing that E has going for her is that she is very hard working and always tries to be helpful (though unfortunately her help is seen more as an impediment than a help).

It is to be noted, that the senior most software engineer himself (we’ll call him Q), was treated well in this hypothetical company (because of his seniority and experience). Q eventually left the company out of futility – that when he bought up these issues (that most of the technical staff had about E) management swept it under the carpet and gave Q the cold shoulder. Q had to listen to endless complaints from everyone about E, and had spent tens of hours of talks with management. For the number of hours Q had spent with management, management remained silent about the issue – never following it up with Q, and never acting upon it.

Ironically, the management in this team, very consistently and methodically, treated one particular employee, E, very well, over employees A, B, C, and D. Management would abuse and insult others several times more harshly and frequently than they would E. To set the big picture, here are just a couple of examples of the biases and ironies:

1. “Don’t point fingers”: A, B, and C repeatedly brought up the point that management would come down hard on them if they dared express any issues they had with E (issues that were making them work extra hours, harder, and causing delays and frustrations in getting work done). Management frequently reprimanded them saying “don’t point fingers, don’t point fingers!”. Q found it surprising why management couldn’t see (or acknowledge) E as the problem, when A-C (and F, G, and H who have left the team) all had grievances only with E and no grievances with each other.
2. “Don’t compare”: Management shouts at Q saying “don’t compare, don’t compare!”. When things are being run fairly there is no need to compare. But when half the people on the team perceive a serious bias, then a study is warranted. Especially to those who think there is no bias, the only way to alleviate it is by comparison (unless there is a fear that comparison will expose the bias further). Not to mention, it is a fair comparison with a peer. The irony is management says “don’t compare, don’t compare”, but they compare. That too, by making an unfair comparison of another team member, A, with Q. Unfair comparison, as Q is far far more experienced and senior than A. For example, the manager tells Q, “you could have done this in just 2 days, but look A took 3 weeks!” It makes one wonder, why don’t they instead dare make a comparison of A with E? It is a fair comparison, as besides being a peer to A, E is being promoted as team lead and it is the bias towards E that is under scrutiny. The answer maybe that it will undeniably expose A as far better than E.
3. Justifications: Management makes everyone else as the issue, not E, by brash remarks like this:
   1. “E is so intelligent that it is not easy to understand her.” That is what management said to C when she brought up her issues with E. That is totally unfounded, as even first year developers find E’s work as unbelievably bad. Not to mention that most of C’s peers see her as more smarter, intelligent, and disciplined than E. So it is insulting to C. In contrast E’s code is so bad, undisciplined, and convoluted, that it is a maintenance nightmare wasting invaluable resources (people, and client time), that could otherwise be spent on providing more value add to the client.
   2. “E is going through a family crisis”. Management on more then a couple of occasions justified E’s buggy quality of work (that wastes everyone’s time) and E’s irritability because she had a family crisis. Nearly everyone on the team has personal and family problems. If it is impacting her work (and the team), then she should probably take a few days off or it is managements responsibility to reduce the scope of her work or give her more time. Stressing her out when she’s in a family crisis and expecting team members to take the brunt is not the way to manage a team. Once in a while is fine (team members are kind enough to volunteer that). It is like saying others have to sacrifice their family and health problems, slog overtime, fixing E’s problems, so that E can spend time with her family. That is being insensitive to others.
   3. “You should not take things personally.” When C brought up her issue about E, she is told that she is too sensitive and taking it too personally.
   4. “You need to learn to be a team player.” Again C is blamed, the irony is C is an excellent team player, it is E who isn’t.
   5. “She (E) is under a lot of pressure.” This is what C was told when she expressed E’s irritability (arrogance, lack of cooperation, blaming, etc). While E’s issues are justified by calmly saying she’s “under pressure”, the same benefit is never given to others. Instead management gives others only a fraction of the tolerance they give for E. A-D are reprimanded way more severely and frequently than E (they are hardly given the benefit of the doubt).
   6. “Issues are not just with E! everyone has issues about others also!” Maybe, but nowhere near the tens of hours every month spent by everyone expressing their issues with E.
   7. “These women”. It is unbelievable, that when Q expressed the tens of hours that A, B, and C (A-C are women) have complained to him about E, the manager flings his pencil down and exclaims, “these women!”. Not only is E not being considered the issue, but it is now generalized to “these women”.
4. Half the time: Half the time would be an understatement. Management would give less than half the time to others to get a work done (over what they would have given E). And if they missed their mark, they would receive a harsh reprimand. Meanwhile E can stretch it for months beyond her deadline before she receives any such reprimanding.
   1. Example 1: Management tells A to read a 300 page specification overnight but E is given months. On the other hand when E does it, it is lauded “oh the specification is so complex, she did tremendous task in figuring it out…”. How is it that the same specs is described as complex when E had to do it, but when A does it it becomes as simple as “oh she (A) should be able to read it overnight (along with ten other things she’s been asked to multi-task)?”
   2. Example 2: A new technology was mastered by A in two days on her own time. Whereas E is given 3 weeks – and that too, failed at the task. Because of E’s failure, A is denied of her visibility of her success (her success is even depicted as failure using word games).
   3. Example 3: On many occasions, E could not figure out another technology, whereas A struggled, figured it out, then it was taken away from A and given to E (and on two occasions E received an award for it). In cases where E did figure out the technology, she did a total undisciplined hack job (i.e. without fully understanding the concept at all), and still would be praised for it.
   4. Example 5: On more than one occasion, E could not figure out, understand, and implement a specification. So B and F were tasked to do it (in 1/5th of the time given to E). They worked weekends and late nights, doing in a matter of few days what E could not figure out over a few months – but credit went totally to E. Everyday E is attributed for it, in such a way as if “she” did it.
   5. Example 6: Between 2001-2005, B spent countless hours educating E. For the amount that B helped E, E never returned any gratitude in the form of humility. Instead she treats B condescendingly and beneath her. B decided to stop talking/helping E. But that was too late, E has abused the knowledge derived from B to keep B invisible and subservient. Making B even more unhappy. B has expressed that frustration to her trusted peers often.
5. Pepperoni or Sausage? – the illusion of choice: The manager asks A, pepperoni or sausage? It’s a hard choice for A as she’s a vegetarian, and is forced to choose between both which she doesn’t like. She says “sausage”. Manager says, “No, take pepperoni, pepperoni is good for you”. This goes back and forth the manager being increasingly assertive and forceful on the choice he has already made out for A. Finally, poor A yields, and says ok pepperoni, provided you give me broccoli (her real wish) next time. Manager says, “oh definitely, [I will take care of you like my sister, you don't have to worry about a thing]“. A year goes by and she is forced with the same choice pepperoni (no broccoli) again :-(. Another year goes by… and again the same. By now A is terribly upset with severe indigestion, and this time confronts the manager. The manager shouts at her saying “I gave you the choice and you only picked it”. He also says, “don’t say I didn’t give you broccoli! I gave you broccoli (referring to the small decorative piece that came on the side with her pepperoni)”. He also goes on to say he doesn’t appreciate her “tone” (perhaps A should have been more docile, and continue to eat pepperoni for another year). Managers often try to slide in the decisions for their people, but they should at least be tactful, and live up to their promises, especially when these are career choices. However, when talking to this manager, A can’t get a word across without it being shouted down her throat. In fact it is A who had to tell the manager “could you please calm down”! A-D asks, what sort of manager is that? The only manager on the team that exhibited the qualities of a good manager was Uncle Bob. He was respectful of others, mature, professional, listens, never raises his voice (does not shout people down, nor insult people), and keeps his sarcasm within the limits.
6. Visibility/Credit: All the toughest assignments and problems (including duties that require discipline and analytical skills; including debugging E’s problems) are not given to E, but to A. This happens many times. Obviously because they know that A (not E) can do it. Also, between 2001-04, B says a lot of E’s problems (bugs due to poor and undisciplined coding skills) were resolved by B (that too, with lot of confrontations with E). The problem is after A or B works hard at it, including cleaning up E’s mess, E is given total credit for it, while A and B are kept invisible or just given a passing mention (no where near the visibility that E is given). And later management claims, oh we can’t get rid of E because she has visibility to the client. And who made that possible?
7. The superstar: Much to everyone’s chagrin, insult, frustration, E is promoted openly as team lead on certain projects. Ironically even though A was liked by everyone and has proven herself better in many regards, E is promoted, instead of A (and in addition more than once A has proved her team leadership skills very successfully on other projects (outside the team) – including receiving lots of praise from the managers on those projects).
8. Abuse: the management has driven people to breakdown at least six times. People on the team have seen the women on the team shouted down so harshly and abusively to the point as to make them breakdown and cry it off. One manager comments, with a smiling face; no sensitivity whatsoever (as if trying to make a joke), “Hey, I made two women cry today”. Another manager defensively says, “A is like family to me, she is like a sister to me”. My foot! So is this how you treat them?
9. “I don’t know about your culture… but in my culture”: That was the line Q’s manager threw at Q. When Q was trying to explain the bias, he was threw it back on Q saying that Q cares about only a certain group of people, whereas he cares about both sides (what is that other group/side? management? E?). And where does this manager get off with this “culture” accusation? Q could have easily insulted the manager by making a generalization about his culture: “I don’t know about your culture, but in my culture we don’t abuse people/women, or shout at people, or treat people with such unfairness”.
10. Benefit of doubt: Q reminded the managers that there is clear bifurcation between developers and management in the perception of E. That the developers perceived an extreme bias, which at the very least should be listened to and handled tactfully. Q even gave management the benefit of doubt by saying that it might be just an internal business decision that is being perceived as a bias. Whatever the case, management just needs to communicate it. Q said he’s sure the developers are intelligent enough to understand the business need if explained to them. To this, again the manager thwarted the conversation, by saying, “who is this ‘management’ you keep talking about?” For that Q (rolls his eyes) and responds, if you don’t know who management is, just ask anyone on the team they should be able to tell you.
11. “Why haven’t you done anything about it? You’re management too?” Uh? since when did Q become management? Q’s role has always been as the teams senior software engineer, systems engineer, and system architect. Never has he played the role of the title given to him as “technical team lead” (and Q has expressed it to management that he cannot fulfil that role unless he has given or genuinely permitted to acquire the proper team/project resources). And even if so, it is wrong to say Q has not done “anything about it”. Q has spent numerous hours with management as far back as the first two hour talk about E in 2002 on how the support for E was negatively impacting team performance.
12. “We can’t get rid of her”. That is besides the point. What everyone is asking is for management to treat others with fairness and respect. All of the above points can be addressed without doing anything to E at all. If others have managements support, peer pressure can help improve E. Q says, that is not possible as the peer review process is severely flawed – because management strips out anything negative (even constructive criticism) about E and attaches different weights. See the opening paragraph of this story to get summary about E’s core values (as reflected by her peer engineers).
13. Fear of reprisal. In addition people, like B, have fear of reprisal from management (as she’s seen it happen to A, C, and D when they spoke up to management). Because of fear, B does not take up any of her grievances with management. Management meanwhile shamelessly uses B’s fear and complacency to say “look B is getting along with E”. To that, Q says: first, exceptions do not prove the rule, and secondly it is not true that B is getting along with E. B also has severe issues with E, just that she dares not express it to management. Because B has no outlet to express it, she spends hours of precious time (which she compensates by working extra hard!) venting it with her trusted peers (who themselves have their share of frustrations with E).
14. First year developers: D, F, G (of which F and G left the team), have within their first month expressed their frustration about one and only one person – that of E, to Q as well as with each other (at lunch, at the water cooler, after hours,…). D (who is a junior programmer) and F (who is about 10 years younger than E) – both found quality of E’s work incredulous, as well as E’s poor skills as a team player (see again the opening paragraph of this story about E).
15. Saying that Q and others are biased (and are not sensitive): Management goes as far as to say others are biased and are not sensitive! Including even claming the reason why A is good is because A “learns from” Q — out-rightly dismissing all of A’s hard work and self learning. Q has never taught anything to A; A learned everything from scratch, through her own diligence, overtime, hard work. Even if that were the case (which it is not), A has skills that cannot be acquired by “teaching” (like discipline, analytical skills, ability to read books in depth, following the process, communication skills, team spirit, etc.). It never fails to amaze Q and others, the extent that management is willing to go to put down people. A simple example will put down managements unfair accusation: when a certain new technology was given to E she failed to learn it even with 3-4 full weeks exclusively allocated just for this. Whereas A mastered the technology to a very sound level by reading the book cover to cover in 2 days, that too while multi-tasking. Management knows very well A’s tenacity in learning complex new things which is why they dump things on A so that she figures it out, and she does (only for it to be taken away from her, and given to E when all the complex part of it is done, with no credit whats over).

Conclusion

Well, what is my solution or recommendation for the management in this company? Yoga. Round them up and send them to yoga classes.

See Also

• Detachment

We should remember that just hardly three decades ago, the world was following Freudian psychology. Today hardly anyone does. Freudian psychology has been discredited for over two decades now (yet there are countries frozen backward in time where people still teach Freudian psychology; and India is one of them).

The fact that so recently everyone was following a psychology theory and psychoanalysis techniques that has been been discredited and replaced shows how fledgling the subject of psychology is in the West.

This is not to give the impression Western psychology is useless. Not many people are inclined to undertake yoga on their own, unless prescribed by someone (like a friend or psychologist). Much in the same way that alcoholics themselves my not undertake yoga unless formally asked to (via say alcoholics support groups). For such people psychology is of tremendous benefit, at least as a stepping stone, towards yoga. More and more psychologists these days, after diagnosing the patient, point them to a counsellor who does training in yoga technics. It is inevitable that as time goes on, psychology will be combined more and more with yoga.

Carl Yung

A word about Carl Gustav Jung, the father of modern psychology (successor to Freud). FYI, Jung gave us the words “introvert” and “extrovert”. Little do people know that his works are taken out of Hindu philosophy (for example, his theory of archetypes have very close resemblance to varnasrama). He himself not only acknowledges it, but documented it as his sources. All his references to Hindu sources, while you’ll find them in journals in academic libraries, have been purged from all Western school text books on psychology. This sort of non-attribution, where Hindu sources are not mentioned, has become all too common in Western academia, especially in the soft-sciences (see article: Non-Attribution). In the more rigorous sciences (mathematics, physics, engineering, etc.) this is not as much of symptom.

What Makes a Good Psychologist

When it comes to finding a psychologist, there is no clear measurable benchmark. On top of that, in India people look at psychologists in two extremes: either they are all useless/bogus or they are elevated to the status of someone possessing great insight, wisdom, and intuition. That is, to such people the idea of a good psychologist is someone who knows your problems and solve it for you the moment you walk into the office, by just observing you, even before diagnosing you.

While experience is useful (as it is in any profession), psychology requires intellectual depth, not intuition or magic, and definitely not emotional involvement (the psychologist himself has to keep himself sufficiently detached). Intuition alone does not make you a great psychologist. A good psychologist has clarity of thought. If you don’t have clarity of thought yourself, you cannot diagnose or help another person, let alone yourself.

A good psychologist determines the root cause of the problems that plague a person usually through some form of psychoanalysis (in that regard the best psychologists are yogis as they’ve already determined what the universal root cause is). It means patiently analysing the person (as the term analysis in psychoanalysis implies), uncovering the person’s psychology. Often involves question-answer sessions, where the patient’s response is surveyed (not just the response, but the way the person responds, including enunciations, intonations, patterns, choice of words, etc). That’s why (at least in the USA) people say they have an appointment with their analyst (instead of using the term psychiatrist).

Psychology also has very little to do with cultural background. In the end it is all about human nature, regardless of what culture you are from. There are very few exceptions where culture plays a significant part in molding ones character, in which case the psychologist does his background research — the purpose of which is to strip away any cultural baggage. In the end, it’s all about the root causes mentioned in beginning of this article, and the mechanisms to deal with it.

See Also

• Psychology

One of the things that distinguishes civilized society from the uncivilized (or for that matter from animals) is the ability to use communication to resolve disputes. The lack of it results in violence, brute-force methods, war, fist fights, trauma, domestic feuds, break-ups, misunderstandings, etc.

The ability to have a discussion implies a certain level of maturity: the maturity to be objective, to not get attached to your standpoint. Which implies the maturity to accept that your conjecture might be wrong. Humans are reasoning beings, no matter what their level of intelligence or education is, differing only their level of maturity.

Discussions need patience and detachment. This attitude of detachment allows reasoning and logic to shine through as the primary tool, as opposed to ones emotions. A good discussion is one that is followed through to completion. Completion means both parties come to a mutual agreement (the word mutual is redundant here, as an “agreement” cannot be imposed by just one side). Anything short of this will essentially result in the issue remaining unresolved, resulting in potential for the issue (or the elements leading to the issue) to manifest again.

Discussion

A discussion involves proposing each others point of view, then responding to any questions to shed more clarity so that everyone gets more understanding into the point being made. The question and response are often in the form of proposing arguments. That is, if you disagree with something, you don’t blindly or stubbornly say you disagree, but you propose an argument stating the reason for your disagreement. Such as pointing out the error in the opponents argument by proposing your argument explaining or illustrating the reasoning behind why you think the opponents argument  is flawed.

Debates

A debate is a form of discussion where the both sides have hold strong (and often opposing) views, and makes arguments in support of their views. However, if even one side is neutral — that is, if one side doesn’t not have any view of their own (they have no stake in whether the proponent is right or wrong), but is more interested in just the validity of the proponents ideas, then it is not a debate, but a discussion. It is often possible to have debates, where both takes strong sides, but don’t have any real stake in if they are right or wrong (as is common in scholastic/academic debates, or by playing devil’s advocate in order to explore each topic in depth via debate).

Arguments

In philosophy, an argument is a claim, or set of claims, supported by one or more defensible reason(s). In logic, this can take the form of one or more declarative sentences (or “propositions”), known as the premises, along with another meaningful declarative sentence or proposition, known as the conclusion.
- Wikipedia: Argument

Arguments are the building blocks of any serious discussion. Arguments use logic or reasoning as the basis. In fact to say “logical argument” is redundant, as all arguments are supposed to be based on logic. Arguments almost always start out with reasoning as the basis. Thus to say two people are arguing a particular topic is not in any way inherently negative.

Quarrels

A discussion degrades into a quarrel when the proponent is emotionally fixated that his point of view is correct and is unable to provide others with reasoning or enough clarity to others as to why he thinks so. This may require several rounds of discussions in order to shed more clarity to help understand each others reasoning better. This may require considerable patience and objectivity. The proponent is required to provide the reasoning or the  relevant details linking the premise and the conclusion to reveal the logical connection. Without providing this, the proponent is essentially forcing the opponent to accept his proposition blindly.

Broken Record

Often times a discussion does not become a quarrel, but becomes one-sided, where the proponent gives nothing but criticism and complaints, while the opponent is constantly on the defensive. The proponent is more interested pushing his view, rather than engaging in any form of creativity effort to help the other side understand. The proponent just keeps constantly criticizing or complaining, like a broken record, like someone who is simply disgruntled.

The Burden of Proof

The proponent who made the statement carries the burden proof, and does not get to put the burden on the opponent to prove his case. That is if the proponent says the moon is square on certain days, it is up to him to demonstrate that statement by being answerable to any questions asking for clarity (like on which dates is the moon square? how long is it square? is that state readily observable by anyone anywhere?). It is not up to the other person to waste his time proving that the moon is never square on any date, time, or location. The burden of proof is on the proponent.

No Room For…

Impatience. It causes the person to force his opinion on the other instead of arriving at a mutually agreed conclusion through discussion.

Getting emotional (becoming defensive, upset, angry, walking away). You know when a discussion is longer a discussion when there is mud-slinging, ill-feelings, anger, resentment, wounded ego, wounded pride, self-respect, dignity, personal beliefs, personal traditions, personal attachments, biases, prejudices, etc.

Escapism. Statements like “no point having this discussion, no matter what you will never agree”. Such statements are not permitted in a discussion. One has to agree to this even before engaging in discussion. If one cannot do that, then it shows that he or she does not have the patience/maturity that is necessary to follow through a discussion to a conclusion (true, false, intractable, or mutually agree to disagree).

Stubbornness. There is no room for stubborn belief that only your point of view is right and expect others to blindly accept it (i.e. without giving enough clarity to the argument they are making).

Immaturity (sulking, throwing tantrums, walking out). Such attitude indicates immaturity (ego, fear smugness, attitude problem, paranoia, insecurity). There is nothing preventing you from asking speaking your mind.

Shrugging responsibility. One cannot make a list of statements, and after stirring the pot with those statements, cannot casually retract those statements. In other words, you don’t get to choose which points you get to address; you lost that privilege the moment you made those statements. You can offer to apologize and retract those statements, but whether it is accepted lays in the hands of the people who were affected by those statements (in terms of time, money, resources, frustration, health, etc).

Intractability

Not all discussions have a binary conclusion. Some require compromise and some can even be intractable (no conclusion either way), and yet very productive. Most questions of science and philosophy do not have conclusive answers but tremendous amount is learned from the exercise of the discussion, so that one is set on the right path. An often quoted example is the question “Is there a God?” In fact, most of the schools of logic and reasoning (which today are the cornerstone of all science) in Eastern/Hindu and Western/Greek schools of thought have come from profound debates on metaphysical questions.

In discussions that seem to be potentially intractable, the validity of all points need to be addressed – no point should be excluded, unless mutually agreed upon. This prevents the situation where a person makes an influential point and then retracts it after it has had its impact (i.e. the damage has been done). Note that one should not conclude the intractability to begin with! It is for the chain of logic/reasoning to reach that conclusion.

In such cases, both parties come to a mutual agreement that the discussion is intractable. This agreement is not based on “feeling”, but on based on exhaustive logic. In typical discussions (not science debates) it usually takes only a few iterations to realize a the topic of a discussion is intractable.

See Also

• Logical Fallacies
• Platitudes