Assume Malice Not Ignorance

When "ignorance" becomes a repeated pattern and stoops to a personal level, is it still ignorance? Some people really do have a problem with having a civil conversation. The only reason that they ever contribute to a conversation is to spout out accusations or criticisms. The goal of communication is to transfer knowledge, not to justify one's own view at the expense of others. "If you don't have something good to say..." --TimWoodard

"...knee them in the balls." It depends what your purpose for the conversation is. If you're intent on being professional and cooperative and getting stuff done, sure, you'll want to egolessly transfer information. If the world is a personal battle for prestige, power and prowess, then maybe you'll want to be a little more Machievellian. Of course, Machievelli probably would not sling mud, but with enough TV time... (Note: American politicians have a bad habit of insulting each other with TV ads).

I ended up here due to an embarrassing quiz in a job interview, that I have to fill now, to me their quiz show ignorance, no methodology, no measurability, I asked back and they replied with sarcasm. It interferes with my job, my competences, my future pay and it piss me off a bit, maybe is also the case to drop the interview, due to cultural incompatibilities. What I will try do ? Coach people, isolate the problem, ignore what is possible, document it with formal methodologies. The trick will be peer review, involve others, don't let the shit go silent. I will have a public of a bunch of people from CEO downwards, it may work. Get back to them with measurable comments. It shall be white gloves politics at the end of the confrontation everybody shall be happy and feeling to be a winner (even if some of the persons are tough bastards and I would like to "...knee them in the balls.").

WalledGarden of anger have we?