You made me realize there is a problem with this guy's wording when he says "try to ignore the content of the complaint". That's an overstatement. I would put it this way: try to address not only the explicit content of the complaint, but also the emotion behind it.
Why is that good advice? Because people often don't say, and perhaps sometimes don't even know, what their concern really is. They simply feel it. And until they feel that a problem is resolved, it isn't resolved. So it simply isn't possible to resolve things without addressing the emotions. Sometimes people try that, of course. And that's when you find yourself in the same argument all over again, saying: "But we already resolved this!"
I agree: solve the problem- if there is a problem. But don't work on the problem of why people are complaining pointlessly.
I think what the author meant was: don't get shaken or upset by peoples' seemingly pointless and illogical complaints. You can, most likely, defuse the situation with a bit of empathy and acknowledgment.
I've found that for people with an analytical mindset like me, there are a few different stages of how to approach people who respond to feelings rather than reasoning.
1. Ignorance: I was in this stage for a long time, which meant that I considered other people to be stupid when they reacted in a way that seemed illogical or unreasonable to the situation.
2. Changing the other person: I'm still in this stage quite frequently, especially with my girlfriend; I realise that she responds to thing differently than I do, but I perceive my intrepretation of issues as the correct one and attempt to change her view by arguing with her. Usually to no avail.
3. Humility and compassion: Once in a while, I realise that everyone (including me) has got some emotional baggage, childhood experiences etc. that almost nobody can hold a "correct" or "logical" view of things, and the only way I can respond effectively to them is to actually listen to what they have to say and try to express the emotions that I feel when interacting with the other person.
The third one is hard, because I have grown up perceiving emotional people as weak, considering reasoning and an analysis to be superior to "feelinsg", but I've come to learn that if you really want to get to know other people, you have be open and flexible with your own emotions.
4. put yourself in a position where you deal with other people who value logic and reason.
I mean, you need some of 3, as well... Personally, I have succeeded at 4. to the point where I am one of the more emotional and irrational people in my life.
I think my life got a lot better when I stopped listening to people who said I was too analytical. Sure, we are none of us completely rational, but I think there is a difference between striving for rationality and consciously avoiding it.
I have no idea why it's so common for people to consider it a virtue to coddle insane and irrational behavior.
Look, if someone tells you they feel very strongly that running across a busy highway is a safe thing to do, you'd think that person was nuts, right? because we recognize that emotion is not a tool of cognition, and that using it in that manner is a really really bad idea. So what about a person who doesn't know how to communicate properly and tries to deal with various problem solving tasks that come up in life via emotion? does the fact that it's a few levels of abstraction removed from concrete facts somehow make it fundamentally different?
Have you read anything like Predictably Irrational, or the less famous Stumbling On Happiness, or maybe The New Brain? Or Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)?
They all make psychology and behavioral economics research very digestible, and all underscore the point: we're not rational. Even if we think we are. Our brains are essentially wired to be tangled up and self-deluding.
Moreover, lots of people use "logic and reason" as shield to hide behind when they say and do unfeeling, cutting things to other human beings who happen to react with emotions.
re-read my comment. I recognize that we are not completely rational. Rationality and logic, though, are still very powerful tools, even when wielded by emotional beings such as ourselves. Some of us are more comfortable with logic and rational models than we are with emotions.
What I am speaking of has much to do with cultural values. Just like a Scientist is not going to feel valued by a community that believes science can teach us nothing, I didn't feel valued when I was around people who valued emotions over logic.
I'm not really sure where you think you are in conflict with what I said.
Emotional people can have high value, and you are missing out if you avoid them completely. I earn about 300% more when I let a recruiter get me a gig than when I contract myself out.
All I'm saying is that when I feel like 'everyone' doesn't value rational thought and logic as much as they value some emotional quality I don't understand, yes, I don't feel valued. I have seen programmers in environments like that quit and dedicate their lives to creating mediocre music. (Not that musicians aren't valuable... but I have seen some really awesome world-class programmers go on to be mediocre musicians, which just seems like a waste.)
"I don't know everything" and "I might be wrong" are core to creating a useful rational model from incomplete data. I think that surrounding myself with people who are more rational and/or more intelligent than I am helps to develop that humility. Spending my days amongst managers does the opposite.
This is an interesting thread. Since people are talking a lot about Myers-Briggs, I'll throw in something I figured out a while ago.
When I take MB tests I come out evenly split on T vs F. (I'm also evenly split on I vs E, but am extreme N and extreme P... but we're talking about T and F, so never mind that.) What I figured out is that being evenly split, I tend to morph in response to the people I'm around. If I'm in an environment with lots of T people (like at work), I tend to behave like an F. If I'm around F people (like at home), I tend to behave like a T. So I get told both "don't be so emotional" and "you're a heartless automaton" on a regular basis :)
I suppose it depends upon your audience. Personally, I become somewhat irritated when people try to guess what I am feeling rather than believing what I am saying. I've also had good luck trusting people to tell me what they want, rather than trying to construct a model of what they are feeling. But then, most of my friends, and all of my customers are technically oriented people.
"Addressing the emotion behind the complaint" doesn't mean guessing what the other person is feeling, so much as showing respect and inviting them to express it. But I agree that the example in the OP was kind of contrived and more along the lines that you're critiquing.
Agreed. I can't wait for the next time I critique some asshole who has read this to respond "I really appreciate your sharing your feelings about my suckiness as a human being...".
This is actually very helpful advice. I, an INTJ, often wind up worsening squabbles with my ISFP girlfriend because she "feels" things while I'm a "heartless automaton".
"Dont worry honey. The reason we fight like this is your are an ISFP which means you are very emotional, and I am an INTJ, which means I've very analytical."
Heh, I'm sure that goes over great. Meta-analysis in the middle of a "feelings vs analysis" argument.
I find that the best thing I can do in an argument like that is to shut my big mouth. I'm strongly INTJ and well, I've said some things that I regretted after the fact. Emotions are real too.
I'm about as INTJ as they come, and the phrase that has saved my relationship is "Please let me have 2 minutes to think about this". My wife knows me well enough by now to know that I'm not trying to get out of anything, that I really need a moment to ponder the situation.
Sometimes a joke can help. If that doesn't work, and you've already tried being nice, you can always just set her up for a logical trap and let her fall in. While her motivations may be emotional, she's using logical argument to get there, and she's not playing fair. So, play dirty too, and a good trap or two and the hits will take out all of her steam.
Sometimes people are just unreasonable, and very few people are really good at arguing.
It's common for geeks to phrase technical points with disrespect. A high-profile example is Linus's rant against C++ http://lwn.net/Articles/249460/ Common enough to warrant pg's How to Disagree.
I wonder, is the emotional part really about something else, as this article suggests? It often seems out of place to me.
It's excellent advice, of a kind rarely heard in the hacker world.