The Respectable Doer-Talker

I'm a very chatty person. I tend to have vocal opinions about almost everything except for sports and booze, which I really don't give a damn about. 

As I've gotten older, I've started to notice there is definitely a segment of the population who has strong feelings about

A) "The Sole Contributor" - being the talker/opinionated one in their social group, and

B) "Do Something About it Enforcer" - one does not get to voice their opinion unless they are intimately involved with the topic at hand. 

The first case is one that I usually find on social media. We meet through shared friends, and have good conversation in person. We generally get along in public - but online, it's like they want their social media to be "them only". They broadcast often interesting topics, and every time someone chimes in with something critical, or more information about the topic - they delete those comments. Even among people whom they might agree, every comment that is "100% agree" is viewed as aggressive denial of the topic at hand. "Good Vibes Only" seems to ring true. 

The 2nd case is something that comes up in both personal and business settings. At first, I thought I was the victim of it, then I realized I might also be the perpetrator. 

It's that of the "Respectable Doer-Talker" - that is, someone who can back up their talk with actions. 

I've got a busy life, I've got ADHD, and I tend to enjoy talking more than doing (unless I'm riding). I understand that sometimes you've gotta put in the sweat equity, and as I've gotten older I've been able to dial in my "results" to match my "talk", but there are still areas for which I feel passionate, still need to learn, and still want to be a part of the conversation. I am NOT a doer-talker in most conversations. I've tried to catch myself, especially in a business setting, of stepping up on project for which I have strong opinions about. I don't want me or my team to be passed over as "oh, they don't care" when yes, we do care ,and we want to be involved. 

In my personal life however, its way harder to be the Respectable Doer-Talker. I just had a local long-time businessman tell me in a personal setting "shut up" about my opinions of how local policy changes might our city for the better. He's VERY liberal. We agree on a lot of topics, but some topics for which he benefit are "off the table" in terms of my input. His contention is I'm attacking his livelihood (real estate), so unless I'm there in the trenches with him, I shouldn't voice my opinion. 

What are your thoughts on contributing, both in personal and business settings, on things for which you might only have a minor stake? In your opinion, in order for someone's opinion to be valid, do they have to have had major experience, or daily interaction with that topic? 

succinct

I'm also chatty and love to discuss almost anything at length with interesting folks.  It's always interesting that in about 2min you can figure out if someone knows anything about what they are discussing or not.  It's always good to get really wowed by someone who is an encyclopedia on subject of interest that you are blissfully ignorant of.

For someone that's "very busy" you sure have a lot of time for these hypotheticals. 

Who was the business man and what were the policy changes you were proposing? 

EDIT: Now that I've reread your post, this seems to be an attempt to reframe your previous 30 page thread because you didn't get the answer you wanted. 

Now for your bolded paragraph at the end. 

I'm 40 years old and don't have children, how much would you value my opinion on how YOU should raise YOUR children?

In reply to z31maniac :

Zero. But, I would also never chaste you for NOT having kids. I respect those who look at all involved with children and say, no, I don't want that. Having kids and then resenting them is awful for all involved.

honestly, I'm open to peoples opinions as those opinions consider other personality types and ways of life. 
 

If you can frame things from another persons personal situation that is different from your own, you express some empathy at the outset and lends crediblity.

z31maniac said:

EDIT: Now that I've reread your post, this seems to be an attempt to reframe your previous 30 page thread because you didn't get the answer you wanted. 

Sort of. They are related.

One comment that got under my skin was "why don't you do something about it."

That is always fraught with fallacy, both in life and business. 
 

For example - if I've got a buddy who owns a business, and another buddy who owns the same business, and the one has a monopoly in town due to corruption and cronyism, the monopoly might say "well if you've got a problem with how I do busines, your free to compete against me" is BS, because in reality, my friend who owns the competing business IS competing against him and is losing because he doesn't have that level of cronyism. In this case, I know both sides of the argument, and even though I don't personally have a stake, I want an even playing field because I know the reason friend A is struggling is because of friend B's actions.

Friend B sees the attack on the system as threatening his monopoly and uses the excuse of "if you don't have a stake, why complain?" Because I see friend A is swimming upstream and he works his ass off against a system stacked against him.

Sometimes being the advocate or the supporter is as valuable as having a personal stake in the game because it's just merely what's right.

That's different than coming into a business meeting and wanting something a certain way for no other reason than wanting to get your name on the project and you will not nor have you ever touched the process in question. 
 

If your advocating for someone who does touch that process, then say so. 
 

I often will speak up in meetings for my team or others when I see them struggling with something but afraid to speak up for fear of rocking the boat. I'm willing to rock the boat at my own expense for benefit of others.

pheller said:

What are your thoughts on contributing, both in personal and business settings, on things for which you might only have a minor stake? In your opinion, in order for someone's opinion to be valid, do they have to have had major experience, or daily interaction with that topic? 

In a business setting, if I only have a minor stake, I would ask important questions and offer any input in my areas of knowledge, experience, & expertise and then leave it at that.  Often those who are steering the ship are there for a reason and that is their role.  If I am trying to express a strong opinion about work someone else is doing, strategy, etc. I am framing that in how it affects me, my team, and the product we produce - because those are my areas of expertise.

In a personal setting its a bit different as arguably almost any political/social topic I may only have a 'minor stake' in as I am an upper middle class straight white male engineer.  But I still feel strongly about issues that impact others I know (and don't know) in significant ways.

I don't think you need to have had major experience or daily interaction with each topic for your opinion to be valid, but I think the weight with which you throw around your opinion should reflect your knowledge level/experience.  I am very supportive (strong opinion) of certain potential outcomes but I recognize there are a number of different paths to achieve them and my support (opinion) of these paths varies.  I think throwing your opinion around without seeking to understand the opinions of others is certainly a recipe for failure.

Appleseed said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Zero. But, I would also never chaste you for NOT having kids. I respect those who look at all involved with children and say, no, I don't want that. Having kids and then resenting them is awful for all involved.

 

I think you missed my point, the bolded paragraph was asking if people who don't have experience in X should have a voice in X. 

So I used children as a salient point. Why would people who have children listen to people who don't have children for advice on how to raise children. Because they don't have experience doing it. 

That literally has nothing to do with having or not having or not having children. 

pheller said:

z31maniac said:

EDIT: Now that I've reread your post, this seems to be an attempt to reframe your previous 30 page thread because you didn't get the answer you wanted. 

Sort of. They are related.

One comment that got under my skin was "why don't you do something about it."

That is always fraught with fallacy, both in life and business. 
 

For example - if I've got a buddy who owns a business, and another buddy who owns the same business, and the one has a monopoly in town due to corruption and cronyism, the monopoly might say "well if you've got a problem with how I do busines, your free to compete against me" is BS, because in reality, my friend who owns the competing business IS competing against him and is losing because he doesn't have that level of cronyism. In this case, I know both sides of the argument, and even though I don't personally have a stake, I want an even playing field because I know the reason friend A is struggling is because of friend B's actions.

Friend B sees the attack on the system as threatening his monopoly and uses the excuse of "if you don't have a stake, why complain?" Because I see friend A is swimming upstream and he works his ass off against a system stacked against him.

Sometimes being the advocate or the supporter is as valuable as having a personal stake in the game because it's just merely what's right.

 

You realize it's essentially impossible to keep up with your "questions" because you continually move the goal posts. 

You've gone from should people with no experience be allowed to voice their opinion on matters they have no experience in to crony capitalism in just a few posts. 

Did frenchy hack your account? 

Is the phrase we're looking for "stay in your lane"?

Nope

z31maniac said:

Who was the business man and what were the policy changes you were proposing? 

 

Nope, you didn't even answer this. 

I know I'm coming off like a big shiny happy person right now, but you constantly "pose questions" and when you can't answer or defend your position, you change the question. That's intellectually dishonest. It seems like you are trying to set a trap, so you can say "Gotcha" to certain beliefs while not being able to defend your own.

I won't call out others who have pointed this out, but over the years of you "posing questions" this seems to be your modus operandi.  

pheller said:

It seems like you view my opinions on real estate as not credible because I don't own  vast swaths of real estate.

I'm saying I could take your opinions on parenthood if you were willing to adjust your opinions, not entrench yourself. If I see you changing your opinions I'll give your other opinions more credibility.

moving the goalposts should be seen as a good thing - especially if they are moving towards more agreement, no?

 

I don't have enough alcohol in the house for this. 

"I can listen to your opinion if you're willing to change your opinion"

Is this real life? 

Ah I see so you believe the endless questions to be me searching for cracks in something I clearly don't know anything about? 
 

and you say "why should I answer these questions when your just looking for a gotchya?"

I see it as "you clearly have proven yourself knowledgeable and I'd like to know the extent of your knowledge."

Who was the business man and what were the policy changes you were proposing?

Your questions are always asked in ways to lead a person to your preffered response. Ie., should we tax evil rich real estate people to make them sell property so housing will be cheaper. If they don't lead, they are construed as an attack and you get told to shut up.

Don't get a job writing surveys, you aren't subtle enough to get away with it.

Your complaint about cronyism made me laugh out loud when you want the same thing, but in your favor. I find the fact that you always want to use the government as your stick to force behavior of your choosing for "the good of society" be abhorrent. Stop trying to use the government's gun to make people do what you want. As I said in the other thread, same coin different side. 

Try this question. What can we as local citizens do to affect housing prices for poor people. Then approach those rich people you denigrate for their help. While the actual answer may be nothing, you will probably find the conversation to be much more productive and you will learn a lot.

Duplicate post and can't delete

z31maniac said:

Now for your bolded paragraph at the end. 

I'm 40 years old and don't have children, how much would you value my opinion on how YOU should raise YOUR children?

Yes, Id consider your advice and value your input, because all adults were kids. Their parents could've done it not did subverting that significantly impacted you as a kid. You could def share that advice. Perspective doesn't have to be from a position of expertise. Or you could be a child-less child psychologist or pediatrician, so not a parent but an expert. Being a parent doesn't make you an expert.

Owning real estate or a business doesn't make you an expert either. Being an expert also doesn't give you the authority or audacity to shut anyone up.

"Cronyism" is a valuable business asset. It's an important skill for virtually all businesses.  Can you imagine a website for women's issues that didn't include getting your female friends to engage and promote it?  How about a minority owned business that didn't do business with minorities?

"Cronyism" is just the word we throw at networking it when we want it to sound negative and we dislike the particular cultural group, or jealous of their success. 
 

(I'm speaking as a businessman who failed to develop his network well enough and avoided "cronyism" because I found it distasteful, which lead in part to the fall of my business)
 

yupididit said:

Being an expert also doesn't give you the authority or audacity to shut anyone up

That's an interesting statement considering the past couple of years. 

You have to admit, based on the other thread, you have a strong tendency to assume you know best about what other people should or shouldn't do with their business. Particularly in real estate.