A restriction on freedom

[Coben]

Quote:

don't complain unless you have a better solution




Quote:

oh yeah, what's your solution


My rant is about the rule reflected in the above two quotes. The rule basically says you should not criticise, make complaints about something unless you can also come up with a viable solution, replacement.

I think that is bullcrap.

First of all it assumes that the same person must have both roles. In any good functioning group(including society) there will be members who set the ball rolling and others who come up with solutions, others who fine tune, etc. If we all come to agree there is a problem, we can as a group come up with solutions. And maybe the ones who originally pointed out/reacted to the problems/limitations of current practice will have minor roles in that follow-through. WEll, they already made their contribution. The Well, what's your solution attitude is actually a shut up masked as a universal law that is somehow responsible.

Secondly. Acknowledging, discovering and gaining consensus that there is a problem should not be hinged to the solutions. That is the second stage in problem solving. "I think this is *censored*ed up." Can be followed by a checking in. Are more people critical of this? Are other people suffering? Gee it seems like they might have a point. ETc. To immediately demand a solution stifles an important information gathering stage. If a lot of people realize there is a problem, their mass energy can find solutions that that first person alone, that first one who realized something is messed up (or the first person who dared to speak up) might not have found on his or her own.

In some meeting/community/group someone voices their opinion that something is a problem. Bam. They get hit with well, what's your solution (an attitude that assumes on some level that this is the best of all possible worlds). At that point others may feel like they cannot voice their opinion (in agreement with the first person) UNLESS they have some well thought out solution.

Sure, it's easy to complain, but.....

it is really easy to shoot down ideas, especially ones that are not out there functioning yet. "Oh, well that wouldn't work cause....." and other unverifiable criticisms of solutions are very easy. Especially out of the mouths of facile buttholes. Why should someone immediately have to run the gauntlet of 'well that wouldn't work cause.....' when we haven't even found out the extent and consensus surrounding the problem. Again, to me it functions as a shut up, period, this is the best of all possible worlds, or I am scared to look at the possibility that you are right about the problem because then I might have to change (or lose money) so why not cut you off here.

Let's take a concrete example. Slavery.

Before slavery was abolished a would be abolitionist could say. That is *censored*ed up. It's wrong.

Yeah, well what is your solution. And then any solution gets shot down. The southerners will never live in peace with free blacks, they will kill them. There are no jobs for the blacks. ETC.

In fact all the ways of shooting down someone who had a problem with slavery probably happened. All those objections to the 'solution' of abolishing slavery came to pass. Sharecropper south was hell. Blacks were killed. The souths economy was damaged. etc, etc.

but that person (and the first ones were probably brave people) was nevertheless right. And it's good that many of them stuck to their intuitive guns despite all the solution shoot downs that took place.

Why does this matter? because I hear this to me specious 'rule' uttered at a lot at people who react to the problems in society, in relationships (especially between men and women) in companies, etc. It's a shut up that gets used by people in power and by people who like things the way they are and fear that somehow they will lose (something) if whatever they are protecting is truly called into question. If momentum can be gained and a lot of people start expressing their problems with the status quo (anythign from who does the dishes to what's happening to the environment to....you name it).

But let me be fair to the rule. There are people who simply like to complain. The way they complain, the pattern of it, the endlessness of it. somewhere in there there is a problem. It is serving a psychological need that actually does not want solutions to be found. Yes, those people exist, or really to be more honest, probably most of us complain in that way at some point in our lives.

But there is still no need for the rule. the rule is a short cut that 1) stifles others and 2) does not address the actual problem with that 'bad' complainer. Jim, I feel like you are really mad about something else. Denise, themoment we take care of one of your problems you shift to another. Maybe there is something else going on here and I am tired of listening to your crap. Etc.

You know, real confrontations between individuals. Without tossing off some obviously to my mind extremely questionable rule.

This rant is dedicated to the canaries in the coal mine everywhere. To those who intuitively sense that something is *censored*ed up and could be better, but don't always have the words to describe the solution. Or often don't find their words when confronted by rapid fire questions and criticism in the form of "well, that wouldn't work cause....' and other unverifiable bullcrap delivered by people who seem rational, but are often really scared or nasty and have their own agenda.

It is hard for some people to speak up and remain 'rational' logical etc under that barrage and I feel that barrage has

SLOWED HISTORY DOWN.

I think the rule hides a dishonesty.

I think often when people say that rule they actually feel on some level 'Oh, God that can't be a problem because I stand to lose somehow' if only some portion of their self-image, ideas about the world.

thanks for listening

[TNRighty]

Before you can claim to know what is wrong, you must also be able to determine what is right. Right-wrong, correct-incorrect...they go hand in hand. To know one, you must know the other. If you know not what the right answer is, how can you tell someone else they are wrong.

I'm not saying we shouldn't put aside our nature to criticize certain decisions or actions, but offering criticism in absence of a better alternative is useless. When asked, "So, what do you suppose we do here?", many "critics" are left bumbling like idiots. It leaves you no other discourse but to draw the conclusion that such a person is not concerned with improving the situation, only criticizing those who are trying.

As for diagnosing the initial problem, any idiot can come to a town hall meeting and say, "we need to do something about violence in our public schools." Duhhh. Its a whole lot easier to point out the problem than it is to solve it.

We've got too many Monday morning QB's, and not enough Peyton Mannings.

[Ian]

TNRighty said:

Before you can claim to know what is wrong, you must also be able to determine what is right. Right-wrong, correct-incorrect...they go hand in hand. To know one, you must know the other. If you know not what the right answer is, how can you tell someone else they are wrong.

I'm not saying we shouldn't put aside our nature to criticize certain decisions or actions, but offering criticism in absence of a better alternative is useless. When asked, "So, what do you suppose we do here?", many "critics" are left bumbling like idiots. It leaves you no other discourse but to draw the conclusion that such a person is not concerned with improving the situation, only criticizing those who are trying.

As for diagnosing the initial problem, any idiot can come to a town hall meeting and say, "we need to do something about violence in our public schools." Duhhh. Its a whole lot easier to point out the problem than it is to solve it.

We've got too many Monday morning QB's, and not enough Peyton Mannings.

Well said.

[Coben]

Saying we have to do something about violence in schools is nothing new. When it was something new to say, those people who were reacting to the problem needed to be listened to, even if they could not immediately come up with metal detectors and security guards or PTA meetings or whatever as a viable response.

But let's take violence in schools as a jumping off point. At a school somewhere security guards have been tough with some of the students. Randomly checking their bags, maybe some instances of pushing, whatever. One kid's Parents come to a meeting and say there are problems with the security guards. Immediately they get responses like....

you wanna go back to the old days....

you want guns in the school

how the hell we gonna keep guns out of school without metal detectors and security guards with some authority.

All this assuming that this is the best solution, shut up and go away.

Other parents whose children have also had problems remain silent now. We never get to find out if the situation is widespread, systematic rather than individual. No one ends up investigating whether it's a discipline problem, one bad security guard, a problem in the regulations.

Later on when some kid gets badly beaten up, or the mayor's son is hassled, only then does something get done about the problem.

This pattern happens all the time.

And sure, maybe it is a tough problem. One the one hand we have the need for school security on the other hand we have the integrity and presumed innocence of the students.

The immediate demand for a solution (and let me tell you viable solutions get shot down very cleverly in these situations) assumes that it's either occasional problems with abusive security guards or guns in the schools. Period.

Like we can't come up with creative solutions.

But your points are well taken. I should have emphasized that this pattern is a real problem when
NEW outlooks and problems are being presented.

You are quite right that stating the obvious without addind something is a waste of people's time.

[TNRighty]

Some good points there. I just used violence in schools as an example. The same thing could be said about drugs, AIDS, or any other variety of problems.

Anyways, you're right, it is a two way street. If it in fact it turns out that someone has implemented a poor course of action to solve a problem, they shouldn't be so stubborn as to refuse to listen to viable alternatives. Everybody wants to believe they have the right answer, maybe its an ego thing. A good leader should be humble, flexible, and open to other alternatives if it becomes clear the current one isn't working. However, I would be hard pressed to sit and listen to someone complain incessantly without offering a better alternative.

In order for this process to be productive, you have to have people who are genuinely concerned with solving the problem, not just criticizing the efforts of others. At the same time, you need someone in charge who can check their ego at the door and be open to all constructive arguments.