someone give me a witty line

[kaigou]

I need something to say to a coworker (who is otherwise a cool person) when for whatever reason he decides to play devil's advocate. Especially when what I'm arguing is something that he later admits is something he also believes in, or at least would like to recognize as valuable. It feels like he's either winding me up for his own amusement (though he doesn't seem amused at the time, so probably not) or just doesn't realize that I can't tell whether he's serious -- and the upshot is that I lose respect for him. It's like, oi, if you're that much of an asshole, then maybe I need to change my opinion about you. Or something.

Today there was talk about UX/user testing. G was somewhat dismissive of there being any value in this. I've done user studies for ten years (contextual analysis and ethnographic studies most especially, which means lots and lots of talking to users at length), I told him every single time I did a user test or interview, I learned something new.

It was almost always it was something that opened my eyes about my own privilege: that I'm abled, that my language skills are top-notch even for a native, that my eye-hand coordination is pretty damn good, that I don't have motor skill issues, that my hearing's good enough, that my sight is good enough despite needing glasses, that I don't have significant learning or cognitive issues that get in the way of my comprehension. Doing user studies, as CP later commented, reminds we designers and developers -- we makers -- that we are not The User. It reminds us to be thankful for the ways in which we're fortunate, and to be humbled about the ways in which we have it easy.

All those things I do when coding like larger click-areas and story-answers on alerts and proper color contrast -- just like all the things some architects do in corporate buildings like wider doorways and bar-handles instead of round handles and ramps at every entrance -- these are all invisible if you're abled, but they're crucial if you're not. And the onus does not, should not, lie on the person who is disabled to make do; the onus should lie on us, as the makers to make the web/world inclusive. Because we have the good fortune and the ability to do so.

But he was arguing against this, and I went along until the point where I said, the web should be inclusive, for everyone; the web exists for everyone. G replied, no, the web exists to make money. (Someone tell that to all we fans who runs sites at a loss out of pure love, but I didn't go there.) The whole 'make money' thing was so cynical, and enough opposite his usual attitude, that I just called it quits right there. We're going to end this conversation right here, I said, and that was that (whew).

I'm not sure whether to be pleased or roll my eyes that he told me afterwards that the reason he loves talking to me about stuff/work is that he always learns something new. Except he excused his responses -- though not in so many words -- as devil's advocate. I'm so freaking sick of oh, I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's going on my list as second-hated phrase, right behind, can't you take a joke?

Dear internets, please give me a good witty comeback for the next time G says he's playing devil's advocate. Not too nuclear, since I do have to keep working with him, but something that makes it clear he's playing a game that I don't respect and don't have time for. Anyone?

Comments

[genre_savvy]

Not sure if this is terribly useful, but my sister is going to nursing school and I've been proofreading her papers. In one, she noted that an instructor had said in class, "The devil does not need an advocate. The patient needs an advocate. If you can't do that, then shut up." That's probably not helpful, but maybe you can tweak it to something more applicable? And more polite.

[kaigou]

OMG, that is pretty much perfect -- mostly b/c everytime we've really argued (or come close enough for the work-version), that's pretty much been my attitude: the users need an advocate. Using it, thank you!

[boxofdelights]

Not quick or witty, but in hopes that what I would say in your situation inspires you to find something that works for you:

"'It's not a good game unless everyone is enjoying it.' That's what they teach kindergarteners. If you want to play devil's advocate, and you'd like me to play along, ask me."

I wouldn't expect that (or anything) to work the first time, but after that, I would give him The Eyebrow and The Mom Voice and say, "Don't play with me without my consent."

If he hadn't learned anything after five reps, I would assume that every opinion that came out of his mouth was devil's advocacy, and not worth engaging with. If he wanted any more discussions, I'd let him figure out how to make that work.

[kaigou]

I really need to work on my Mom Voice. (Haven't had the first-hand skills, so I'm stuck with trying to study the Moms around me and duplicate.) Your phrase is now my version for when I'm in a slightly better mood and want him to shape up -- see Genre's reply above for when it's shutdown-time.

[dragonhand]

The Mom voice is incredibly useful. Give it a bit of a try. It comes naturally enough to lots of women, even me, with no kids.

[wordweaverlynn]

I love this phrase. It's perfect.

[majoline]

Heh. Provided I'm talking to someone I like, my response is always, "And you're comfortable being the devil's defense attorney? Must be good money."

Because advocate isn't the immediate synonym in our culture for laywer anymore, I find that reminding the other person exactly what position they've taken on usually shuts them up.

[kaigou]

Hah, true. I think the only time we still use 'advocate' as meaning 'lawyer' is in the rare case of a pro bono defense attorney. That kind of true advocacy might be one of the only places where the common use ('supporting') overlaps with the traditional. Taking your phrase and tucking it into my store of useful witticisms, too, since it's not like G is the only one I've got to deal with.

Frankly, my eye-rolling has started moving into concerted must-relax, must-let-go, must-walk-away reminders to myself, because the undercurrent here is that if a male coworker says something, it's just taken. I say something, and suddenly I need to cite evidence, provide footnotes, and prove my credibility, all over again. And if I give evidence from experience, I get hit with 'oh, that's just anecdotal.' Apparently the female of data is anecdote. Well, I guess I should be glad no one's called me emotional, yet.

[nagasvoice]

Man, that whole 'tude gets tiresome really quick, but THANKYOU for fighting the good fight and trying to keep designs inclusive for everybody.
I'm wondering if this "male=don't bother arguing" conversation thing is also crossed with "male = defending privileged status quo, aka 'maintaining order'".
That's always an easier stance to take. The arguments are already in place, assumed, taken for granted, annoying. "You know so-and-so won't like that challenge" underlies it without even articulating it.
So what happens when one of the guys steps out of the regular formation and challenges the existing practice?

[majoline]

one of the guys steps out of the regular formation and challenges the existing practice?

I personally, have never seen a dude do this, except when they back up something a woman has said and defend her. So yeah.

[kaigou]

Well, when a guy challenges the status quo with a new idea, what happens is exactly what happened today: all the other guys are like, great idea, let's do that! No challenges to his credibility, no requirements for citing evidence, no accusations that his ideas are based purely in anecdote. Am I bitter? Not really, just kind of really tired of it right now. I'll rebound eventually, once I get back to my usual place of not-caring.

I would've said I've yet to see a man defend a woman's idea, except that another coworker spoke up in defense of my argument during that same meeting. So there was that.

[nagasvoice]

Man, that is tiring. But yay for the coworker speaking up to defend your argument too!

[windsorblue]

So I guess a punch in the throat is "too nuclear"...?

[kaigou]

Unfortunately, but a punch in the throat would probably be about the right angle, since he's also a foot taller than me. I think I may aim for the shins, instead.

[qem_chibati]

I'd probably do something similar to what you've said here, that you are not able to enjoy these conversations, that it makes it difficult to know what he actually stands for and consequently undermines his integrity and consequently the respect that you previously had for him.

You'd prefer it if when he's trying to get more information and understand the matter more seriously if it was in a less antagonistic manner, because at the moment it comes across as he is questioning everything you say like he completely disagrees with it, as opposed to gaining additional information.

[kaigou]

It occurred to me while reading your reply that at heart, when he argues against something he later admits he agrees with, the result is that I trust him less and less each time. I never know when I'm going to get support for what (to me) is an obvious and ethical position, or when I'm going to be challenged and end up having to argue defense and be left with stress and annoyance. Which means that for all that I think he's a pretty great guy, I also find myself avoiding him at work some times, because I'm just not up to dealing with him.

[tesserae]

Argh. Ultimately that "devil's advocate" crap is just self-aggrandizing behaviour, plus it's lazy arguing. My students do this because they don't yet know how to engage with the argument that's being made, and think that if they throw up a bunch of their own counter-arguments it'll serve the purpose; it's sometimes hard, though, to tell if they honestly don't know or if they're just reverting to eight years old.

For an argument as stupid as "the web is for making money" there are a million comebacks ("so we should make it easier for everyone, don't you think?") but I think the best one might be the law of unintended consequences - making something easier for, say, people with limited vision can open a site to a whole new group of unanticipated users. Years ago, when they first started spending the money to put in sidewalk curb cuts, the usual Scrooges wanted to know "how many" wheelchairs would actually use them. When the engineers went back to do the use studies, they found people pushing strollers and walking small children as well as salespeople dragging briefcases, students dragging luggage, kids on skateboards and all sorts of other folks all found it much easier to use the intersections with curb cuts. Which, in turn, led to more pedestrian traffic and more customers for businesses. Making websites more accessible has the potential to do the same thing. Why would you want to say to *any* potential user/customer that they should go away & use another service after spending all those resources to attract them????

If, as he says, the web is for making money that seems counter-productive...

[kaigou]

The devil's advocate crap is bad enough; it's having someone tell me my examples (like yours) are just 'anecdote'. I never realized this before, but apparently a male anecdote is data, while female data is nothing more than an anecdote. So, so, so frustrating, and it's another element of privilege that's entirely invisible to the men playing that game.

[vcmw]

What about, "ok, let's play human advocate now"? I'm good with the earlier suggestion about user advocate too. For me, human vs. devil advocate might add an element of a call to bring it from an intellectual place to a feeling place. And might sound incongruous enough as a phrase to be effective while being jokey? Perhaps not - tone is not my best thing.

[kaigou]

Tone is probably my worst thing! I'd like to be able to say the longer, less witty, more honest responses, but I'm afraid I'll still manage to make it all combative. I don't know. It's just so tiresome, sometimes, and it wears me down some days.

[carose59]

I like all the replies you've gotten already, but I did think of one, so I'm sharing it. *g*

"So, later, when you admit you agree with me about this, how are you going to explain why you were arguing with me? And why should I not be annoyed with you wasting my time and energy arguing over something we agree on?"

[kaigou]

Ohhh, that's a good one. Tucking that into my pocket for future use, too. Nails exactly what bugs me about it, too. Thanks!

[brainwane]

YUP. (And I've now publicly linked to this post in my discussion of Socratic questioning and devil's advocacy.)

[issenllo]

Call him on it the next time you suspect him doing this, since he's admitted that he likes acting as a devil's advocate. Roll your eyes. "Really, again? We're going to play this game where you say something you don't believe? You're not TV, you know." Or some other comment questioning his tendency to behave like a fake. Remain firm on your own viewpoint and let him try to justify himself for once.

[kaigou]

Heh. Yeah, there seem to be those types of people who (for all their other good points) actually enjoy arguing, and they'll do it for the sake of doing it. For me, arguing is for when you're emotionally invested, and it does seem like a game -- and a manipulative, malicious one at that -- when a person doesn't just purposefully hit the triggers but enjoys hitting those triggers. Just to make the other person's emotions come into play.

I guess it would be kind of nuclear to stop abruptly and say, "I thought you were a smart, ethical, compassionate person. Thanks for making it clear how wrong I was."

...which means on second thought, I'll go with your suggestion instead.

[dragonhand]

Wow, I came here to try and be helpful, but you guys have covered it brilliantly, with panache, finesse and aplomb. And humor and kindness.

Just saw this on twitter...

[tiercel]

http://the-toast.net/2013/10/02/no-more-devils-advocate/