Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages

[Fabio Pesari]

On 02/29/2016 12:22 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> That actually contains a big clue
> 
> We need to focus on identifying each person's values and not expect
> everybody to have values.

That's hard to do, especially on the Internet where you can't assume
anything about your interlocutor.

Also, I think it would help to have a default set of values to address.

To be honest, I struggle a lot with the fact that so many people think
there is no objective "right" and "wrong".

For example, for us it might be "wrong" to prevent users from knowing
what they are executing, but for them it could be "wrong" to require
developers to share their trade secrets.

I would say we are right, but according to whose values? Money is sadly
used as an indicator of objective truth these days and it's clearly on
the side of proprietary software.

> E.g. some doctors will want to keep their patient data private because
> it is the right thing to do.  Some will do it because of the commercial
> incentive (not wanting a rogue employee of the IT company to sell a
> customer list to a rival).  Some will only want to keep patient data
> private because of the big penalty fines that doctors now face for data
> breaches.
> 
> The first step is to use questions to identify the person's values.
> Then match the argument to their values
> 
> While it sounds trivial, salespeople are usually trained to identify one
> of these things that each customer values most: career, family, hobby.
> Once they identify the most important one, they may try to talk about it
> or even relate their message to it (e.g. "do you think you might have a
> third child?  Have you seen this larger model car...")
> 
> Even if this only helps for 1 out of 5 discussions, just forget the
> other 4 and don't be demotivated, you can't win every time.

Yes, that's true.

> This is just a matter of training and practice
> 
> For example, lawyers often spend hours with their clients practicing
> questions and answers for court cases.  That is how they look so
> convincing and respond so effortlessly in the heat of the moment.

That is a very good practice. Any lawyers out there promoting free software?