I was in a three-hour meeting yesterday. I’m meeting averse, you know that. But one of the things I liked about this meeting was when the guy in charge stopped someone mid-sentence and said “Don’t say everyone or no one. It doesn’t mean anything.”
We all do this. We try to justify our position by saying “No one knows…” or “Everyone knows…” or some derivative thereof. When you throw around these extremes you weaken your point. There is no such thing as everyone or no one. Don’t justify your position by putting an unjustifiable abstraction at the core.
Even “Most people” is a bad one. “Many people” isn’t as bad, but it’s still loaded. I find myself saying it all the time. “Some people” is better. A clear “these people” is best.
So when you’re making a point or taking a position, watch out everyone or no one — they aren’t really there.
Don Schenck
on 16 Jul 08Duh Jason … everyone knows this. Sheesh.
JF
on 16 Jul 08That’s why we love you Don!
Artur
on 16 Jul 08Great tip Jason, thanks.
Mark Sigal
on 16 Jul 08A slightly different take on this one is something that I call the tyranny of the all or none.
Basically, it states that we fall into the trap of defining ourselves and others in terms of absolutes. We make black/white decisions about whether a given situation is failing or succeeding. And depending on how we view the world this particular day, we either cope or we quit.
Here is a post I wrote that delves into the topic:
The Tyranny of the ‘All or None’ http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/01/the-tyranny-of.html
Check it out if interested.
Mark
Rad
on 16 Jul 08I was expecting this post to be about watching over everyone or no one.
Erik
on 16 Jul 08I’d say that “some” is just as bad. How many is “some”? It’s a content-free word that means “more than none.”
JF
on 16 Jul 08Some is pretty bad, yeah, but it’s not as absolute as EVERYONE or NO ONE! Those words are so loaded they are devoid of meaning. Some is pretty nebulous too, but at least it doesn’t mean all the way to one side.
Thane
on 16 Jul 08Is this really a profound topic? If you have anymore obvious nuggets of wisdom, feel free to send them to the scientific publication D.U.H.
Rabbit
on 16 Jul 08Wholeheartedly agree that “these people” (and then naming or further identifying them) is the best.
I try to refrain from “some people” due to FOX.
“Some people say…”
Excellent journalism.
Joshua Rudd
on 16 Jul 08Six years ago before I got married my dad gave me similar advice. “Son, the two words you should not ever utter are ‘never’ and ‘always’.”
Rob
on 16 Jul 08“We all do this.” Way to throw around an extreme…
Charles
on 16 Jul 08Everyone should refrain from using everyone. No one should use no one. Some people will still reference some people.
Not me.
Ben
on 16 Jul 08I disagree. If all everyone said in a meeting was “some of our customers like this”, and “some of our customers use it this way”, without any qualification of how many, we’d never get anything done.
I think the important thing is, if you’re going to use these vague quantitative terms, you better be willing to back them up – or take a hike.
sb
on 16 Jul 08@Rob lol That’s a great illustration of why this is one of those things that makes for a compelling blog post but, in practice, is just not practical. Siting and defining every single word this tightly (these people, blah, blah, blah) sounds like a great way to turn a 15 minute meeting into a three hour snoozathon on demographics and bullshit statistics. If your in a meeting with someone who takes words like “everyone” and “no one” completely literally, your screwed anyway.
JF
on 16 Jul 08“We all do this.” Way to throw around an extreme…
That was intentional to show just how easy it is.
Kelly Jones
on 16 Jul 08I agree with Ben. “No one” or “everyone” can be good abstractions when used appropriately. Instead of interrupting a person and saying that they should never use those words, I think it would have been more appropriate to ask who “everyone” is. Perhaps “everyone” in the context of the meeting was all customers or all managers. It all depends on context. Maybe it was obvious in the meeting who “everyone” was. Perhaps the guy in charge was flexing his authority muscles. If we try to explain everything explicitly, it can become very tedious.
ch
on 16 Jul 08Stopping the meeting over this is a bit pedantic really, isn’t it? I wouldn’t take someone who used “everyone” or “no-one” at their literal meaning – I assume they mean “a significant number of people” or “not many people”. When someone’s trying to be persuasive, they’re naturally going to want to exaggerate their case like this, but listeners need to account for it.
Matt Radel
on 16 Jul 08@ch: We’re not getting the full context of the meeting here. Ordinarily I’d agree with you, but I’d think there are some instances where it’d be appropriate (like attempting to make an over generalization about the habits or knowledge of the fictitious “average user”) to stop the meeting for this.
This is a good point though. We all throw this around very easily, and prolly shouldn’t.
JF
on 16 Jul 08The meeting wasn’t stopped, the guy just chimed in. It was very helpful—even the person who was talking agreed. I was one of the people who was saying “no one” and I certainly appreciated being reminded not to use that phrase.
And Matt: You are right. There were overgeneralization about user behavior going on.
dpcan
on 17 Jul 08Tell that to bloggers in the Silicon Valley. Those poor folks think they are “everyone”.
Anonymous Coward
on 17 Jul 08I actually thought this would be about something entirely different when it popped into my rss, was expecting to read about how one should pay close attention to anyone in a remotely competing space, or simply ignore the rest of the world entirely and make your company your own.
Nick Sieger
on 17 Jul 08A corollary for extreme language is “always” and “never” in conversation, especially when using an accusatory tone. Saying “you always do that” or “you never do that” is a great way to hurt someone’s feelings by failing to notice or praise details and variations in behavior. More for human relationships than business, but your post made me think of it nonetheless.
Avin Kline
on 17 Jul 08Great post Jason.
Whether it’s a “discussion” with your spouse, team meeting or wherever, saying “everyone” or “no one” seems to bring so much clout, but really is way off based.
Thanks for the reminder.
nick
on 17 Jul 08What is so extreme in saying “No one knows what is going to happen tomorrow”. Context matters.
JD
on 17 Jul 08I once knew this dude who insisted that everyone knew the difference between “sex” and “gender” and it pissed me off SOMETHING AWFUL.
Andres
on 17 Jul 08JD – you could even call him a GOON!
kimblim
on 17 Jul 08I understand that “everyone” can be substituted by “some people”, “most people” etc., but what is the substitute for “no one”? “Very few people”? I know that using “no one” can weaken your point, but sometimes you have to emphasize “very few people”, and you can do that by using “no one” or “practically no one”. I like the advice, but I find it is all a question about context.
Jean-Pierre Bobbaers
on 17 Jul 08This fits into my list of: ASAP, Always, Many Times, Never, Many people, lots of people, some people,...... It doesn’t mean anything. Haley’s Comet is coming ASAP back to earth. (in 2062).
My rule is: talk about specific numbers/behaviour/people not attitude.
If you state: “you are always late”, people get upset. If you state: “For the last three Mondays you were late” people accept.
george tziralis
on 17 Jul 08excellent piece, I’d also add the superlatives in this do-not-list.
Tom G
on 17 Jul 08Ben Darlow
on 17 Jul 08Another way of thinking about it: if what you were saying were to go onto an entry on Wikipedia, you’d be expected to back it up with a citation or reference. Without that, you could expect your words to be removed.
Don Schenck
on 17 Jul 08@Tom G: Brilliant.
My college English professor taught to not accept the phrase “You know!” when added after a statement. As if the statement is obvious.
“All _ are stupid. You know!”
We are to say: “No, I DON’T know”.
Goes a LONG way to keeping extremes to a minimum and forcing said people to explain any prejudices.
p-daddy
on 17 Jul 08interesting post.
my pet peeve is “very”, which turns out to be very superfluous in almost all cases ;-)
PPM
on 17 Jul 08Guys, every time I see it, I can’t help thinking that the ‘troll hat’ breaks some basic law of human behavior. Personally I can’t help but read what ever dumb comment attracted the attention at least twice, just to confirm that it really is dumb and tell myself that the world is full of time wasting idiots. I give it far more attention that all the other comments.
Isn’t that just what a troll wants, more attention! With kids, the rule of ‘noticing’ what they do right and just ignoring what they do wrong (especially when its for attention) certainly rules the day.
Just a thought.
Don Schenck
on 17 Jul 08@PPM: Trolls don’t want to be noticed, they want a response.
Hey! Waitaminute … I’M responding to YOU. YOU’RE TROLLING!!
:-)
yohami
on 17 Jul 08I totally love this approach. Speaking so generally tries to find comfort in some common sense that doesnt exist.
CJ
on 17 Jul 08Why don’t we all agree that “everyone” is 80% and no one is 20%. The conversation is quite easy then ;-)
Arik Jones
on 18 Jul 08“Everyone” and “no one” aren’t literal statements. They’re simply assumptions/opinions which depending on the listener may or may not have any value. Saying those things simply emphasize a point or preceding statement.
I think it is rather childish for someone to stop an individual mid-sentence for something as pedantic as this. Simply dismissing it doesn’t exactly make that statement less important. If you’re that much of a prude to actually indirectly demand a more exacting figure in relation to a statement I’m making, then you simply don’t deserve to interrupt at all.
Don Schenck
on 18 Jul 08@Arik: I’d disagree with you, but that’s not enough. In this case, you’re just wrong.
Hyperbole breeds extremism in any intercourse.
Mark Eagleton
on 19 Jul 08In these situations instead of everyone or no one, use percentages. If you don’t know the percentages, phrase your feedback in the form of inquiring about percentages. In my experience, when people have facts or are forced to consider actual data, meetings rarely run over 30 minutes.
iain
on 19 Jul 08Some people[who?] say that wikipedia already does this. [citation needed]
Turns out the real world should actually be even less accepting of weasel words than an online encyclopaedia? Film at 11!
Mark Stock
on 19 Jul 08Starting a sentence with “these people” may be dangerous because everything is personal and everything changes. We don’t talk about other people’s stuff. I talk about my own stuff.
Jody
on 19 Jul 08Bingo – it’s the logical fallacy Ad Populum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Be on the lookout for the rest, they’re everywhere!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Ani
on 23 Jul 08I definitely dig your point!
Tim Walker
on 23 Jul 08I try to stop myself - and gently redirect others - when they spend time on generalities (“lots of our users” etc.) that could be made concrete by data. It can be as simple as saying, “Do we have any numbers to tell us how many of our users are doing this?”
Yes, it seems basic, but it can represent a major shift from easy generalizations to hard research.
(N.B. I’m well aware of my own bad habit of over-generalizing.)
This discussion is closed.