Intent Doesn’t Count  ## Metadata - Author: [[Taco]] - Full Title: Intent Doesn’t Count - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: - #communication - #intent - #responsibility Author: Taco Verdonschot Source: Taco Verdonschot Blog Reference: [Link](https://tacoverdo.com/intent-doesnt-count/) date created: 2025-01-09 10:00 --- # Title: Intent Doesn’t Count ## Table of Contents: - [📝 Summary](#summary) - [📖 Main Content](#main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#notes) - [📖 References](#references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#methodology) - [❓ Questions](#questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#future-research) - [💡 Implications](#implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical validity](#logical-validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis](#darvo-analysis) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#conclusion) ### References: - Taco Verdonschot Blog [Link](https://tacoverdo.com/intent-doesnt-count/) ## 📝 Summary: Taco Verdonschot’s article "Intent Doesn’t Count" explores the complexities of communication, particularly in digital spaces, emphasizing that good intentions often fall short if the results of communication are harmful. He discusses the "Assume Positive Intent" (API) principle, acknowledging its usefulness in interpreting messages but stressing that it should not be used to excuse poor communication. The author argues that it’s the result of the message, not the intent, that truly matters, and encourages responsibility from both senders and receivers in communication. ## 📖 Main Content: The article reflects on the importance of clarity in communication, particularly in written form. It highlights how digital communication can often be misunderstood, especially when tone and non-verbal cues are absent. Verdonschot advocates for assuming positive intent but also stresses that senders must take responsibility for their messages, ensuring clarity and considering how their words may be interpreted. The piece includes personal anecdotes to illustrate the nuances of intent versus impact. ### 🗒️ Notes: - **Assume Positive Intent (API)**: - Encourages reading messages with a positive perspective. - Especially useful in written communication, where tone can be misinterpreted. - Does not excuse poor communication from the sender. - **Sender's Responsibility**: - Senders must consider how their words may be perceived and should aim for clarity. - The use of emojis or clearer wording can prevent misunderstandings. - **Impact vs. Intent**: - Even if intentions are positive, the result can still be harmful. - Communication is a two-way street; both sender and receiver have roles in ensuring messages are understood as intended. - **Personal Example**: - Verdonschot shares an anecdote of an ill-judged joke, demonstrating how intent can clash with the recipient’s feelings. ## 📖 References: - Taco Verdonschot Blog [Link](https://tacoverdo.com/intent-doesnt-count/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1. **Assuming Positive Intent**: - Original: "Assuming positive intent invites you to read a message in several ways and assume the most positive possible way." - Paraphrase: "API encourages you to interpret messages optimistically, focusing on the best possible meaning behind them." 2. **Sender Responsibility**: - Original: "Assuming positive intent should be a fallback for when the sender fails to clearly communicate what they mean." - Paraphrase: "While API is helpful, it shouldn't replace the sender’s duty to communicate clearly and effectively." ## 📰 Newsletter: **Subject:** Clarifying Communication: Why Intent Isn’t Enough In this edition, we’re diving deep into the principle of "Assume Positive Intent" and why it’s not a free pass for poor communication. As digital communication becomes more prevalent, it’s easy to misread messages without the context of tone and body language. Taco Verdonschot tackles this issue head-on, explaining how we can foster better understanding in the workplace and beyond. But be warned—good intentions don’t always cut it; the results of your communication matter most. Check out the full article here for tips on how to improve your messaging, and avoid misinterpretations! ## ✅ Action Items: - **Improvement of Communication**: Consider how we can ensure clarity in both written and verbal communication within the WordPress community. This aligns with my goal of fostering transparency and inclusivity. - **Sender Responsibility**: Review and implement guidelines for clearer, more accountable communication in all community-related discussions. ## 🧪 Hypotheses: - If communication clarity improves within teams, misunderstandings and conflicts will decrease, leading to a more productive environment. - Greater emphasis on sender responsibility might encourage clearer, more empathetic communication across digital platforms. ### 📊 Methodology: - Data collection through surveys and feedback regarding communication effectiveness and misunderstandings within communities. - Experiment with sender-focused communication strategies, measuring the impact on team harmony and understanding. ### ❓ Questions: - How often do misunderstandings in digital communication arise from poor sender responsibility? - Can API be integrated into community guidelines to improve overall discourse? ### 🔮 Future Research: - Investigate the long-term effects of assuming positive intent on team productivity and morale. - Study the role of sender responsibility in reducing communication breakdowns in virtual teams. ### 💡 Implications: - Clearer communication will enhance collaboration, reduce friction in community spaces, and improve overall engagement. ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment: - **Visual Learners**: The article is text-based with no images or charts. Adding infographics could help break down complex ideas. - **Aural Learners**: A podcast or an audio version could help auditory learners absorb the content. - **Verbal Learners**: The language is rich in analogies and examples, making it suitable for linguistic learners. - **Kinesthetic Learners**: The content would benefit from practical exercises, such as role-playing effective communication scenarios. ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment: - **Screen Reader Compatibility**: The text is accessible, but adding alt-text to any images or visual aids would improve accessibility. - **Keyboard Navigation**: Fully navigable through keyboard shortcuts. - **Text Resizing**: The article is responsive, but text size flexibility would enhance readability. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment: - **Cultural Relevance**: The article touches on a universal communication principle, but incorporating diverse cultural examples could broaden its appeal. - **Inclusive Language**: Language is gender-neutral and inclusive, with no evident exclusionary terms. - **Neurodiversity Support**: The structured approach and clear language are accessible, but breaking down ideas into simpler components might help individuals with ADHD or ASD. ### ✅ Logical validity: - **Sound Reasoning**: The core argument—that the result of communication matters more than the intent—flows logically. - **Logical Fallacy**: There are no apparent logical fallacies in the argument. The author effectively uses examples to support the main claims. 🔍 **DARVO Analysis**: - **Deny**: No sign of denial of harmful effects; the article acknowledges the impact of poorly communicated messages. - **Attack**: The article does not attack the reader but rather educates on better communication practices. - **Reverse Victim and Offender**: There’s no reversal of roles; the focus is on improving sender communication responsibility. ### 🔍 SEO Evaluation: - **Keywords**: The primary keyword “Assume Positive Intent” appears naturally throughout the article. - **Meta Description**: A clear summary of the article's key message. - **Title Tag**: The title is concise and relevant for SEO. - **Content Length**: Adequate for a blog post of this nature. ## 🎯 Conclusion: Taco Verdonschot’s article emphasizes the importance of clear, responsibl - Document Tags: [[positive intent]] [[WordPress]] - Summary: Sometimes meaning well just isn't enough. "Assume positive intent" can be abused to mask that the sender of a message just did a shitty job. - URL: https://tacoverdo.com/intent-doesnt-count/  Back in high school, one of my teachers had a favorite phrase she had to use after pretty much every test when students would come to her desk to complain about their grade. Roughly translated from Dutch: “If I’d grade your intent, you’d all be straight A students”. To be fair, that wasn’t true for *everyone*, but it most definitely was for most of us. #### Assume positive intent One of the first things you’ll hear when joining a company that does most of its internal communication via digital channels, like Slack or email, is the mantra “assume positive intent”. And that makes sense, because written words lack all the non-verbal queues that you’d get in an in-person conversation. And so, they can feel harsh, unfriendly or even flat-out hostile. But especially when you’re communicating with non-native speakers, that might not be their intent at all. > Most of the time, a question really is a question, not a passive-agressive statement or judgement. > > “Assume positive intent” invites you to read a message in several ways, and assume the most positive possible way. It invites you to assume that the sender of said message is not angry, mad, or frustrated unless they explicitly say so. Jen McFarland [wrote a series of articles about this](https://jenmcfarlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/the-power-of-positive-intent-assuming-positive-intent/) back in 2016. When involved in online communication, “assume positive intent” (or API for short) is a great way of not getting into unnecessary fights all the time. It’s super valuable. #### The responsibility of the sender API is aimed at the receiver of a message. It invites the recipient to assume the sender of a message meant well. But that doesn’t excuse the sender from any and all responsibilities. On the contrary. Assuming positive intent should be a fallback for when the sender fails to clearly communicate what they mean. So, as a sender you have the responsibility to not just type a clear message, but also consider its form, and the ways it might be interpreted by the receiver. You may need to add, remove, or change words to remove ambiguity in intent. Or, sometimes adding an emoji can make all the difference. ##### An example You’ve just sent your employer a report. Their response is *“I’d like to see you in my office to discuss this.”*. It could be that they’re not happy with the report. It could also be that they want to discuss some of your findings. Or, they’re super happy about the report and want to congratulate you. You don’t know. Using API, you’d reach the conclusion that they didn’t say you f’d up. But that does require a lot from you as receiver of the message. Now what if your employer had said *“Well done! I’d like to discuss your findings. Can you come to my office, please?”*? Wouldn’t that have been much clearer, and a lot less stressful? #### It’s not all about intent Even when you mean well, you can do, say or type things that hurt others. Unlike physical pain, hurting people with words usually isn’t visible, especially when those words are received asynchronously via written communication. Two weeks ago I [wrote about a situation](https://tacoverdo.com/community-and-a-metaphor/) where, despite assumed positive intent, the result is subpar, to say the least. I’m not innocent either. Not long ago, during an in-person conversation I was playfully joking about an event that had happened years before. When I made the joke, I did not realize at all how sensitive that topic was to them. I consider myself lucky they had the courage to confront and educate me. It gave me the opportunity to apologize and make sure that never happens again. It’s easy enough to imagine how much worse this would have been for them, had it been in written conversation without the obvious non-verbal queues that I was saying this as friendly banter. So even with the best intentions, we can screw up our messages. We can screw up getting our message across to the people we talk to, work with, care about, and/or love. #### Stop abusing API When a shitty message is sent, it’s completely unfair to then turn to the recipient of said message and tell them to “just use API”. We cannot abuse “assume positive intent” to cover up the fact the sender did a poor job in their communication. No, first and foremost we have to educate the sender that what they did was not OK. #### We’re not all straight A students I really meant to ace all my tests in high school. But, I oftentimes got things wrong. Despite my positive intent, I wasn’t a straight A student, because my teachers did not grade me for intent, but for the results I produced. And I think that’s a lesson we should all remember when we’re talking about “assume positive intent” online. We do mess up. Sometimes badly. And that’s OK. We can apologize and learn. We can grow. Good intentions oftentimes aren’t enough. It’s the result that counts most. #### Comments Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked \* Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment., Intent Doesn’t Count, Taco, 01jh6c0yt9d5g4whb7tgx00b81.