> I’m not sure if I understand the whole idea but could you explain what this method does?
What's wrong with this? The author suggests that this is somehow extremely condescending, and that the reviewer should instead review at an "eye-to-eye level". So the solution is to jump to a remedy without fully understanding what the writer meant?
If you are going to review at an eye-to-eye level, then you have to go in assuming best intentions. A method might seem poorly named, but if you're reviewing a peer then it is very likely that you just doesn't understand some context. I'd never jump in and assume a method is poorly named unless I understand why it was named that way: Chesterton's Fence.
What's wrong with this? The author suggests that this is somehow extremely condescending, and that the reviewer should instead review at an "eye-to-eye level". So the solution is to jump to a remedy without fully understanding what the writer meant?
If you are going to review at an eye-to-eye level, then you have to go in assuming best intentions. A method might seem poorly named, but if you're reviewing a peer then it is very likely that you just doesn't understand some context. I'd never jump in and assume a method is poorly named unless I understand why it was named that way: Chesterton's Fence.