7 ms·

Okay. Let's take an example from the article. Be transparent, honest, and authentic. Do not ever waiver from this; white lies and false smiles quickly snowball

Okay. Let's take an example from the article. Be transparent, honest, and authentic. Do not ever waiver from this; white lies and false smiles quickly snowball into a life lived out of alignment. Let's say John is this guy who is "transparent, honest, and authentic, and never waivering." And say Jack, John's friend, is addicted to playing Overwatch. John comes by and says, "Jack, you shouldn't play Overwatch. You are wasting your time and energy." Jack responds, "I know, but just this one match." John comes back a week later and says, "Jack, I am really fucking frustrated you are still playing that shitty game. I want you to quit right this fucking moment." The article advised to never hide your emotions, so I am following that mantra. How is Jack going to feel after that? Is he going to stop playing video games? Have parents yelling stopped children from playing Minecraft? No. Why? The world really isn't that simple. Just saying "Be honest all the time" is the worst advice you can give. The principle is nice and impressive (because you always keep it!) but in reality, John is either a loner or a hypocrite. Consider Steve, one who wields both self-reliance and people-pleasing, visiting Jack who is still addicted to Overwatch. Steve knows Overwatch is killing Jack's life, and deeply concerned for him. But he does the not lazy thing and waits. Instead of admonishing Jack, Steve becomes interested in Jack. Steve asks Jack how this game works, which hero he is playing, etc. Then Jack opens up to Steve, which, in due time, can allow Steve to change Jack's mind. If you want to have the feeling that you changed people's minds, be honest all the time. But if you actually want to change people's minds, then don't be honest all the time. Utilize white lies. In that sense, people who are always honest are incredibly selfish. In the quotation far above, I would just add two more words. To myself. Be transparent, honest, and authentic to yourself. Being honest to others always sounds cool, but is in reality excruciating lazy. So lazy that I wouldn't want a friend like that, ever. I want a friend who is more wise and less automatic about his choice between truths and lies.

TenOhms 10y ago
I'd take someone being completely honest with me 100% of time over someone who thinks one thing of me and tells me something else. The thing is, people act based on their beliefs the vast majority of the time. So to borrow your example, say the friend doesn't complain about his buddy playing Overwatch all the time. Do you think that he'll just wait around to see if he'll stop playing or do you think he'll start to ignore his friend and go find other friends whom he shares the same interests with? Without honesty, the friend playing overwatch too much will have no external cues that his behavior is damaging his friendships.
- avindroth 10y ago
  There are roughly three stages in extra-personal development. 1. The Selfish : You tell people what they want to hear. 2. The Truthsayer : You tell people what they need to hear. 3. The Altruistic : You tell people what they need to hear when they are ready. I am assuming John cares about Jack. If he still ignores Jack, then John is part of the Selfish. He is misled by just short-term benefits. The Selfish and the Altruistic appear to do the same thing initially: not say anything nor interrupting during Overwatch. But they end differently. The Selfish ends his thought with just that moment. The Altruistic waits with intent to strike. This is not a dichotomy between people who lie and are egotistical VERSUS people who are always honest. There is a third group of people who are both caring and more prudent with their tools. They are the Altruistic, those who wait to tell people exactly what they need to hear. And the Altruistic ultimately change people and society, because they understand people and society better. They know how persuasion works. Truthsayers don't. In fairness, truthsayers die a lonely death, without having made meaningful change. Their audience was only themselves.
  - Evgeny 10y ago
    There are roughly three stages in extra-personal development. I'm interested to learn some more. Is it your personal classification or do you base it on some research, literature etc.? Could you recommend something to read on a subject of extra-personal development?
    - avindroth 10y ago
      This is my personal classification. If I had to trace my thoughts, I would point to Lord Chesterfield, Neil Strauss, and Dale Carnegie, in that order. Also lots of efforts to change people's (read: friends) behavioral patterns. I think, especially for psychology, most valuable insights come from experience, not books. Read the books, and apply the principles.
rz2k 10y ago
There may be extremes, but if you generalize that example it's exhausting. Making a bad decision in one area does not mean that Jack's stupider than Steve and won't know exactly what he's trying to do. Furthermore, is Steve actually listening? I ask because a lot of what people are doing here, if it's innovative, is regularly met with skepticism. Understanding naysayers' concerns, and learning a ready answer if they ultimately don't seem valid can be a good use of time. Giving a whole lot of air time to someone who has a foregone conclusion that they think merits some transparent rhetorical game is not.
- avindroth 10y ago
  Making a bad decision in one area does not mean that Jack's stupider than Steve and won't know exactly what he's trying to do I never implied anything about stupidity. My claim is this sort of behavior is not conducive to change. Furthermore, is Steve actually listening? Of course he is. You are missing the point. Or you just haven't met that many people like Steve. Understanding naysayers' concerns, and learning a ready answer if they ultimately don't seem valid can be a good use of time. Absolutely. You should hold that standard for yourself. But just because you hold that standard for yourself doesn't mean the world all of a sudden is open to criticism. Have a vision for what the ideal world is, but do not be deluded when modeling the state of the real world. If you think this is just transparent rhetoric game, you seriously misunderstand the general population of human beings. And most likely, yourself. If you have a brain that remotely resembles mine, then you have emotions, biases - structural flaws in our brain. Understand those first. Reading LessWrong will help.
st3v3r 10y ago
Except in your example, John isn't being honest. He's being an asshole. Far too many people conflate the two.
- avindroth 10y ago
  He is being completely honest. Which is what the article espoused. The article also said do not hide your emotions. John is mad about the fact that his friend is wasting his life. I displayed that. If you are defining honest as some midpoint between a white lie and an asshole, then what is being honest? Not being completely honest, but just somewhat honest? Then your "honest" is a healthy mix of white lie and complete honesty. That's Steve.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. John is not being honest. He's being an asshole. Being "completely honest" and "not hiding your emotions" does not equal being an asshole. There are many, many ways to express both those things without acting like John. Seriously, I am completely sick and tired of this idea people have of excusing their assholery by claiming they're being "honest", and that showing even the most modicum of common decency, common sense, and empathy is somehow "hiding their emotions" and being dishonest. It's not.
    - avindroth 10y ago
      I completely empathize with your statement. I am also sick and tired of people excusing their assholery with notion of "being completely honest". It's quite ridiculous. Part of me wants to say that then maybe we should teach honesty differently. Instead of putting the virtue on a pedestal, we should use it as a tool when it is most fit. If a white lie will engender a win-win relationship, use that. Ultimately what we want is betterment of the other person and myself, and honesty is not always the answer.
  - hosh 10y ago
    John is not being completely honest. As I mentioned elsewhere, John is not honest with himself, being unaware of where the roots of this irritation is.
CPLX 10y ago
Oddly, in this example and the several follow ups, nobody has espoused the view that it's almost invariably a complete waste of time to try to get someone else that's not you to quit doing something they enjoy that doesn't affect you.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- avindroth 10y ago
  John comes by and says, "Jack, you shouldn't play Overwatch. You are wasting your time and energy." Jack responds, "I know, but just this one match."
  - CPLX 10y ago
    Yeah exactly. Why don't both John and Steve both just worry about his own problems instead of trying to refine and optimize this needless intervention?
    - avindroth 10y ago
      Jack responds, "I know... Jack knows it's bad for him. Let me ask, What do you live for? Why are you continuing your life on this planet? What will make you not regret on your deathbed? For me, life is a festival. I am here to enjoy all the attractions. The scrumptious food, the unforgettable experiences, and the thrilling rides. But nowadays I am realizing that a big part/joy of the festival is bringing other people to the festival, and showing them around. To enjoy, together. To eat, together. To experience, together. That is why I worry about other people's problems. That is why Steve cares about John and is "intervening". Steve wants to bring John to the festival. And John wants to come, but he just needs a little help. Steve is there for him.
      - CPLX 10y ago
        Good luck with that. Speaking only for myself, but finally teaching myself how to avoid that kind of messianic thinking has been a considerable benefit to me in my old age.
dasil003 10y ago
This example is pretty heavy—I mean if you're talking about breaking someone of an addiction that is something far beyond the scope of how best to modulate ones behavior in the world. But it points to the real complexity of relationships. Someone that always offers a harsh unvarnished and negative opinion on things usually gets a reputation as a jerk. Someone who is always trying to please everyone gets a reputation as a spineless brown-noser. In the real world, how you say something is often even more important than exactly what you say. If you are charming you can convince more people of more things, and political capital is a real thing that matters all the way down to individual relationships—you have to pick your battles. Throw in culture, sexism, racism, moods, and innumerable other contexts and things become very subtle. That's what bothers me about these pop science articles: nothing is that simple. Maybe an article like this triggers you to evaluate yourself and say "hey, I do try to please others too much", but then again maybe you need the opposite advice. The bottom line is you have to gauge for yourself how your behavior is affecting relationships and whether you are getting what you want out of life.
- avindroth 10y ago
  Absolutely agreed. If you are at zero, and fifty is recommended, then having someone argue at one-hundred might be worthwhile. But just because you were persuaded by one-hundred (be honest all the time) doesn't mean it's the best method for everyone. What we need is an accurate model of fifty, and personalized solutions for those at zero or one-hundred. Skip the first step, you have no structure to hold you.
hinkley 10y ago
> "Jack, I am really fucking frustrated you are still playing that shitty game." That is not being authentic, and that's the problem. In our heads we know what we want, but we ask for something else. Why do you want your friend to get off the computer. To be off the computer? No. You miss your friend and you want him to hang out with you. You are worried that he is missing out on life by living in the game and you're both going to pay for it later. Just ask, man.
- tremon 10y ago
  Moreover, by phrasing it like that ("I'm getting frustrated"), you are imposing your demands on your friend without even informing about their state of mind. Not acknowledging them is not the way to keep friends close.
  - hinkley 10y ago
    Yes, and what's worse is that the reason you're upset is not even that you miss your friend, but fear that your friend has decided that a game is more important than you are, and so you are demanding that he prove that he isn't rejecting you by making a gesture.
- rukuu001 10y ago
  You're right, but authenticity takes more work than that. > In our heads we know what we want, but we ask for something else I think we know when we're frustrated or angry, but they're reactions to other emotions like fear and confusion. That's hard to realise in the middle of frustration/anger. And hard to articulate when you're talking to your buddy about his gaming habits.
matwood 10y ago
You can be honest without being an asshole. This is related to people who win arguments as assholes. Sure they won, but they pissed everyone off so what does it matter? Then they go hide behind "I'm just being honest." No, that's being an asshole. There is saying, "you can shear a sheep over and over, but you can only skin it once." Learn to shear.
- mizzao 10y ago
  There was some wisdom written about this, almost 2000 years ago: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 : "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing." To paraphrase: truth without love (e.g. being an asshole) is just ineffective noise. (Conversely, love without truth is not love at all.)
- Retra 10y ago
  >You can be honest without being an asshole. Not always. It depends on the culture. Some people will think you're an asshole just for disagreeing with them. Some people will think you're an asshole because you smile crooked. Some people will think you're an asshole because you aren't speaking their language and using their terminology. Maybe I think you're an asshole just for suggesting this.
brazzledazzle 10y ago
There's a difference between being honest and always saying what you think. You should be honest in your interactions but that doesn't mean you should tell everyone everything. You can be honest while being tactful. I think there's a line between being tactful and being manipulative and it may be different for everyone. For example you seem to think that Steve is telling a "white lie by omission" but I don't. Unless Steve was dishonest if questioned about his motivation or Steve was trying to pretend to be into the game rather being interested in Jack and his interests I wouldn't consider that being dishonest.
- avindroth 10y ago
  Most people live a fine life utilizing both honesty and white lie. Any normal parent won't look at their daughter in an ugly dress and yell, "That's ugly." Then you just lack social awareness. Here is the problem though. Much like the juxtaposition of equality and liberty, our beliefs about honesty and our intuition about honesty belie each other. (This might not make much sense but bear with me here.) If we believe that "Being honest always" is good (and that is what the article espouses), then we have already created a huge contradiction within ourselves. By holding that belief, you feel slightly righteous, but not quite so accurate. Because you can't always be honest. By holding that belief, you are always selling yourself short. But if you believe "I will use honesty and white lie to the best of my ability to do the most good for the other person", then you have an accurate (and also quite beautiful) map of the world. Hope that answers your point.
kross 10y ago
There are some other foundational things needed for living a full life (which I infer is the author's point). > "Jack, you shouldn't play Overwatch..." This is judgement, which implies ego. The indicator here is "shouldn't". Ego isn't an authentic representation of self, it is fiction. If we can become aware of ego and avoid following it's incessant needs, we are closer to ego-lessness which can contribute significantly to happiness. So in the end, being authentic and transparent without ego, the original statement may be something like: > "Jack, I don't like to play overwatch, I would rather (do x,y,z)" Great book for anyone seeking - Eckhardt Tolle - "A new earth" - be warned, skip chapter 1!
- r00fus 10y ago
  The key word is "should" aka "shoulding yourself/someone else" aka "musterbation" [1]. When you detect this from yourself or others, you are best advised to steer the wording/conversation so it's factual and not a guilt-trip. If you cannot, you will find yourself in a very frustrating place. http://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/should.htm http://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/should.htm
- avindroth 10y ago
  Great point. There must be another level of authenticity and transparency I missed. Thanks for the book recommendation! I loved The Power of Now.
astazangasta 10y ago
You're conflating "being honest" with "being a dick", here. John may experience anger at Jack's behavior, and he may express it in a way that doesn't have to damage his relationship with Jack or hurt Jack's feelings. A good book on this subject is "Difficult Conversations", a favorite of my wife's, which describes strategies for doing exactly this: being honest about your feelings without ruining someone else's day as a result. Being honest does not mean you cannot exercise tact and discretion in the way you talk to people.
pipio21 10y ago
"John comes back a week later and says, "Jack, I am really fucking frustrated you are still playing that shitty game. I want you to quit right this fucking moment."" That is exactly what some people do in real life professionally in phycology, without the strong words(that denote lack of control). It works really well. In order to illustrate this think on "Kitcken nightmares" tv program, or something like "Hermano mayor" on Spanish TV. I use to do the same thing with friends and people that demand my help. Loner? Quite the contrary, help someone get out of a hole and he-she will be your friend forever. I have taken people out of drugs, or gangs,prostitution this people will give their life for me. There are few things as rewarding in life(it is also a pain in the ass while you do follow the process but it is worth it). Of course you need education in order to do that. You don't need to say you are "fucking frustrated", in fact if you are frustrated you can't help anyone. There are masters at this, like in anything,and if you do that you will learn with every person you help. After some people you see patterns and being effective becomes easier.
- morgante 10y ago
  > That is exactly what some people do in real life professionally in phycology, I didn't know that algae responded so well to honesty. Assuming that you meant psychology, there's a huge difference between hearing something from a professional psychologist and from a friend. It's a whole different relationship, with different words. If a friend treated me like a patient, they'd stop being a friend.
hosh 10y ago
In your contrived example, it's missing some things. For John to be authentic, then he would need to first suss out why he feels so bothered by seeing John being addicted to playing Overwatch. Meaning, there is something that John is unaware of his own psyche that lead to feeling irritated by Jack's addiction. Being unaware of that means he might be _seen_ as transparent or authentic or honest -- you certainly did -- but he's not actually in integrity. Also, what you described with Steve is called rapport in NLP, or ethos in rhetorics. It's not people-pleasing, so much as matching impedance and getting inside someone else's space. People-pleasers tend to be too self-absorbed to be able to fully enter someone else's mindspace and establish rapport. Unless that person is on the psychopathy spectrum.
- avindroth 10y ago
  First off, rapport isn't just from neuro-linguistic programming. (Funny you mention it, I was just reading an NLP book couple days ago.) And also to the HN crowd, you should specify NLP; most will think Natural Language Processing and be confused. I agree with you on all of your points. With a feeling, you should figure out what caused it, and then figure out what caused that, and then recurse backwards until you actually get to the issue. Jerry Talley who taught intimacy at Stanford some time ago has a great lecture on this. Where we disagree (but not actually, because it's so trivial), is labelling. If you define people-pleasers as those who cannot create rapport because they are self-absorbed, I couldn't agree with you more. But part of me rejects that definition because then those people-pleasers aren't actually pleasing people. Unless we are strictly going off the negative connotation of the word (which makes sense), the labelling behind this concept can only become confusing. Great points, nevertheless. Couldn't have said it better myself.
  - Evgeny 10y ago
    Jerry Talley who taught intimacy at Stanford some time ago has a great lecture on this Do you know if it is available online?
    - avindroth 10y ago
dpark 10y ago
> Then Jack opens up to Steve, which, in due time, can allow Steve to change Jack's mind. That's some pretty impressive hand-waving. The more likely outcome is that Jack keeps playing his game and Steve just wasted a bunch of time trying and failing to manipulate his "friend".
- avindroth 10y ago
  Sorry to get all experiential on you, but that statement is only empathisable with experience. I can go further in detail, but it really won't help you "get" it. I suppose one way you can have that experience is practice actively trying to change people's behaviors. It's absolutely fascinating.
KajMagnus 10y ago
I think you interpreted the article in a way that was not intended. I don't think the author want people to be totally honest always, like, "Hi dear colleague. I think your dog is stupid. And, by the way, you are, too." Instead, I imagine that fairly many people tend to, when their friends say "Do you want to hang out with us doing this?", they answer "yes" just to please their friends. Although in fact they might have wanted to suggest something else instead. And in these cases, the advice in the article can sometimes? often? be useful. I.e. to be more transparent and honest with your friends about what makes you happy. If you interpret a piece of advice with the mindset that "perhaps this is good advice in some situations, when might that be?", then it can be helpful and useful to you (or to other people — to me, when I was younger, for example). But if you interpret it like "always do this", then a piece of advice that is actually good in some situations, has been lost. (I suppose the article can be rewritten / reworded, to make it easier to interpret it in a "good and useful" way.)
Asooka 10y ago
You know, this is going on a tangent, but I'd like to interject for a moment here. If you're in a similar situation, i.e. have someone who is showing signs of addiction and skips doing important stuff, DO NOT approach by attacking the thing they're addicted to. If you do, you're invoking tribal instincts and placing yourself in the enemy tribe. You're placing yourself as an adversary to whatever it is that the other person enjoys, which is a surefire way to have them oppose you out of nothing more than trying to preserve their identity and quality of life. Instead, try to get them to see the positives of doing what you ask for. Show the other person that you accept their hobby. If it's pure addiction or escapism, i.e. a way to deal with emotional or psychological problems, try to attack the root cause.

TenOhms 10y ago

I'd take someone being completely honest with me 100% of time over someone who thinks one thing of me and tells me something else. The thing is, people act based on their beliefs the vast majority of the time. So to borrow your example, say the friend doesn't complain about his buddy playing Overwatch all the time. Do you think that he'll just wait around to see if he'll stop playing or do you think he'll start to ignore his friend and go find other friends whom he shares the same interests with? Without honesty, the friend playing overwatch too much will have no external cues that his behavior is damaging his friendships.

avindroth 10y ago
There are roughly three stages in extra-personal development. 1. The Selfish : You tell people what they want to hear. 2. The Truthsayer : You tell people what they need to hear. 3. The Altruistic : You tell people what they need to hear when they are ready. I am assuming John cares about Jack. If he still ignores Jack, then John is part of the Selfish. He is misled by just short-term benefits. The Selfish and the Altruistic appear to do the same thing initially: not say anything nor interrupting during Overwatch. But they end differently. The Selfish ends his thought with just that moment. The Altruistic waits with intent to strike. This is not a dichotomy between people who lie and are egotistical VERSUS people who are always honest. There is a third group of people who are both caring and more prudent with their tools. They are the Altruistic, those who wait to tell people exactly what they need to hear. And the Altruistic ultimately change people and society, because they understand people and society better. They know how persuasion works. Truthsayers don't. In fairness, truthsayers die a lonely death, without having made meaningful change. Their audience was only themselves.
- Evgeny 10y ago
  There are roughly three stages in extra-personal development. I'm interested to learn some more. Is it your personal classification or do you base it on some research, literature etc.? Could you recommend something to read on a subject of extra-personal development?
  - avindroth 10y ago
    This is my personal classification. If I had to trace my thoughts, I would point to Lord Chesterfield, Neil Strauss, and Dale Carnegie, in that order. Also lots of efforts to change people's (read: friends) behavioral patterns. I think, especially for psychology, most valuable insights come from experience, not books. Read the books, and apply the principles.

rz2k 10y ago

There may be extremes, but if you generalize that example it's exhausting. Making a bad decision in one area does not mean that Jack's stupider than Steve and won't know exactly what he's trying to do. Furthermore, is Steve actually listening? I ask because a lot of what people are doing here, if it's innovative, is regularly met with skepticism. Understanding naysayers' concerns, and learning a ready answer if they ultimately don't seem valid can be a good use of time. Giving a whole lot of air time to someone who has a foregone conclusion that they think merits some transparent rhetorical game is not.

avindroth 10y ago
Making a bad decision in one area does not mean that Jack's stupider than Steve and won't know exactly what he's trying to do I never implied anything about stupidity. My claim is this sort of behavior is not conducive to change. Furthermore, is Steve actually listening? Of course he is. You are missing the point. Or you just haven't met that many people like Steve. Understanding naysayers' concerns, and learning a ready answer if they ultimately don't seem valid can be a good use of time. Absolutely. You should hold that standard for yourself. But just because you hold that standard for yourself doesn't mean the world all of a sudden is open to criticism. Have a vision for what the ideal world is, but do not be deluded when modeling the state of the real world. If you think this is just transparent rhetoric game, you seriously misunderstand the general population of human beings. And most likely, yourself. If you have a brain that remotely resembles mine, then you have emotions, biases - structural flaws in our brain. Understand those first. Reading LessWrong will help.

st3v3r 10y ago

Except in your example, John isn't being honest. He's being an asshole. Far too many people conflate the two.

avindroth 10y ago
He is being completely honest. Which is what the article espoused. The article also said do not hide your emotions. John is mad about the fact that his friend is wasting his life. I displayed that. If you are defining honest as some midpoint between a white lie and an asshole, then what is being honest? Not being completely honest, but just somewhat honest? Then your "honest" is a healthy mix of white lie and complete honesty. That's Steve.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. John is not being honest. He's being an asshole. Being "completely honest" and "not hiding your emotions" does not equal being an asshole. There are many, many ways to express both those things without acting like John. Seriously, I am completely sick and tired of this idea people have of excusing their assholery by claiming they're being "honest", and that showing even the most modicum of common decency, common sense, and empathy is somehow "hiding their emotions" and being dishonest. It's not.
  - avindroth 10y ago
    I completely empathize with your statement. I am also sick and tired of people excusing their assholery with notion of "being completely honest". It's quite ridiculous. Part of me wants to say that then maybe we should teach honesty differently. Instead of putting the virtue on a pedestal, we should use it as a tool when it is most fit. If a white lie will engender a win-win relationship, use that. Ultimately what we want is betterment of the other person and myself, and honesty is not always the answer.
- hosh 10y ago
  John is not being completely honest. As I mentioned elsewhere, John is not honest with himself, being unaware of where the roots of this irritation is.

CPLX 10y ago

Oddly, in this example and the several follow ups, nobody has espoused the view that it's almost invariably a complete waste of time to try to get someone else that's not you to quit doing something they enjoy that doesn't affect you.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
avindroth 10y ago
John comes by and says, "Jack, you shouldn't play Overwatch. You are wasting your time and energy." Jack responds, "I know, but just this one match."
- CPLX 10y ago
  Yeah exactly. Why don't both John and Steve both just worry about his own problems instead of trying to refine and optimize this needless intervention?
  - avindroth 10y ago
    Jack responds, "I know... Jack knows it's bad for him. Let me ask, What do you live for? Why are you continuing your life on this planet? What will make you not regret on your deathbed? For me, life is a festival. I am here to enjoy all the attractions. The scrumptious food, the unforgettable experiences, and the thrilling rides. But nowadays I am realizing that a big part/joy of the festival is bringing other people to the festival, and showing them around. To enjoy, together. To eat, together. To experience, together. That is why I worry about other people's problems. That is why Steve cares about John and is "intervening". Steve wants to bring John to the festival. And John wants to come, but he just needs a little help. Steve is there for him.
    - CPLX 10y ago
      Good luck with that. Speaking only for myself, but finally teaching myself how to avoid that kind of messianic thinking has been a considerable benefit to me in my old age.

dasil003 10y ago

This example is pretty heavy—I mean if you're talking about breaking someone of an addiction that is something far beyond the scope of how best to modulate ones behavior in the world. But it points to the real complexity of relationships. Someone that always offers a harsh unvarnished and negative opinion on things usually gets a reputation as a jerk. Someone who is always trying to please everyone gets a reputation as a spineless brown-noser. In the real world, how you say something is often even more important than exactly what you say. If you are charming you can convince more people of more things, and political capital is a real thing that matters all the way down to individual relationships—you have to pick your battles. Throw in culture, sexism, racism, moods, and innumerable other contexts and things become very subtle. That's what bothers me about these pop science articles: nothing is that simple. Maybe an article like this triggers you to evaluate yourself and say "hey, I do try to please others too much", but then again maybe you need the opposite advice. The bottom line is you have to gauge for yourself how your behavior is affecting relationships and whether you are getting what you want out of life.

avindroth 10y ago
Absolutely agreed. If you are at zero, and fifty is recommended, then having someone argue at one-hundred might be worthwhile. But just because you were persuaded by one-hundred (be honest all the time) doesn't mean it's the best method for everyone. What we need is an accurate model of fifty, and personalized solutions for those at zero or one-hundred. Skip the first step, you have no structure to hold you.

hinkley 10y ago

> "Jack, I am really fucking frustrated you are still playing that shitty game." That is not being authentic, and that's the problem. In our heads we know what we want, but we ask for something else. Why do you want your friend to get off the computer. To be off the computer? No. You miss your friend and you want him to hang out with you. You are worried that he is missing out on life by living in the game and you're both going to pay for it later. Just ask, man.

tremon 10y ago
Moreover, by phrasing it like that ("I'm getting frustrated"), you are imposing your demands on your friend without even informing about their state of mind. Not acknowledging them is not the way to keep friends close.
- hinkley 10y ago
  Yes, and what's worse is that the reason you're upset is not even that you miss your friend, but fear that your friend has decided that a game is more important than you are, and so you are demanding that he prove that he isn't rejecting you by making a gesture.
rukuu001 10y ago
You're right, but authenticity takes more work than that. > In our heads we know what we want, but we ask for something else I think we know when we're frustrated or angry, but they're reactions to other emotions like fear and confusion. That's hard to realise in the middle of frustration/anger. And hard to articulate when you're talking to your buddy about his gaming habits.

matwood 10y ago

You can be honest without being an asshole. This is related to people who win arguments as assholes. Sure they won, but they pissed everyone off so what does it matter? Then they go hide behind "I'm just being honest." No, that's being an asshole. There is saying, "you can shear a sheep over and over, but you can only skin it once." Learn to shear.

mizzao 10y ago
There was some wisdom written about this, almost 2000 years ago: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 : "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing." To paraphrase: truth without love (e.g. being an asshole) is just ineffective noise. (Conversely, love without truth is not love at all.)
Retra 10y ago
>You can be honest without being an asshole. Not always. It depends on the culture. Some people will think you're an asshole just for disagreeing with them. Some people will think you're an asshole because you smile crooked. Some people will think you're an asshole because you aren't speaking their language and using their terminology. Maybe I think you're an asshole just for suggesting this.

brazzledazzle 10y ago

There's a difference between being honest and always saying what you think. You should be honest in your interactions but that doesn't mean you should tell everyone everything. You can be honest while being tactful. I think there's a line between being tactful and being manipulative and it may be different for everyone. For example you seem to think that Steve is telling a "white lie by omission" but I don't. Unless Steve was dishonest if questioned about his motivation or Steve was trying to pretend to be into the game rather being interested in Jack and his interests I wouldn't consider that being dishonest.

avindroth 10y ago
Most people live a fine life utilizing both honesty and white lie. Any normal parent won't look at their daughter in an ugly dress and yell, "That's ugly." Then you just lack social awareness. Here is the problem though. Much like the juxtaposition of equality and liberty, our beliefs about honesty and our intuition about honesty belie each other. (This might not make much sense but bear with me here.) If we believe that "Being honest always" is good (and that is what the article espouses), then we have already created a huge contradiction within ourselves. By holding that belief, you feel slightly righteous, but not quite so accurate. Because you can't always be honest. By holding that belief, you are always selling yourself short. But if you believe "I will use honesty and white lie to the best of my ability to do the most good for the other person", then you have an accurate (and also quite beautiful) map of the world. Hope that answers your point.

kross 10y ago

There are some other foundational things needed for living a full life (which I infer is the author's point). > "Jack, you shouldn't play Overwatch..." This is judgement, which implies ego. The indicator here is "shouldn't". Ego isn't an authentic representation of self, it is fiction. If we can become aware of ego and avoid following it's incessant needs, we are closer to ego-lessness which can contribute significantly to happiness. So in the end, being authentic and transparent without ego, the original statement may be something like: > "Jack, I don't like to play overwatch, I would rather (do x,y,z)" Great book for anyone seeking - Eckhardt Tolle - "A new earth" - be warned, skip chapter 1!

r00fus 10y ago
The key word is "should" aka "shoulding yourself/someone else" aka "musterbation" [1]. When you detect this from yourself or others, you are best advised to steer the wording/conversation so it's factual and not a guilt-trip. If you cannot, you will find yourself in a very frustrating place. http://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/should.htm http://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/should.htm
avindroth 10y ago
Great point. There must be another level of authenticity and transparency I missed. Thanks for the book recommendation! I loved The Power of Now.

astazangasta 10y ago

You're conflating "being honest" with "being a dick", here. John may experience anger at Jack's behavior, and he may express it in a way that doesn't have to damage his relationship with Jack or hurt Jack's feelings. A good book on this subject is "Difficult Conversations", a favorite of my wife's, which describes strategies for doing exactly this: being honest about your feelings without ruining someone else's day as a result. Being honest does not mean you cannot exercise tact and discretion in the way you talk to people.

pipio21 10y ago

"John comes back a week later and says, "Jack, I am really fucking frustrated you are still playing that shitty game. I want you to quit right this fucking moment."" That is exactly what some people do in real life professionally in phycology, without the strong words(that denote lack of control). It works really well. In order to illustrate this think on "Kitcken nightmares" tv program, or something like "Hermano mayor" on Spanish TV. I use to do the same thing with friends and people that demand my help. Loner? Quite the contrary, help someone get out of a hole and he-she will be your friend forever. I have taken people out of drugs, or gangs,prostitution this people will give their life for me. There are few things as rewarding in life(it is also a pain in the ass while you do follow the process but it is worth it). Of course you need education in order to do that. You don't need to say you are "fucking frustrated", in fact if you are frustrated you can't help anyone. There are masters at this, like in anything,and if you do that you will learn with every person you help. After some people you see patterns and being effective becomes easier.

morgante 10y ago
> That is exactly what some people do in real life professionally in phycology, I didn't know that algae responded so well to honesty. Assuming that you meant psychology, there's a huge difference between hearing something from a professional psychologist and from a friend. It's a whole different relationship, with different words. If a friend treated me like a patient, they'd stop being a friend.

hosh 10y ago

In your contrived example, it's missing some things. For John to be authentic, then he would need to first suss out why he feels so bothered by seeing John being addicted to playing Overwatch. Meaning, there is something that John is unaware of his own psyche that lead to feeling irritated by Jack's addiction. Being unaware of that means he might be _seen_ as transparent or authentic or honest -- you certainly did -- but he's not actually in integrity. Also, what you described with Steve is called rapport in NLP, or ethos in rhetorics. It's not people-pleasing, so much as matching impedance and getting inside someone else's space. People-pleasers tend to be too self-absorbed to be able to fully enter someone else's mindspace and establish rapport. Unless that person is on the psychopathy spectrum.

avindroth 10y ago
First off, rapport isn't just from neuro-linguistic programming. (Funny you mention it, I was just reading an NLP book couple days ago.) And also to the HN crowd, you should specify NLP; most will think Natural Language Processing and be confused. I agree with you on all of your points. With a feeling, you should figure out what caused it, and then figure out what caused that, and then recurse backwards until you actually get to the issue. Jerry Talley who taught intimacy at Stanford some time ago has a great lecture on this. Where we disagree (but not actually, because it's so trivial), is labelling. If you define people-pleasers as those who cannot create rapport because they are self-absorbed, I couldn't agree with you more. But part of me rejects that definition because then those people-pleasers aren't actually pleasing people. Unless we are strictly going off the negative connotation of the word (which makes sense), the labelling behind this concept can only become confusing. Great points, nevertheless. Couldn't have said it better myself.
- Evgeny 10y ago
  Jerry Talley who taught intimacy at Stanford some time ago has a great lecture on this Do you know if it is available online?
  - avindroth 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

> Then Jack opens up to Steve, which, in due time, can allow Steve to change Jack's mind. That's some pretty impressive hand-waving. The more likely outcome is that Jack keeps playing his game and Steve just wasted a bunch of time trying and failing to manipulate his "friend".

avindroth 10y ago
Sorry to get all experiential on you, but that statement is only empathisable with experience. I can go further in detail, but it really won't help you "get" it. I suppose one way you can have that experience is practice actively trying to change people's behaviors. It's absolutely fascinating.

KajMagnus 10y ago

I think you interpreted the article in a way that was not intended. I don't think the author want people to be totally honest always, like, "Hi dear colleague. I think your dog is stupid. And, by the way, you are, too." Instead, I imagine that fairly many people tend to, when their friends say "Do you want to hang out with us doing this?", they answer "yes" just to please their friends. Although in fact they might have wanted to suggest something else instead. And in these cases, the advice in the article can sometimes? often? be useful. I.e. to be more transparent and honest with your friends about what makes you happy. If you interpret a piece of advice with the mindset that "perhaps this is good advice in some situations, when might that be?", then it can be helpful and useful to you (or to other people — to me, when I was younger, for example). But if you interpret it like "always do this", then a piece of advice that is actually good in some situations, has been lost. (I suppose the article can be rewritten / reworded, to make it easier to interpret it in a "good and useful" way.)

Asooka 10y ago

You know, this is going on a tangent, but I'd like to interject for a moment here. If you're in a similar situation, i.e. have someone who is showing signs of addiction and skips doing important stuff, DO NOT approach by attacking the thing they're addicted to. If you do, you're invoking tribal instincts and placing yourself in the enemy tribe. You're placing yourself as an adversary to whatever it is that the other person enjoys, which is a surefire way to have them oppose you out of nothing more than trying to preserve their identity and quality of life. Instead, try to get them to see the positives of doing what you ask for. Show the other person that you accept their hobby. If it's pure addiction or escapism, i.e. a way to deal with emotional or psychological problems, try to attack the root cause.