3 ms·
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
by 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 agoAbsolutely 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.