You can make the case that the second guy was dishonest because he wasn't telling me how bad I was at playing that one note in that one way. The he was doing me

You can make the case that the second guy was dishonest because he wasn't telling me how bad I was at playing that one note in that one way. The he was doing me a disservice by shielding me from the harsh reality of how rough the music world can be on young performers. That if you suck that badly at that one note in that one way, there are probably tons of other things that you don't even know about that you also suck at. There is a lot of truth in what the first guy was saying in the sense that this is how a lot of the music world works. And there was honesty in treating me that way because that's how people get treated. Even little kids. Some people will argue that this is important for people to understand right from the beginning. And that shielding people from that is dishonest. All of these things are true, to a certain extent. And all of them are things that need to be talked about. I've struggled with this as a teacher with my own students. People in teacher roles do need to talk about hard truths. Pretending that every student is going to be amazing and going to have a great career is a lie. For better or worse, I've decided that context matters, and I don't bring big picture truth into lessons that are focused on execution. I set up regular sessions with my students that are totally separate from an actual lesson about the violin or even music. We just sit down and talk for a while about what the student wants and expects, what it's like to work in the field professionally, and what the expectations are going to be from other people. I don't know for a fact that this is superior to the hard-ass jerk approach, but it's the approach that I think is the right mix of honesty and kindness and productivity. You can't only take the second approach and focus on what is or isn't working with someone and completely shield them from the reality of the world. That's being dishonest about the world. But what you can do is separate the issues and deal with them straightforwardly. You don't want to hammer a kid with, "HOW THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO COMPETE IN THIS WORLD WHEN YOU PLAY LIKE THAT!" while they are actually trying to play something. That's unproductive garbage. But not having a serious conversation about their expectations vs. the reality of the business and the life is also dishonest. I operate the same way when I'm managing/mentoring people in technology. There is absolutely a time, place, and sometimes a need for tough criticism and hard talks about the way the world works re: their current capabilities. But that time isn't when we are trying to get a release out the door and their code doesn't work. Because, frankly, if someone is so bad that it's affecting release deadlines, that's on me as a manager. I'm the person who should be getting yelled at. And if I'm communicating effectively with my team and having the right kinds of 1:1s, these conversations happen naturally as a part of the progression plan for each person on the team. The 1:1 is actually one thing I've taken from my technology experience back into my music world. It's a great idea if it's done well. Anyway, long story short, it's possible to lie by omitting information. And people can and do argue that not being a complete dickhead is a lie of omission. Like almost all of this conversation, I think it's mostly a grey area. But also like almost all of this conversation, reasonable people can disagree. The radically honest school of thought has produced some amazing technology, technologists, and musicians. I'm just not convinced it's worth the price, and that there might be a better way. But my argument is humanist, anecdotal, and weak. All the data we have suggests that the "Be a total prick" method of teaching and management produces the best results. I just happen to think that life is long enough to try something different and see if it works.