3 ms·

> Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour. Caring more about being perceived as ri

> Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour. Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it.

joshuamorton 6y ago
This is entirely contextual. It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery. Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away.
- sellyme 6y ago
  > It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole. I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.
nostrademons 6y ago
These are all examples where one party in the interaction has come away from it saying "What a jerk!" I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same.
danielheath 6y ago
In the extreme, it totally is. It's important to be right about the important things; it's nice to be right about irrelevant details too, but it's not nearly as important as maintaining a strong network of collaborators.
- sellyme 6y ago
  Maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky in who I associate with, but no-one I would consider a potential "collaborator" (either in professional or personal life) would ever demand I be incorrect about something to suit their ideals. I've been trying to come up with examples where that might happen and the best one I can think of is someone's young child asked you if Santa was real, but even then I'm about 50/50 on whether anyone in my social circles would care. I know at least a few who'd be pretty disgusted if I didn't tell the truth in that situation. Now I recognise that this almost certainly is not representative of the general populace, but this is also one specific example (and the most egregious one I could come up with), whereas there's entire history courses written on the catastrophes that occur when people choose diplomacy over the right thing.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Well, that's kinda the thing. If something was in one of those history courses, then they were important enough that it mattered. Playing into the Santa Claus lie with your friend's kid is absolutely inconsequential to you, but it could mean a lot to that kid (and to the parents) to keep that lie alive a bit longer. (And if telling the truth to that kid, against what the parents would wish, is that important to you, I'd suggest you re-examine your priorities.) Context matters! Sometimes being right is essential to making some important thing work out. But hey, sometimes being diplomatic (and allowing the other person to be wrong) also can be essential to make some important thing work out. The big thing is knowing the difference and acting appropriately, which is sometimes hard to do in the moment. But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. If the parents really don't care, sure, go nuts... though if they didn't care, I'd expect the kid to already know the truth anyway.

joshuamorton 6y ago

This is entirely contextual. It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery. Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away.

sellyme 6y ago
> It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole. I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.

nostrademons 6y ago

These are all examples where one party in the interaction has come away from it saying "What a jerk!" I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same.

danielheath 6y ago

In the extreme, it totally is. It's important to be right about the important things; it's nice to be right about irrelevant details too, but it's not nearly as important as maintaining a strong network of collaborators.

sellyme 6y ago
Maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky in who I associate with, but no-one I would consider a potential "collaborator" (either in professional or personal life) would ever demand I be incorrect about something to suit their ideals. I've been trying to come up with examples where that might happen and the best one I can think of is someone's young child asked you if Santa was real, but even then I'm about 50/50 on whether anyone in my social circles would care. I know at least a few who'd be pretty disgusted if I didn't tell the truth in that situation. Now I recognise that this almost certainly is not representative of the general populace, but this is also one specific example (and the most egregious one I could come up with), whereas there's entire history courses written on the catastrophes that occur when people choose diplomacy over the right thing.
- kelnos 6y ago
  Well, that's kinda the thing. If something was in one of those history courses, then they were important enough that it mattered. Playing into the Santa Claus lie with your friend's kid is absolutely inconsequential to you, but it could mean a lot to that kid (and to the parents) to keep that lie alive a bit longer. (And if telling the truth to that kid, against what the parents would wish, is that important to you, I'd suggest you re-examine your priorities.) Context matters! Sometimes being right is essential to making some important thing work out. But hey, sometimes being diplomatic (and allowing the other person to be wrong) also can be essential to make some important thing work out. The big thing is knowing the difference and acting appropriately, which is sometimes hard to do in the moment. But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. If the parents really don't care, sure, go nuts... though if they didn't care, I'd expect the kid to already know the truth anyway.