6 ms·

I dunno that I would rush to call it a virtue. It's def a valuable skill to have so you can defend yourself and others against bullies. But it also empowers YOU

I dunno that I would rush to call it a virtue. It's def a valuable skill to have so you can defend yourself and others against bullies. But it also empowers YOU to be a bully or blowhard, so it's a double edged sword. Yes, assertiveness is a virtue in the hands of a mature, responsible, and benevolent person - but it's a disaster in the hands of an immature, uncivilized, or unscrupulous one. Martial arts come to mind

SavantIdiot 5y ago
You are confusing assertiveness with aggression. Being assertive is a reaction to a stimulus (asserting a boundary), not the stimulus itself (pushing the boundary). The latter case, which is what you describe, is aggressive. There are two other interaction types: passive, and passive-aggressive. Only one of the four is healthy (generally).
- wly_cdgr 5y ago
  Hmmmm, if you say so
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lolsal 5y ago
    Read the article, there are paragraphs that explain why it's called a virtue.
    - Dumblydorr 5y ago
      Oxford defines virtue as "behavior showing high moral standards." I think assertiveness only conditionally falls into this category. First, as noted above, assertion to one can be aggression to another, thus questionable high moral standards. However, if both parties agree it's not aggressive, then is it indeed morally good to be assertive? To me, morally good is a higher bar than simply being non-aggressive. I think if virtue is defined on moral grounds, assertiveness is not consistently enough placed into that category.
      - SavantIdiot 5y ago
        > , assertion to one can be aggression to another, Not if you understand what the two words mean. "assertiveness" - the quality of expressing opinions or desires in a strong and confident way, so that people take notice "aggression" - feelings of anger and hate that may result in threatening or violent behaviour. Edit: removed 92% of snark.
        Dumblydorr 5y ago
        The problem is those aren't mutually exclusive and it all comes down to personal perception. An asshole thinks he is just being strong and confident, NBD! Even a kind assertive person can become aggressive after amygdala hijack during an opinionated debate. Like myself once stupidly arguing Pavarotti is a superior singer to McCartney, lol I cringe now at how impassioned and rude I became. Others may perceive this "assertive" behavior as angry or threatening. So, even with those definitions, Jobs for instance would be considered both assertive and aggressive. So, labeling assertiveness as good or bad morally: IMO, it's conditional.
        edmundsauto 5y ago
        I feel this may be an issue of semantics. To my understanding, in the NVC literature, once you start being aggressive, you are no longer being assertive - you are being aggressive. IE, they are not overlapping subsets. This is conceptually similar to the idea of addiction. Physical dependency is one component, but the definition I'm most familiar with is that it becomes an addition (instead of use/misuse) once it has a significant negative impact on your life. YMMV, but wanted to see if I could jump in to help clear up. It's not a comment on your definition, btw - just the context of the discussion.
        Zircom 5y ago
        I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. For example, one can express their hatred of a ethnic minority group in a strong and confident way such that people take notice, which by your definitions could qualify as assertive and aggressive.
- frontiersummit 5y ago
  I've always maintained that Assertive = Aggressive + On my Team You are assertive if the community around you thinks you are justified in asking for your way, and aggressive if they feel you are unjustified. We perceive our allies as assertive and our opponents as aggressive. The GP is correct that "assertiveness" training gives someone tools which are equally useful in defending against a bully as they are in bullying. It's really just rudimentary influence training in the vein of Carnegie or Cialdini, and people can be influenced for ill just as they can be influenced for good.
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    You can invent whatever definition you like, but no one will understand you. There have been a number of replies to my comment complaining that assertive is the same aggressive, but they are wrong by definition. Aggression is based on hate and anger, and assertiveness is effectively being self-confident. That's literally the definition, and you don't like it. I have no idea why without mind-reading. If someone says they are acting assertive but are being aggressive, then guess what: that person is being aggressive. You don't redefine assertive. I'm amazed at how many people want to redefine assertiveness. I have no idea why. It's like saying "up" is "down". It is literally nonsensical. Why does it threaten them so much? It is causing them to act in a totally non assertive, passive-aggressive why by whining about definitions. Perhaps some people have such low self-esteem they can't handle it when they encounter someone with confidence and point their fingers shouting "aggression!!!!"
Kluny 5y ago
It's a virtue because it maintains balance between the two extremes of passiveness and aggressiveness. If you're being bully and a blowhard, then you're clearly being aggressive, not assertive.
dkarl 5y ago
As with other words like "frankness" and "ambition," some people use it to mean the right amount, applied appropriately, and other people use it to mean too much, abused. I agree with what you say about the dangers of assertiveness, but I think the picture also has to include the problems caused by lack of assertiveness. People who lack assertiveness often think it's only their problem, but it creates problems for the people around them, too. Their boss has to worry that they'll end up working on the wrong things and that the problems they discover won't get the proper attention. Their friends and family have to put in special effort to figure out how they really feel about things, and they have to partially mute their own personalities to avoid steamrolling them. There is an ideal amount of assertiveness in every situation, often difficult to get exactly right, which is why it can be seen as a virtue.
jimbokun 5y ago
Interestingly, the author uses the Aristotelian sense of virtue as moderation between extremes. > So, tact is a virtue, which we find on a spectrum between the vices of dishonesty and brutal honesty. Courage lies between recklessness and cowardice. Friendliness lies between surliness and obsequiousness. But unless I missed it, she fails to name the vices between which assertiveness lies.
- Tagbert 5y ago
  Between Aggression — Passivity ?
  - errantmind 5y ago
    Those are too broad to be the extremes of assertiveness. It would be something like 'Rigid / inflexible refusal to accommodate' and 'Total Accomodation irrespective of impact to personal objectives'. Yea, we need a single word for both of those for it to be more virtue-like
    - z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
      Soooo aggression vs passivity....
wly_cdgr 5y ago
My most upvoted comment is some bullshit I said off of two coffees and no breakfast without even reading the article first. Hell I hadn't even clicked the link. Rep count on this site is worthless lol

SavantIdiot 5y ago

You are confusing assertiveness with aggression. Being assertive is a reaction to a stimulus (asserting a boundary), not the stimulus itself (pushing the boundary). The latter case, which is what you describe, is aggressive. There are two other interaction types: passive, and passive-aggressive. Only one of the four is healthy (generally).

wly_cdgr 5y ago
Hmmmm, if you say so
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lolsal 5y ago
  Read the article, there are paragraphs that explain why it's called a virtue.
  - Dumblydorr 5y ago
    Oxford defines virtue as "behavior showing high moral standards." I think assertiveness only conditionally falls into this category. First, as noted above, assertion to one can be aggression to another, thus questionable high moral standards. However, if both parties agree it's not aggressive, then is it indeed morally good to be assertive? To me, morally good is a higher bar than simply being non-aggressive. I think if virtue is defined on moral grounds, assertiveness is not consistently enough placed into that category.
    - SavantIdiot 5y ago
      > , assertion to one can be aggression to another, Not if you understand what the two words mean. "assertiveness" - the quality of expressing opinions or desires in a strong and confident way, so that people take notice "aggression" - feelings of anger and hate that may result in threatening or violent behaviour. Edit: removed 92% of snark.
      - Dumblydorr 5y ago
        The problem is those aren't mutually exclusive and it all comes down to personal perception. An asshole thinks he is just being strong and confident, NBD! Even a kind assertive person can become aggressive after amygdala hijack during an opinionated debate. Like myself once stupidly arguing Pavarotti is a superior singer to McCartney, lol I cringe now at how impassioned and rude I became. Others may perceive this "assertive" behavior as angry or threatening. So, even with those definitions, Jobs for instance would be considered both assertive and aggressive. So, labeling assertiveness as good or bad morally: IMO, it's conditional.
        edmundsauto 5y ago
        I feel this may be an issue of semantics. To my understanding, in the NVC literature, once you start being aggressive, you are no longer being assertive - you are being aggressive. IE, they are not overlapping subsets. This is conceptually similar to the idea of addiction. Physical dependency is one component, but the definition I'm most familiar with is that it becomes an addition (instead of use/misuse) once it has a significant negative impact on your life. YMMV, but wanted to see if I could jump in to help clear up. It's not a comment on your definition, btw - just the context of the discussion.
      - Zircom 5y ago
        I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. For example, one can express their hatred of a ethnic minority group in a strong and confident way such that people take notice, which by your definitions could qualify as assertive and aggressive.
frontiersummit 5y ago
I've always maintained that Assertive = Aggressive + On my Team You are assertive if the community around you thinks you are justified in asking for your way, and aggressive if they feel you are unjustified. We perceive our allies as assertive and our opponents as aggressive. The GP is correct that "assertiveness" training gives someone tools which are equally useful in defending against a bully as they are in bullying. It's really just rudimentary influence training in the vein of Carnegie or Cialdini, and people can be influenced for ill just as they can be influenced for good.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  You can invent whatever definition you like, but no one will understand you. There have been a number of replies to my comment complaining that assertive is the same aggressive, but they are wrong by definition. Aggression is based on hate and anger, and assertiveness is effectively being self-confident. That's literally the definition, and you don't like it. I have no idea why without mind-reading. If someone says they are acting assertive but are being aggressive, then guess what: that person is being aggressive. You don't redefine assertive. I'm amazed at how many people want to redefine assertiveness. I have no idea why. It's like saying "up" is "down". It is literally nonsensical. Why does it threaten them so much? It is causing them to act in a totally non assertive, passive-aggressive why by whining about definitions. Perhaps some people have such low self-esteem they can't handle it when they encounter someone with confidence and point their fingers shouting "aggression!!!!"

Kluny 5y ago

It's a virtue because it maintains balance between the two extremes of passiveness and aggressiveness. If you're being bully and a blowhard, then you're clearly being aggressive, not assertive.

dkarl 5y ago

As with other words like "frankness" and "ambition," some people use it to mean the right amount, applied appropriately, and other people use it to mean too much, abused. I agree with what you say about the dangers of assertiveness, but I think the picture also has to include the problems caused by lack of assertiveness. People who lack assertiveness often think it's only their problem, but it creates problems for the people around them, too. Their boss has to worry that they'll end up working on the wrong things and that the problems they discover won't get the proper attention. Their friends and family have to put in special effort to figure out how they really feel about things, and they have to partially mute their own personalities to avoid steamrolling them. There is an ideal amount of assertiveness in every situation, often difficult to get exactly right, which is why it can be seen as a virtue.

jimbokun 5y ago

Interestingly, the author uses the Aristotelian sense of virtue as moderation between extremes. > So, tact is a virtue, which we find on a spectrum between the vices of dishonesty and brutal honesty. Courage lies between recklessness and cowardice. Friendliness lies between surliness and obsequiousness. But unless I missed it, she fails to name the vices between which assertiveness lies.

Tagbert 5y ago
Between Aggression — Passivity ?
- errantmind 5y ago
  Those are too broad to be the extremes of assertiveness. It would be something like 'Rigid / inflexible refusal to accommodate' and 'Total Accomodation irrespective of impact to personal objectives'. Yea, we need a single word for both of those for it to be more virtue-like
  - z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
    Soooo aggression vs passivity....

wly_cdgr 5y ago

My most upvoted comment is some bullshit I said off of two coffees and no breakfast without even reading the article first. Hell I hadn't even clicked the link. Rep count on this site is worthless lol