3 ms·

> Perhaps she’d say: ‘Let me get back to you tomorrow about that,’ or: ‘Ask me again in a week.’ I think that example isn't strong enough to register as assert

> Perhaps she’d say: ‘Let me get back to you tomorrow about that,’ or: ‘Ask me again in a week.’ I think that example isn't strong enough to register as assertiveness. Assertiveness looks something like this: Someone asked me once if I'd be interested in being the musical director at a church. My response was something like: "I have zero interest in doing that. You know, before Phyllis died she'd seen me politely brushing off an offer to 'fill in' for the organist for an unspecified number of Sundays, for an unspecified amount of money. Phyllis pulled me aside after that and said, 'Don't you ever take a position with a church. The politics are vicious. They will eat you alive.' It was hilarious at the time but she was absolutely serious and I've taken it to heart." That typically works because most people in life have been tasked by either circumstances or other people to suggest a course of action or sell you on something. Your assertion actually gives them some relief because they can stop selling. In this case, we immediately switched to gossiping about vicious church politics for the next few minutes. The difficult thing is to do something like that for the first time. It may feel a bit like jumping out of the plane when skydiving because you have no frame of reference for what will happen next. The key is to reflect ahead of time on a few key preferences you have-- when the time comes, just barrel through and force yourself to make a decision based on that preference. Once done, notice in the aftermath and days after that nothing bad actually happened. It's revelatory-- future moments of low willpower feel like momentary slip ups (or perhaps just reasonable compromises) rather than a complete lack of agency. Edit: clarification

pseudalopex 5y ago
Your response was sharp for no reason if they weren't responsible for the situation. And too indirect if they were. "Thanks. But I'm not interested. Someone warned me the politics are vicious. Please don't ask again."
- strogonoff 5y ago
  Based on how it reads, your counterexample might sound significantly harsher, especially with the closing sentence. The original example establishes shared context, evokes empathy and ultimately brings the participants closer; yours in fact increases distance (pro tip: counter-intuitively, “thanks” and “please” very much work to that effect). From the strength of the original example, of course, comes its weakness: the context, reflection, time, initial degree of familiarity/rapport that it requires mean it can’t possibly help if dozens of [semi-]strangers approach you about the same thing every week. It also assumes that you want to firmly deny the offer, but remain willing to associate in some way with the person making it.
  - jancsika 5y ago
    > the context, reflection, time, initial degree of familiarity/rapport that it requires mean it can’t possibly help if dozens of [semi-]strangers approach you about the same thing every week. The main point is to follow through on actually asserting one's will. "Let me get back to you," doesn't achieve that. The epiphany of experiencing nothing much happening in response to a bona fide assertion reveals that you can use the same amount of (limited) willpower to have more interactions, and to have more options in those interactions. It is like unlocking new weapons that weren't previously available to you. Even for the Groundhog Day nightmare you mention of strangers approaching about the same thing every week, you have agency to deal with the situation. Without those advanced weapons, many people overestimate the cost of asserting will as necessarily leading to conflict, judgment, etc. It rarely does, or-- if it isn't rare then someone or some organization is probably abusing you and you're time and you should run to safety before your energy meter gets depleted. :)

pseudalopex 5y ago

Your response was sharp for no reason if they weren't responsible for the situation. And too indirect if they were. "Thanks. But I'm not interested. Someone warned me the politics are vicious. Please don't ask again."

strogonoff 5y ago
Based on how it reads, your counterexample might sound significantly harsher, especially with the closing sentence. The original example establishes shared context, evokes empathy and ultimately brings the participants closer; yours in fact increases distance (pro tip: counter-intuitively, “thanks” and “please” very much work to that effect). From the strength of the original example, of course, comes its weakness: the context, reflection, time, initial degree of familiarity/rapport that it requires mean it can’t possibly help if dozens of [semi-]strangers approach you about the same thing every week. It also assumes that you want to firmly deny the offer, but remain willing to associate in some way with the person making it.
- jancsika 5y ago
  > the context, reflection, time, initial degree of familiarity/rapport that it requires mean it can’t possibly help if dozens of [semi-]strangers approach you about the same thing every week. The main point is to follow through on actually asserting one's will. "Let me get back to you," doesn't achieve that. The epiphany of experiencing nothing much happening in response to a bona fide assertion reveals that you can use the same amount of (limited) willpower to have more interactions, and to have more options in those interactions. It is like unlocking new weapons that weren't previously available to you. Even for the Groundhog Day nightmare you mention of strangers approaching about the same thing every week, you have agency to deal with the situation. Without those advanced weapons, many people overestimate the cost of asserting will as necessarily leading to conflict, judgment, etc. It rarely does, or-- if it isn't rare then someone or some organization is probably abusing you and you're time and you should run to safety before your energy meter gets depleted. :)