2 ms·

Based on how it reads, your counterexample might sound significantly harsher, especially with the closing sentence. The original example establishes shared con

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. :)

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. :)