4 ms·

Wow, this is bad advice for any time you're in a hierarchical relationship. Try this with your boss - I'm not going to do the thing that you asked me to do. -

Wow, this is bad advice for any time you're in a hierarchical relationship. Try this with your boss - I'm not going to do the thing that you asked me to do. - Why? - I don't explain my decisions as a matter of principle! - You're fired. Similarly if you take this tack with your children or employees you give up any hope of teaching them reasoning abilities or giving them wider context they need to not ask you for things you can't give in future. Ultimately they are likely to come to the conclusion that you are a petty tyrant whose decisions are arbitrary and simply bypass and/or despise you. Sure, you don't owe the telemarketer an explanation, and you may not owe your relative, but there's a huge class of relationships where not giving explanations is just damaging to you and the people around you.

gigglesupstairs 5y ago
Right? I can see taking a conversation forward and saying no at a juncture where you see the purpose of it failing but to say no right in the beginning is just blunt and can come of rude depending upon the relationship person has with the other. The other person should walk away with some perspectives behind your (calculated) No not the bad feeling surrounding the blunt No. This doesn’t mean that you have to give him something you don’t or shouldn’t. But there is always pragmatism possible in most scenarios to keep the future conversations open and civil.
anthonygd 5y ago
It felt overly authoritarian to me as well, but I think that's part of the point. In all the examples the author did have the authority to say no. In any sort of leadership position you should absolutely take advice and talk to people, but as soon as a decision is made you have to stop talking about it and just communicate the decision. It's more frustrating for people to think a decision is up for discussion when in reality it's not.
burnished 5y ago
Do you really think that that is what TFA is about, at all? Cause its fucking great advice for dealing with your boss. Getting called in on your day off? Don't want to come in? Don't explain, simply decline. Need to take a day off? Notify them, don't explain or justify past the bare minimum. Explaining when you don't need to is not a great idea. Thats the big idea. Not, "never explain yourself", which is assinine, and obviously much easier for you to rail against.

gigglesupstairs 5y ago

Right? I can see taking a conversation forward and saying no at a juncture where you see the purpose of it failing but to say no right in the beginning is just blunt and can come of rude depending upon the relationship person has with the other. The other person should walk away with some perspectives behind your (calculated) No not the bad feeling surrounding the blunt No. This doesn’t mean that you have to give him something you don’t or shouldn’t. But there is always pragmatism possible in most scenarios to keep the future conversations open and civil.

anthonygd 5y ago

It felt overly authoritarian to me as well, but I think that's part of the point. In all the examples the author did have the authority to say no. In any sort of leadership position you should absolutely take advice and talk to people, but as soon as a decision is made you have to stop talking about it and just communicate the decision. It's more frustrating for people to think a decision is up for discussion when in reality it's not.

burnished 5y ago

Do you really think that that is what TFA is about, at all? Cause its fucking great advice for dealing with your boss. Getting called in on your day off? Don't want to come in? Don't explain, simply decline. Need to take a day off? Notify them, don't explain or justify past the bare minimum. Explaining when you don't need to is not a great idea. Thats the big idea. Not, "never explain yourself", which is assinine, and obviously much easier for you to rail against.