4 ms·

> Many years later I heard an elderly man of whom I had a generally favorable opinion tell a child who had disagreed with him not to contradict his elders. I wa

by kccqzy 2y ago

> Many years later I heard an elderly man of whom I had a generally favorable opinion tell a child who had disagreed with him not to contradict his elders. I was shocked — the statement struck me as heresy, very nearly obscenity. If your elders are wrong, you have as much cause to contradict them as they would to contradict you if you were wrong. Personally I would split this into two aspects: the tone that the argument is expressed in, and the meat of the argument. People who tell you not to contradict with elders (which I take to mean not just older relatives but also just people in a more senior position) usually only care about the tone of your voice, and the fact that your tone displays respect towards elders. And this is usually good advice: you want to avoid hurting their ego, because they are in a position of power and they can inflict harm and misery on you. On the other hand, once you speak in a sufficiently respectful tone these people don't really mind changing their mind in an argument. They don't like to be confronted and be forced to change their mind; they just like to feel respected while changing their mind. It's an art to speak in a way that protects the fragile ego of the counterparty while still contradicting them.

EGreg 2y ago
This isnt true. Not in front of others Regardless of tone, leaders being corrected in front of others carries an undercurrent of antagonism, and can develop into outright hostility. This happens with leaders of animals and alphas as well. Challenging their assertions is a step away from challenging their leadership and authority, especially if you do so repeatedly. Leaders are often hard to get ahold of privately, because of how many people they deal with, and usually sycophants and well-connected supporters are prioritized for these meetings rather than someone who disagrees on substance The best you’re gonna get is if you’re a sponsor or a fellow leader who offers them to come on your show, or you come on theirs, and debate. No matter how respectful your tone is, you can’t challenge them unless they’ve agreed to debate: https://youtu.be/Mwe91SXEyaM?si=sI8dzC9YTQzAPbmu https://youtu.be/Mwe91SXEyaM?si=sI8dzC9YTQzAPbmu
- marcus_holmes 2y ago
  This is really cultural - I've worked in Anglophone organisations where leaders expect to be challenged on their assertions, and in Asia where this would be considered offensive (like taking a dump on your boss's desk) even in private.
- gravescale 2y ago
  From your first paragraph, i was sure the video was going to be: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R4226lBJ_qI https://youtube.com/watch?v=R4226lBJ_qI
  - EGreg 2y ago
    That's a great one too haha
HPsquared 2y ago
"Esteem" and appearance of authority is a much more valuable asset to more senior people; something they have been building up for years and many will see as their main asset. Of course they're protective of it.
- sixo 2y ago
  Respect is earned, not given, and if it has to be demanded it is not deserved.
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    Perhaps the default should be to respect give people respect until they've shown they don't deserve it. Similar to "the benefit of the doubt." Having a combative relationship with every stranger may not be the most productive way to conduct yourself.
    - danaris 2y ago
      There's a distinction someone articulated about "respect" a while back that has really stuck with me[0]: it means two different things in English, and we have a very bad tendency to conflate or confuse them. It means both "to treat someone like an authority" and "to treat someone like a human". Everyone deserves to be treated with the latter sort. The former sort must be earned. [0] The context in which I read it was about marginalized people getting the short end of the stick on both counts—privileged people, especially those who are relatively ignorant or for whom that privilege is all they have going for them, have a tendency to express sentiments along the lines of "I won't respect them if they don't respect me!" But what they mean is "I won't treat them like a human if they don't treat me like an authority."
      - ScottBurson 2y ago
        I prefer the term "deference" for treating someone as an authority. But you're right; people do often say "respect" when they mean "deference".
      - 2y ago
pessimizer 2y ago
Also, I think there's a sort of filial standard that is very common in the world that says that you might be right, but your elders have thought about things longer so you should listen to them instead of shouting over them. You are also aging, and there are people younger than you to whom you can teach the truth as you see it; more and more of them every day, and fewer and fewer older people. If the old person is right, you're going to lose what they know when they die. Let them get everything out while they still have time. If it sounds like they're full of shit, which they often are, consider the alternative that you may be an idiot. You don't have to make a final decision between the two possibilities now (only provisional ones), but maybe by the time you're old you'll have figured it all out.
- Swizec 2y ago
  When the beard is black, take the reasoning, ignore conclusions. When gray, take both reasoning & conclusions. When white, just conclusions. ~Taleb
slothtrop 2y ago
Tact is one thing, but if I were advising a younger person on this, it would be on cost/benefit of challenging and having a read for others' insecurity or openness. Even in older age, many have fragile egos and may throw their weight around to punish you just for the insolence of contradicting them. It's worth knowing what's at stake, what's the upside. It's not enough to be right. That applies not only to subverting authority, but also popular conventional wisdom, as beautifully exemplified in anecdotes from the book the Scout Mindset. If you're talking to those who value the pursuit of truth then not being a dick can be sufficiently disarming.
jalapenos 2y ago
What you say has an element of truth, but it comes across like the warnings of an abuse victim, who's only move is not to anger the elders lest they get hurt. Good elders would respond with terms. "You can contradict me, but not in {cases X} or in {format Y}, and it must be in good faith" etc. A blanket "don't contradict" just means they're narcissists and they're telling you you need to get out from under their power ASAP. It's also false that a good tone is enough - these types view any independence of thought an affront.
- claytongulick 2y ago
  If "Bob" was just starting in engineering, and an experienced engineer with 30+ years of experience told Bob something that he didn't think was right, do you think Bob should contradict the senior engineer? I think that Bob should understand that while the senior engineer may be incorrect, it's best to ask questions and seek to understand first. It's more likely that Bob is missing something. Even if not, this would come out in a better way through polite questions than direct contradiction. Life is like this too. It's a skill that we should be improving over time. People who have been doing it longer that us probably have insight that we don't. I think it's arrogant to assume otherwise. Avoiding contradiction shows respect for the experience and knowledge of the other person, while directly contradicting someone encourages conflict and argument. Whenever a conversation turns into an argument, both people lose. You've caused conflict that can have significant consequences. This was a costly lesson for me to learn. Manners are the lubricant of civilization. Without them the whole machine fails.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    This is exactly what the proposal is, as is the linked story. It is about having an open and honest dialog with mutual respect on both sides. I feel like several people in this thread dont know the difference between a respectful discussion and a gutter fight.
WWLink 2y ago
> On the other hand, once you speak in a sufficiently respectful tone This is something I noticed with people who whine about "I was being respectful" where they whine about facing consequences for using slurs but SEE, THEY USED SIR/MA'AM so they were "being respectful" lol.

by kccqzy 2y ago

EGreg 2y ago

This isnt true. Not in front of others Regardless of tone, leaders being corrected in front of others carries an undercurrent of antagonism, and can develop into outright hostility. This happens with leaders of animals and alphas as well. Challenging their assertions is a step away from challenging their leadership and authority, especially if you do so repeatedly. Leaders are often hard to get ahold of privately, because of how many people they deal with, and usually sycophants and well-connected supporters are prioritized for these meetings rather than someone who disagrees on substance The best you’re gonna get is if you’re a sponsor or a fellow leader who offers them to come on your show, or you come on theirs, and debate. No matter how respectful your tone is, you can’t challenge them unless they’ve agreed to debate: https://youtu.be/Mwe91SXEyaM?si=sI8dzC9YTQzAPbmu https://youtu.be/Mwe91SXEyaM?si=sI8dzC9YTQzAPbmu

marcus_holmes 2y ago
This is really cultural - I've worked in Anglophone organisations where leaders expect to be challenged on their assertions, and in Asia where this would be considered offensive (like taking a dump on your boss's desk) even in private.
gravescale 2y ago
From your first paragraph, i was sure the video was going to be: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R4226lBJ_qI https://youtube.com/watch?v=R4226lBJ_qI
- EGreg 2y ago
  That's a great one too haha

HPsquared 2y ago

"Esteem" and appearance of authority is a much more valuable asset to more senior people; something they have been building up for years and many will see as their main asset. Of course they're protective of it.

sixo 2y ago
Respect is earned, not given, and if it has to be demanded it is not deserved.
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  Perhaps the default should be to respect give people respect until they've shown they don't deserve it. Similar to "the benefit of the doubt." Having a combative relationship with every stranger may not be the most productive way to conduct yourself.
  - danaris 2y ago
    There's a distinction someone articulated about "respect" a while back that has really stuck with me[0]: it means two different things in English, and we have a very bad tendency to conflate or confuse them. It means both "to treat someone like an authority" and "to treat someone like a human". Everyone deserves to be treated with the latter sort. The former sort must be earned. [0] The context in which I read it was about marginalized people getting the short end of the stick on both counts—privileged people, especially those who are relatively ignorant or for whom that privilege is all they have going for them, have a tendency to express sentiments along the lines of "I won't respect them if they don't respect me!" But what they mean is "I won't treat them like a human if they don't treat me like an authority."
    - ScottBurson 2y ago
      I prefer the term "deference" for treating someone as an authority. But you're right; people do often say "respect" when they mean "deference".
    - 2y ago

pessimizer 2y ago

Also, I think there's a sort of filial standard that is very common in the world that says that you might be right, but your elders have thought about things longer so you should listen to them instead of shouting over them. You are also aging, and there are people younger than you to whom you can teach the truth as you see it; more and more of them every day, and fewer and fewer older people. If the old person is right, you're going to lose what they know when they die. Let them get everything out while they still have time. If it sounds like they're full of shit, which they often are, consider the alternative that you may be an idiot. You don't have to make a final decision between the two possibilities now (only provisional ones), but maybe by the time you're old you'll have figured it all out.

Swizec 2y ago
When the beard is black, take the reasoning, ignore conclusions. When gray, take both reasoning & conclusions. When white, just conclusions. ~Taleb

slothtrop 2y ago

Tact is one thing, but if I were advising a younger person on this, it would be on cost/benefit of challenging and having a read for others' insecurity or openness. Even in older age, many have fragile egos and may throw their weight around to punish you just for the insolence of contradicting them. It's worth knowing what's at stake, what's the upside. It's not enough to be right. That applies not only to subverting authority, but also popular conventional wisdom, as beautifully exemplified in anecdotes from the book the Scout Mindset. If you're talking to those who value the pursuit of truth then not being a dick can be sufficiently disarming.

jalapenos 2y ago

What you say has an element of truth, but it comes across like the warnings of an abuse victim, who's only move is not to anger the elders lest they get hurt. Good elders would respond with terms. "You can contradict me, but not in {cases X} or in {format Y}, and it must be in good faith" etc. A blanket "don't contradict" just means they're narcissists and they're telling you you need to get out from under their power ASAP. It's also false that a good tone is enough - these types view any independence of thought an affront.

claytongulick 2y ago
If "Bob" was just starting in engineering, and an experienced engineer with 30+ years of experience told Bob something that he didn't think was right, do you think Bob should contradict the senior engineer? I think that Bob should understand that while the senior engineer may be incorrect, it's best to ask questions and seek to understand first. It's more likely that Bob is missing something. Even if not, this would come out in a better way through polite questions than direct contradiction. Life is like this too. It's a skill that we should be improving over time. People who have been doing it longer that us probably have insight that we don't. I think it's arrogant to assume otherwise. Avoiding contradiction shows respect for the experience and knowledge of the other person, while directly contradicting someone encourages conflict and argument. Whenever a conversation turns into an argument, both people lose. You've caused conflict that can have significant consequences. This was a costly lesson for me to learn. Manners are the lubricant of civilization. Without them the whole machine fails.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  This is exactly what the proposal is, as is the linked story. It is about having an open and honest dialog with mutual respect on both sides. I feel like several people in this thread dont know the difference between a respectful discussion and a gutter fight.

WWLink 2y ago

> On the other hand, once you speak in a sufficiently respectful tone This is something I noticed with people who whine about "I was being respectful" where they whine about facing consequences for using slurs but SEE, THEY USED SIR/MA'AM so they were "being respectful" lol.