5 ms·

I rather liked that book and want to disagree with many of the points it tries to make, but find myself choosing not to. It is not economically or socially ben

by Nadya 12y ago

I rather liked that book and want to disagree with many of the points it tries to make, but find myself choosing not to. It is not economically or socially beneficial for me to be as blunt as I am - but my personal morality triumphs over both of those. If someone is wrong, they are wrong and I will let them know they are wrong. It won't win me any friends and it isn't beneficial for me to be as blunt as I am - but I don't treat life like an economist, trying to maximize use out of people and my relationships with them.

gnaritas 12y ago
I feel the same as you, but I'm come to realize most people have a deep seated need to be win friends even at the cost of being right. Your response, like my own, is very Aspie.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  I fit into that "aspie" category as well which likely manifested itself in ways similar to you and the person you are responding to earlier in my life. Now at 41 I'm probably indistinguishable in action from the group you've categorized as having a "deep seated need to win friends" not because I do actually have such a need, but because I realized my need to be vocally, publicly "right" was mostly a manifestation of a core lack of confidence, something which has since been mostly alleviated. Also, in retrospect, I was actually wrong about a lot of things I was sure I was right about because I was intelligent but not wise and the two are often divergent.
- e12e 12y ago
  Well, you can't win "friends" by avoiding conflict. A friend is (among other things) someone you can have a fight with, and then make up. A friend will tell you when you're wrong -- and when you're right. A colleague, peer, acquaintance or fellow traveller isn't the same thing as a "friend". Any such person might become a friend -- but not because you held off being honest. All that said, there's a difference between being honest and blunt, and being needlessly honest and cruel. As mentioned in this thread, in text, tone is most certainly an issue. The photographer Howard Schatz did an interesting series, where he takes photographs of actors "In Character", among others Ricky Gervais[1], and he says at one point: "The other thing about it is: Comedy comes from a good or a bad place. And I think that the funniest people always comes from a good place. Two people can say the same thing, and one person can be so nasty and vitriolic -- and therefore not funny. And the other can be, you know, a celebration. You know, you can be in on the joke." --Ricky Gervais [1] http://www.howardschatz.com/film.php?ID=3814 http://www.howardschatz.com/film.php?ID=3814
roflc0ptic 12y ago
I strongly believe cooperation yields better long term outcomes for everyone, and because of that I pick low cost pro-social strategies over low cost anti-social strategies. I don't frame this as "trying to maximize use out of people". I think about it as sparing people from having unnecessary unpleasant interactions. I see telling people they're wrong as selfish. It's almost never necessary, and in a probabilistic sense is not the most efficient way to make them correct, because instead of just changing their mind, they have to tamp down their ego, avoid getting ticked at you, and then change their mind. Bam: you've just made their lives harder, for the satisfaction of being explicit that you're more correct than they are.
- mreiland 12y ago
  Why is it Nadya's responsibility to persuade or convince?
  - HolyHaddock 12y ago
    A reasonable question. Perhaps it's not and there's no reason for anyone to take any time to say anything when someone's wrong. But if they do take that time and say something, then it's not unreasonable to consider the goal. Is it to demonstrate superiority and massage ego? Unkindness works well. If it's to help someone correct a mistake, do better next time or bring their conversational partners thinking closer to theirs on a subject, then kindness is likely to work better. Personally, I prefer to work with someone who's right and delivers the message in a way they think I and my other colleagues will respond well to, than someone who's right and delivers the message thoughtlessly, or in a way designed to maximise their own pleasure.
    - roflc0ptic 12y ago
      I really like this response. I especially like that you validate their question and then convincingly explore the nuance to the situation, framing your response around their question. Then you make your ultimate position subjective ("Personally, I prefer...") instead of trying to make it some objective truth ("it's better to be kind."), which allows that the others person's position is also subjective - merely a personal preference - and thus changeable. A+, effective communication.
switchbak 12y ago
One might view that as a form of perfectionism - for me it all depends on what you're trying to optimize. I've lived much of my life like that - but what's my goal here - to be right? Or to be happy? To me being happy means working towards harmonious relationships. I'm not going to pretend someone is right when they're not, but I might be a bit more diplomatic in my communication. I'm not sure I get the morality angle. Is it immoral to chose not to contradict someone? Not in my moral code.
- Nadya 12y ago
  That's the thing about morals. They change from person to person and society to society. What is immoral in one society might be neutral in another - or even moral in another! I find misinformation and ignorance to be a detriment to humankind in its entirety. It drags us down and hides the truth behind the world and how it works. People believe things that are wrong - myself included. When I am wrong, I hope for others to correct me. Spreading wrong and misinformed beliefs, to me, is morally wrong. What good comes from spreading wrong information?
dogecoinbase 12y ago
my personal morality triumphs over both of those. If someone is wrong, they are wrong and I will let them know they are wrong. So, your personal morality requires you to not only offend people, but to reduce the odds of them hearing what you're saying because you choose to deliver it in an unkind manner. This is absurdly self-serving of you, and really only goes to show that you're not actually interested in "[letting] them know they are wrong", but rather in demonstrating that you are right to the detriment of personal relationships.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ryandrake 12y ago
  Ironically, that behavior is not even self-serving--it's self-defeating if your goal is to persuade or convince. Probably the worst way to win someone over to your point of view is to tell them that they are wrong.
- Nadya 12y ago
  Being blunt is not the same as being unkind. /blunt reply
phkahler 12y ago
>> If someone is wrong, they are wrong and I will let them know they are wrong. In that case, they will probably not understand that they are wrong. There's a saying that people will not remember what you said, but will remember how you made them feel. There is a lot of truth in that. Once you tell someone they're wrong, they feel bad and are much less likely to accept truth from you - even if it's obvious. A mountain of evidence will be seen as a personal attack and your message won't get through. I went back and rewrote that paragraph after realizing that I basically said "you're approach is wrong". So instead I tried to frame it as a problem with the listener and their emotional response. There is truth in both way to present it, but isn't one more likely to get you to change your approach?

by Nadya 12y ago

gnaritas 12y ago

I feel the same as you, but I'm come to realize most people have a deep seated need to be win friends even at the cost of being right. Your response, like my own, is very Aspie.

georgemcbay 12y ago
I fit into that "aspie" category as well which likely manifested itself in ways similar to you and the person you are responding to earlier in my life. Now at 41 I'm probably indistinguishable in action from the group you've categorized as having a "deep seated need to win friends" not because I do actually have such a need, but because I realized my need to be vocally, publicly "right" was mostly a manifestation of a core lack of confidence, something which has since been mostly alleviated. Also, in retrospect, I was actually wrong about a lot of things I was sure I was right about because I was intelligent but not wise and the two are often divergent.
e12e 12y ago
Well, you can't win "friends" by avoiding conflict. A friend is (among other things) someone you can have a fight with, and then make up. A friend will tell you when you're wrong -- and when you're right. A colleague, peer, acquaintance or fellow traveller isn't the same thing as a "friend". Any such person might become a friend -- but not because you held off being honest. All that said, there's a difference between being honest and blunt, and being needlessly honest and cruel. As mentioned in this thread, in text, tone is most certainly an issue. The photographer Howard Schatz did an interesting series, where he takes photographs of actors "In Character", among others Ricky Gervais[1], and he says at one point: "The other thing about it is: Comedy comes from a good or a bad place. And I think that the funniest people always comes from a good place. Two people can say the same thing, and one person can be so nasty and vitriolic -- and therefore not funny. And the other can be, you know, a celebration. You know, you can be in on the joke." --Ricky Gervais [1] http://www.howardschatz.com/film.php?ID=3814 http://www.howardschatz.com/film.php?ID=3814

roflc0ptic 12y ago

I strongly believe cooperation yields better long term outcomes for everyone, and because of that I pick low cost pro-social strategies over low cost anti-social strategies. I don't frame this as "trying to maximize use out of people". I think about it as sparing people from having unnecessary unpleasant interactions. I see telling people they're wrong as selfish. It's almost never necessary, and in a probabilistic sense is not the most efficient way to make them correct, because instead of just changing their mind, they have to tamp down their ego, avoid getting ticked at you, and then change their mind. Bam: you've just made their lives harder, for the satisfaction of being explicit that you're more correct than they are.

mreiland 12y ago
Why is it Nadya's responsibility to persuade or convince?
- HolyHaddock 12y ago
  A reasonable question. Perhaps it's not and there's no reason for anyone to take any time to say anything when someone's wrong. But if they do take that time and say something, then it's not unreasonable to consider the goal. Is it to demonstrate superiority and massage ego? Unkindness works well. If it's to help someone correct a mistake, do better next time or bring their conversational partners thinking closer to theirs on a subject, then kindness is likely to work better. Personally, I prefer to work with someone who's right and delivers the message in a way they think I and my other colleagues will respond well to, than someone who's right and delivers the message thoughtlessly, or in a way designed to maximise their own pleasure.
  - roflc0ptic 12y ago
    I really like this response. I especially like that you validate their question and then convincingly explore the nuance to the situation, framing your response around their question. Then you make your ultimate position subjective ("Personally, I prefer...") instead of trying to make it some objective truth ("it's better to be kind."), which allows that the others person's position is also subjective - merely a personal preference - and thus changeable. A+, effective communication.

switchbak 12y ago

One might view that as a form of perfectionism - for me it all depends on what you're trying to optimize. I've lived much of my life like that - but what's my goal here - to be right? Or to be happy? To me being happy means working towards harmonious relationships. I'm not going to pretend someone is right when they're not, but I might be a bit more diplomatic in my communication. I'm not sure I get the morality angle. Is it immoral to chose not to contradict someone? Not in my moral code.

Nadya 12y ago
That's the thing about morals. They change from person to person and society to society. What is immoral in one society might be neutral in another - or even moral in another! I find misinformation and ignorance to be a detriment to humankind in its entirety. It drags us down and hides the truth behind the world and how it works. People believe things that are wrong - myself included. When I am wrong, I hope for others to correct me. Spreading wrong and misinformed beliefs, to me, is morally wrong. What good comes from spreading wrong information?

dogecoinbase 12y ago

my personal morality triumphs over both of those. If someone is wrong, they are wrong and I will let them know they are wrong. So, your personal morality requires you to not only offend people, but to reduce the odds of them hearing what you're saying because you choose to deliver it in an unkind manner. This is absurdly self-serving of you, and really only goes to show that you're not actually interested in "[letting] them know they are wrong", but rather in demonstrating that you are right to the detriment of personal relationships.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 12y ago
Ironically, that behavior is not even self-serving--it's self-defeating if your goal is to persuade or convince. Probably the worst way to win someone over to your point of view is to tell them that they are wrong.
Nadya 12y ago
Being blunt is not the same as being unkind. /blunt reply

phkahler 12y ago

>> If someone is wrong, they are wrong and I will let them know they are wrong. In that case, they will probably not understand that they are wrong. There's a saying that people will not remember what you said, but will remember how you made them feel. There is a lot of truth in that. Once you tell someone they're wrong, they feel bad and are much less likely to accept truth from you - even if it's obvious. A mountain of evidence will be seen as a personal attack and your message won't get through. I went back and rewrote that paragraph after realizing that I basically said "you're approach is wrong". So instead I tried to frame it as a problem with the listener and their emotional response. There is truth in both way to present it, but isn't one more likely to get you to change your approach?