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.
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.
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.
>> 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?
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.
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.
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.
The communication was so effective I chose not to respond to it.
I personally prefer (there it is!) to work in an environment where being incorrect isn't such a big deal everyone thinks you have to walk around eggshells in order to point it out.
I responded to another poster in this thread and told them they may just be in the wrong place. Or to put it another way.
But he effectively communicated his mindset quite well, right?
I also think there are degrees to how much one can avoid contradicting others. I also want to be able to take contrary positions in meetings without hedging and without people getting upset or other nonsense. I don't think that has to be avoided by "walking around on eggshells". If it had that effect in my life I would never have adopted it.
Additionally none of my comments are really about cultural proclivities: I am opposed to trying to rigidly enforce communication standards within a group. "Sorry MReiland, you didn't state your position about why we shouldn't be using the braid data structure with enough sensitivity." The thing you're taking a position against sounds terrible but isn't really the thing we're talking about.
this is the quote that I initially responded to, emphasis mine.
> 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.
That's the context of this conversation (a statement made by YOU).
If I can't approach someone about improving/fixing/changing something being worked on then I have no interest in working with them, and I have enough control over my own life that I don't have to.
If someone is really going to insist that I need to spend my time trying to work with them, they're going to get dismissed and I'm going to go on with my life.
I have enough control over my own life that I don't have to deal with those sorts of issues. Perhaps if you're working in a job where you feel forced to have to deal with other people's bullshit than you suddenly feel as if it's important to start worrying about this sort of thing, but I'm not there.
And no amount of communication is going to put me there.
> If I can't approach someone about improving/fixing/changing something being worked on
I think maybe we're misunderstanding each other. I'm not saying don't approach someone to improve/fix/change something. I'm making a statement about manner of approach. Being unable to approach people when they're wrong is intolerable. Being an asshole about it will make you intolerable. The statement I made is about finding a middle way.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.