Truth and Tact

[JNAProductions]

I recently had an unfortunately awakening talk with someone. They seemed basically unable to understand that tact and truth are not mutually exclusive. Softening words was referred to as "p****footing around other people's feelings" and generally trashed as useless, using the arguement that that person thinks they're right, so they should act is if they are.

I like to have a nice view of the world, so stuff like that always sucks to run into in person, so I'm starting up this thread to talk about whether most people find truth and tact mutually exclusive or believe that you can be honest and truthful without hurting others.

[TheThan]

As someone once told me, sometimes the truth ain’t nice.

Been living with that in the back of my head for a long time, so yeah, truth and tact are mutually exclusive.

You can be as truthful and as tactful as you like But sometimes you just have to hit hard with your words to deliver your message accurately; in which case you may not be nice.

[JNAProductions]

Okay, let me put it this way-it came up in the freaking D&D 5E boards. About a TTRPG.

There's no easy way to tell you who didn't survive the car crash. But I would hope you can be nice when talking about a game.

[veti]

This question puts me in mind of a moment from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Context: the Earth has been destroyed, and the sole survivor (an Englishman named Arthur Dent) is talking to the egomaniacal Zaphod Beeblebrox.

"Because," hissed Zaphod, "you were there when your planet did the big firework."

"We have a thing on Earth ..." began Arthur.

"Had," corrected Zaphod.

"... called tact."

In general I'm suspicious of anyone who claims "truth" as a justification for - well, just about anything controversial - because that implies they think they have better access to "the truth" than the other party. In my experience, this is all too often asserted by people whose only grounds for believing it are their own lack of self-doubt.

In the context of a discussion about a game - what the heck sort of "truth" is there anyway? The only kind I can think of is "quoting from relevant authorities", in which case all you can do is present the quote, ideally with a link to provide full context. Adding any commentary or interpretation to it - actually detracts from its "truthful" quality. It may be necessary, in order to make your point in a debate - but in that case you're no longer "stating truth", you're presenting an argument, which is not remotely the same thing.

[Crow]

Softening things tends to give the idea that it isn't really a big deal. If it isn't a big deal, I don't bring it up to begin with; so when I do bring something up, I soften it as little as possible.

I've always felt it was better to explain things as simply and concisely as possible. Anything more muddies the message.

[SiuiS]

Tact is 'adroitness and sensitivity when dealing with others or with sensitive situations'. Truth is clarity, directness and lack of ambiguity; it's speaking that which is true. These are not mutually exclusive.

To counter Than, unpleasant truths can be delivered tactfully. Telling a bitter truth can often be done tactfully simply by havig an understanding or sympathetic tone of voice. Receptive body language. Or even just an understanding. Of and indulgence in the other party's bad reaction.

People often unfortunately confuse truth and fact. Fact is something that is literally correct. The truth is non deceptive and accurate actionable knowledge. These are not the same; facts can be used to lie through obfuscation and misdirection or straight deception. The truth cannot be used to lie; it is untrue once used to covey untruths.

Tact is often confused for putting another's feelings above tier needs. That's not tact, that is coddling. Tact is civility and a human relational skill.


Hundreds of years ago the Japanese developed a proverb about cold blooded murder being delivered with tact and respect – when you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. It is alien and bizarre that the limited understanding of both truth and tact in our society means that a feudal soldier of the noble cast can murder someone with respect but figurative you, wielding a keyboard and a sense of self righteousness and indignation, consider insulting figurative me and pointing out mistakes in my figurative ideas to be the same thing.

[BWR]

Tact and truth aren't mutually exclusive but tact does tend to veer into 'untruth' when people try to be polite and tactful.

[McStabbington]

Truth is about what you say: whether the things that you are saying conform with how the world is. Tact concerns why and how you say it: whether or not what you are saying conveys dignity and respect for the other person as a human being. You do not have to lie to do the latter, nor do you need to omit unpleasant truths. But you should always strive to be tactful in delivering those truths. In point of fact, there is a fairly common word for those who think that being truthful means they don't have to be tactful, and it's a seven-letter curse word.

[GolemsVoice]

My parents always told me that "the tone makes the music", meaning that how you say something is almost as important as what you say. In fact, I'd say that, the more likely it is that the thing you want to say might hurt the other person, the more you should try to be tactful about it. That does not mean NOT telling the truth, however, and if the other person refuses to listen, or gets rude, harsh words can be called for.

There IS also the problem that people often use "the truth" as an excuse to just be rude.

[SiuiS]

Indeed. Bluntness has become a pseudo virtue, and the best way to be blunt is to seek out something and speak it harshly. Sigh.

Interest fact: how you say something is very much more important than what you say. Humans are rationalizing creatures. So if your goal is to speak the truth and be heard, being tactful is a successful strategy for doing so. Both because it means people recognize you're tactful and because when you aren't tactful it reinforces the severity of the message. Reputation is a powerful tool. Cultivate one that works for you!

[Anarion]

If I'm communicating with another person, I care that my message is received, understood, and acted upon.

Truth is about the content: that's the "understood" part in the middle. If you don't tell truth, you haven't provided the information necessary for understanding, instead you've deceived. But that's step 2. Step 1 is having the message get received in the first place. That's what tact is for. You speak in a way that makes the listener receptive because otherwise your message is dismissed before the content is processed.

In other words: know your audience.

[Feytalist]

Any truth - any communication, really - can generally (note I said "generally"!) be delivered in either a tactful or blunt fashion. Which is better is dependent on circumstance and your own better judgement.

A doctor shouldn't come up to a grieving family and tell them "yeah, your grandmother just pegged it". That is truthful, but tactless. Not to mention horrendously unprofessional. But if you see your friend messing up their life, you are entirely entitled to (and should) tell them bluntly "if you don't stop what you're doing right now, it's going to end very badly". Tact, in that situation, could be harmful rather than helpful.


Online arguments are... difficult. Generally there is no social penalties for behaving like a jerk, and also unfortunately being tactful online is a great way to be ignored. However, even with my decidedly... not-nice world view, I still believe that laying out your side of the argument calmly and respectfully should show some results. "Pussyfooting around other people's feelings" is necessary, sometimes. Feelings are important.

Not in the least to help you get what you want.

[golentan]

Adding on, truth and tact aren't exclusive. I'm not even sure I'd always prefer truth to tact if they were exclusive. A lot of society is built around polite fictions. Fictions that keep us from murdering each other in our sleep.

That isn't to say politeness is necessarily a virtue. There's the old saying that an armed society is a polite society: I saw a study that said that's basically true, but when the boundaries of politeness are exceeded, those polite societies turn to their arms, and violent assault and murder are higher in cultures with excessive politeness.

People treat honesty as a virtue, that unthinking honesty is the only way to approach others. Some people treat any lie, no matter how well meant, as unconscionable. To me, that seems quite backwards. But, and here's the thing, compassion is a virtue to me. Sometimes that means standing up and telling the unpleasant truth so that someone knows what they need to fix, sometimes that means lying about something they don't need to know that would hurt them, sometimes you lie to put one over on the guilty or save lives (thinking here of everything from intelligence operations to police forces: as long as the truth comes out in court I'm okay with a detective misleading a suspect to acquire hard evidence).

[Brother Oni]

Hundreds of years ago the Japanese developed a proverb about cold blooded murder being delivered with tact and respect – when you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. It is alien and bizarre that the limited understanding of both truth and tact in our society means that a feudal soldier of the noble cast can murder someone with respect but figurative you, wielding a keyboard and a sense of self righteousness and indignation, consider insulting figurative me and pointing out mistakes in my figurative ideas to be the same thing.

That's actually a buddist koan (mental puzzle) rather than a Japanese proverb and doesn't mean literally killing someone (the samurai had kirisute gomen for that).
I'm not 100% sure I can discuss the koan on this board (I'd class it as philosophy, but others would call it religion), so I won't.



That isn't to say politeness is necessarily a virtue. There's the old saying that an armed society is a polite society: I saw a study that said that's basically true, but when the boundaries of politeness are exceeded, those polite societies turn to their arms, and violent assault and murder are higher in cultures with excessive politeness.


One study I read said that such politeness were developed to stop people in an enclosed space from killing each other. Japan for example is very cramped due to a notable lack of livable space and their culture has famously notable politeness customs.

It's also surprisngly has less crime than other industrialised nations (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan)), although there are other cultural factors in play here.

[themaque]

I have had this discussion before with people IRL and I think it went very much like you mentioned for you. "I tell the truth, unvarnished and in your FACE! anything less is a lie." I find this attitude lacks empathy for others. That just because what their saying is factually correct they don't have to worry about anything else. However, while they may actually be telling the truth, the way they tell it does make a difference. "No Walter, you're not wrong your just an #$%" and will greatly affect the outcome. Now yes, sometimes you need a bit of a slap to get through to people, but that is HIGHLY situational and such an outlier that it isn't helpful in a reasonable discussion. Not to mention, what "Truth" are you talking about? Unless you are talking direct verifiable facts and figures your "truth" may be subjective opinion.

"Anyone who thinks that Spelljammer is a good system is lying to themselves. I'm just tell'n it like it is.". But even then the tone of the message could easily distort or pervert the message. He was trying to say "Spelljammer is a poor system" but what came across is "If you like Spelljammer, you're an idiot." (PLEASE NOTE: I have no strong opinions on Spelljammer,) Talking online message boards, behaving with a sense of decorum, respect, and TACT is even more important. I can't tell your tone, inflection, or body language online. My perceptions will add that however, it's what humans do. Everyone has looked onto message boards and seen an old thread that has just degraded to name calling. Many of those started because someones "Hard Truth" was stated in such a way it came off as an insult rather than a fact. Look at standards and guidelines for professional correspondence on e-mail and online discussions. I'm sure we all don't want these boards degrading to emotionless business exchanges, but the point is how you read something isn't how THEY read something.

Human beings are wired to WIN not be right. We hold our opinions close because they are a part of who we are. In a way, when you call a person's beliefs or opinions into questions you are attacking them directly. When I tell Bobby "Dude you are just WRONG" his first reaction probably isn't "This man might have a point" it's going to be "Nu'uh! You!" because that's how humans unfortunately work. We have to be better than our brains. If I approach Bobby "I think you may be mistaken, if you will allow, here is why" he will STILL be defensive but might actually listen to what I said.

I honestly believe what I have in my signature block. Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception. Part of this is being respectful of other people, even if you don't believe in what they are saying. You're being RIGHT doesn't stop you from being a jerk-face.

[SarahV]

In point of fact, there is a fairly common word for those who think that being truthful means they don't have to be tactful, and it's a seven-letter curse word.

The above quote sums it up pretty perfectly for me. I really loathe people who use the "I always tell it like it is" excuse to be rude or mean. Some people enjoy seeing other people hurt or uncomfortable and that's all there is to it.

There are many occasions when a tactful lie is the preferable mode of conduct.
"It's so nice to see you!" (Oh god, it's her again...)
"You look great!" (Wow, he looks awful. I bet he's really hungover.)
"Thank you so much for the gift, it's perfect!" (Regift in 3...2...1...)

99% of the time when you want/need to tell the truth there is a tactful way to say it. You will get a lot farther in life if you understand how to correct or inform people without making them resent you for it. The only exception is if you need to really hit someone over the head with something, in which case you will make a much better impression if you are kind and tactful the other 99% of the time. If you are one of those aforementioned seven-letter-words who is "blunt" aka mean and rude 24-7 you've got nothing left in your arsenal when, uh, four-letter-word gets real.

[GolemsVoice]

I would go as far as to say that tact and truth aren't two seperate things at all. As others already said, there are many ways to say something. Now, imagine you want to tell a friend that you think his life-choices are wrong. You could tell him that he's a jerk and an idiot and a failure, or you can tell him that you worry about him and think that what he does isn't good for him. Both sentences express the idea, but the first is pretty confrontational.

Now, being tactful is often used for "not telling the truth in order to not hurt somebody" but that's not all it means "the ability to do or say things without offending or upsetting other people". Relating back to my example, this would be getting your opinion across in a way that a) preserves your intent, and b) does not hurt the other person (more than absolutely necessary)

[Aedilred]

As has been mentioned, there is a tendency in some quarters to confuse honesty with bluntness, rudeness and insensitivity, and to defend against allegations of the latter with the former.

In fact, I think, when most people talk about being tactful, what they really mean is "how to tell the truth without causing an argument/being overly blunt/rude/insensitive". It is not exclusive of truth at all, just a mode of conveyance.

It is however also very common to confuse tact with understatement, lack of clarity and refusal to acknowledge or comment upon the real crux of an issue (and likewise to defend the latter on the basis of the former). This is also undesirable.

Etymologically, "tact" is presumably derived from "tactics" - and thus should be considered as a tool to be used as appropriate and judged on a contextual basis depending on the overall objective. If the objective is to get the real facts across, there may still be an advantage to doing so gently, so you don't upset the person more than is necessary (or at all). On the other hand, sometimes it is necessary to be blunt in order to ensure they hear what you're saying and not just what they want to hear.

Equally, there might be circumstances where the objective is to help someone feel better about themselves, such as when a loved one seeks comfort. In this situation, it might be necessary to withhold elements of the truth or to sugar-coat it.

It is just another part of social interaction and conversation.

[Aliquid]

If I'm communicating with another person, I care that my message is received, understood, and acted upon.

Truth is about the content: that's the "understood" part in the middle. If you don't tell truth, you haven't provided the information necessary for understanding, instead you've deceived. But that's step 2. Step 1 is having the message get received in the first place. That's what tact is for. You speak in a way that makes the listener receptive because otherwise your message is dismissed before the content is processed.

In other words: know your audience.
QFT

You need to ask yourself: "why do I talk to people?"
A) Because you like the sound of your voice?
B) Because you are talking to yourself (who cares about anybody else)?
C) Because you want to communicate your thoughts, feelings and/or ideas with others?

I’m hoping that for most people, the answer is “C”. If that is the case, you are failing to communicate if people regularly ignore the words coming out of your mouth.

[SiuiS]

But if you see your friend messing up their life, you are entirely entitled to (and should) tell them bluntly "if you don't stop what you're doing right now, it's going to end very badly". Tact, in that situation, could be harmful rather than helpful.

You are incorrect. The example you have? That is tact. Your example is of a tactful delivery of an important but of information. The tactless version is "dude, what the ****?! What is your freaking damage?! Look at yourself! Look at what you're doing! You're gonna end up dead and frankly, I'll be glad to see you go instead of destroying yourself any ****ing more than you have!"


That's actually a buddist koan (mental puzzle) rather than a Japanese proverb and doesn't mean literally killing someone (the samurai had kirisute gomen for that).
I'm not 100% sure I can discuss the koan on this board (I'd class it as philosophy, but others would call it religion), so I won't.

I know. The end result is that after having spent years – fewer than you, I trust, but still enough – working over said koan, it's place in history as much as I can tell, and it's use, it is easier to deliver and explain than to provide the years of context through discussion.

I also use proverb very loosely. I follow the 'short, pithy saying conveying wisdom or advice' definition. Since it's short and pithy, it becomes a proverb when I use it. If you follow? I'm trying to avoid saying I am still technically correct, and instead explain my past decision.

The idea that you can kill someone and still very much love and respect them, is where I was going.



One study I read said that such politeness were developed to stop people in an enclosed space from killing each other. Japan for example is very cramped due to a notable lack of livable space and their culture has famously notable politeness customs.

It's also surprisngly has less crime than other industrialised nations (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan)), although there are other cultural factors in play here.

I fully agree. I feel that civility exists becauE we are one angry synapse twitch away from an angry simian violence reflex, not despite that. I feel people forget in our land of words and discussion that you should be nice to me because, right or wrong, I am fully capable of rupturing your voice box and no amount of Being Right will fix that sort of damage.



There are many occasions when a tactful lie is the preferable mode of conduct.
"It's so nice to see you!" (Oh god, it's her again...)
"You look great!" (Wow, he looks awful. I bet he's really hungover.)
"Thank you so much for the gift, it's perfect!" (Regift in 3...2...1...)

See, I don't do that. If I do not feel glad to see you, I will choose a different expression. No one has ever noticed. I so not feel even these small lies are necessary.
The second one does actual damage, and the third isn't even a lie, it's receipt of intent, though. Which I suppose just means our boundaries of 'truth' and 'tact' differ, which is okay. :smallsmile:

[Dodom]

I'll add that people who hide behind "blunt honesty" aren't necessarily honest. Just calling a statement true doesn't make it so.
Last time I was accused of being "politically correct" and "sugarcoating the truth", I was arguing with someone (not on this board!) whose "truth" was that arbitrarily defined groups of people were inferior in worth. That his opinion was the offensive one didn't make it any more true, and I'm not sugarcoating anything if I simply don't believe it.

[Telonius]

My typical response to people like that: "So you won't mind it if I tell you (insert every negative opinion I have about them and their life choices, peppered with as much profanity as I feel like at the time)?"

If they subsequently get angry: "Hey, not my fault if you don't want to hear the truth."

I've never had anybody fail to get angry.

[Scarlet Knight]

I apologize for my generation; we wanted to stop people from hiding from the truth because polite people wouldn't talk about many subjects.

"Tell it like it is" was to bring about honesty and better relationships. You might still be patriotic by opposing the war, a good wife by talking about sex, or that mixing neighborhoods wasn't a disaster.

Little did we know it would become an excuse for uncaring rudeness.

I guess earlier generations with all those rules for etiquette were smarter than we gave them credit for.

[JNAProductions]

Two steps forward, one back. Unintended consequences don't ruin the the good effects, and good intentions are good intentions, even if people use those intentions for bull poop.

[SiuiS]

I apologize for my generation; we wanted to stop people from hiding from the truth because polite people wouldn't talk about many subjects.

"Tell it like it is" was to bring about honesty and better relationships. You might still be patriotic by opposing the war, a good wife by talking about sex, or that mixing neighborhoods wasn't a disaster.

Little did we know it would become an excuse for uncaring rudeness.

I guess earlier generations with all those rules for etiquette were smarter than we gave them credit for.

It's human sloth. For every one person who integrates an idea and makes valid positive change, there are nine people who just keep their heads relatively down and do the thing they are expected to do.

[Aspiration]

I used to think tact was a bad idea, before I learned to cope with my autism as much. It seems in many cases to be a reactionary view, from people seeing harsh but necessary truths go untold too often. Things like pretending to be happy to see someone you hate, especially if you then speak ill of that person behind your back. Imagine finding out that the person you thought was your friend had hated your company for years and insulted you constantly when you weren't there. It's easy to overreact to such behavior and decide that being as blunt as possible is an acceptable alternative.

[Crow]

I've never had anybody fail to get angry.

I'm sorry you don't get to hang out with cool people.

[themaque]

I used to think tact was a bad idea, before I learned to cope with my autism as much. It seems in many cases to be a reactionary view, from people seeing harsh but necessary truths go untold too often. Things like pretending to be happy to see someone you hate, especially if you then speak ill of that person behind your back. Imagine finding out that the person you thought was your friend had hated your company for years and insulted you constantly when you weren't there. It's easy to overreact to such behavior and decide that being as blunt as possible is an acceptable alternative.

You bring up a fair point in the discussion. What about people with issues that make this more difficult, such as autism?

[Anarion]

You bring up a fair point in the discussion. What about people with issues that make this more difficult, such as autism?

What about them? If they have trouble communicating, others should take that into account and not hold it against them. If they want to do better, they can use social training and conscious learning to do improve their communication even when it doesn't come naturally. Doesn't change the overall calculus except to note that if somebody is trying their best to communicate well and has some other big factor like autism making it harder, others should give them greater leniency.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

I recently had an unfortunately awakening talk with someone. They seemed basically unable to understand that tact and truth are not mutually exclusive. Softening words was referred to as "p****footing around other people's feelings"

I don't remember ever talking to you. But we must have because that is the exact phrasing I'd use.


it came up in the freaking D&D 5E boards

Can't say I ever remember having any strong opinions about D&D 5E, or any opinions on it at all. Someone brought it up to me once and my response was to see how much of a beef and bean burrito I could fit into my mouth and chewing with my mouth open to discourage them from bringing up such a topic again.

The best kind of truth to speak is the one that's about to be digested.

[Feytalist]

You are incorrect. The example you have? That is tact. Your example is of a tactful delivery of an important but of information. The tactless version is "dude, what the ****?! What is your freaking damage?! Look at yourself! Look at what you're doing! You're gonna end up dead and frankly, I'll be glad to see you go instead of destroying yourself any ****ing more than you have!"

Heh. Fair enough.

I think I have a problem: I can't un-tact. :smallbiggrin: My tactful tactful version of the above would be something along the lines of "dude, you might want to think about easing up on the <whatever>. It's going to cause problems later." Or similar.


If the people around you know your usual tone of voice though, they'll take notice when you change it for whatever reason. In an ideal world, anyway.

[goto124]

I find that telling the truth often leads nowhere, especially when talking to authority who's angry with you.

And sometimes lying doesn't help either.

I'm guessing that in context of a TTRPG, it would be about a paladin who's taken a code to tell the truth always. The 'soften the words' and 'technically a truth' options are always there. I would say 'the player and DM should discuss it together' in that situation (Sadly not an option IRL), otherwise the DM could make the paladin fall for not telling a completely honest truth or something. Even when it's e.g. an enemy asking where you hid your friends.

[Killer Angel]

Any truth - any communication, really - can generally (note I said "generally"!) be delivered in either a tactful or blunt fashion. Which is better is dependent on circumstance and your own better judgement.

A doctor shouldn't come up to a grieving family and tell them "yeah, your grandmother just pegged it". That is truthful, but tactless.

It's like a song, the original version and the cover.
They both tell the same thing, with the same words... but the final result can be totally different.

[Anarion]

I find that telling the truth often leads nowhere, especially when talking to authority who's angry with you.

And sometimes lying doesn't help either.

I'm guessing that in context of a TTRPG, it would be about a paladin who's taken a code to tell the truth always. The 'soften the words' and 'technically a truth' options are always there. I would say 'the player and DM should discuss it together' in that situation (Sadly not an option IRL), otherwise the DM could make the paladin fall for not telling a completely honest truth or something. Even when it's e.g. an enemy asking where you hid your friends.

Why does everyone always use that paladin example? Any paladin in that situation (truthfully) says "I refuse to answer that question because what you're doing is wrong."

Even in court where people take an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" there is variation in delivery, in memory, in politeness, and in how articulate the speaker is.

There is very rarely only a single way to convey information in any language.

[TheThan]

Talking online message boards, behaving with a sense of decorum, respect, and TACT is even more important. I can't tell your tone, inflection, or body language online.


I disagree, because we don’t have those things, tone, infection, body language etc we have to resort to being clear and concise in our writing. If we use language that is too soft then we come off as weak, and are ignored. If we use language that is too harsh, then people respond harshly in kind or get defensive, if we beat around the bush about a topic, the message can be lost as we try to be tactful about the situation.

It’s difficult to determine what is being said from what is meant when we try to be too tactful in a text format. This is why many of us use blue text to represent sarcasm, so that people know we are making a sarcastic comment and don’t take what we said too seriously. we can pick up on sarcasm based on tone, inflection etc when we hear someone speak, but not from when someone writes.

I prefer clear and concise language. It’s the most effective way of delivering information and our thoughts.

[SiuiS]

I find that telling the truth often leads nowhere, especially when talking to authority who's angry with you.

And sometimes lying doesn't help either.

Truth is about the heart of the matter. "Are you telling me this because you want me to fix it, or are you telling me this because you want me to recognize that I made a mistake and you want me to be contrite? Because I am alreay working to fix the error and turn it into a benefit, but telling you that doesn't seem like it is satisfying your sense of unease".

If your boss is dressing you down, "but sir! Technically!" Is not the truth. It's a statement of fact with the intention of not getting blamed. Keep your mouth closed, be receptive and open while knowing your rights and position, and allow the other party to express their emotional state – which is often what being dressed down or aggressively approached by authority is about. Not about numbers and correction and red versus black, but about making sure you know your place and are properly deferential.

That is the truth.


Why does everyone always use that paladin example? Any paladin in that situation (truthfully) says "I refuse to answer that question because what you're doing is wrong."

Even in court where people take an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" there is variation in delivery, in memory, in politeness, and in how articulate the speaker is.

There is very rarely only a single way to convey information in any language.

Yup.


I disagree, because we don’t have those things, tone, infection, body language etc we have to resort to being clear and concise in our writing.

This is a misunderstanding. There will be tone and inflection. It is a vital, integral and unseparatable part of how we read. It doesn't matter what I write, you will read tone and inflection into it. This is why things like ALL CAPS is considered yelling or italicizations words is considered stress.

Tone exists. If you operate on the idea that it doesn't, then you will end up with miscomunication. The worst kind! The kind that is your fault, at least in part, but that you don't recognize.

When you say being clear and concise, what specifically do you mean? Because concise usually gets used in place of precise, in written discussion. Which means technicalities, edge cases, highly technical language, inflexible definitions, no room for cultural context, and a complete dismissal of the emotive component of human interaction. Which is definitely not clear.


If we use language that is too soft then we come off as weak, and are ignored. If we use language that is too harsh, then people respond harshly in kind or get defensive, if we beat around the bush about a topic, the message can be lost as we try to be tactful about the situation.

I am interested that you are assuming that tact and beating around the bush are the same thing, instead of beig similar or related things. That is, for example, not concise and very unclear. It relies on me having the same emotional understanding of those terms as you.

:smallwink:

[TheThan]

It’s much easier to misread any tone you are inferring onto the text you are reading than it is to misread tone you are hearing. We are auditory beings, we pickup on what we hear naturally. Reading and writing is a skill, it’s something we learn and study, we don’t study how to pick up on someone’s feelings or the tone of their voice, we develop it as we grow, it's our most natural way of communicating.

Also I would consider it not entirely my fault if someone mis-read something I wrote if I’m not clear and concise and someone misreads my intent, then I would put the blame on them, if I’m not clear and concise than yes, the blame would most likely fall on me.

By concise I mean to the point, direct, frank, on topic.

I’m not assuming that tact and beating around the bush on a topic are the same thing, but they are often times linked and used together to try to say something without actually saying it.

[themaque]

I believe should have put a provision that the tone of a written message will be provided by the reader. Context clues can imply the original intent but it's the readers inner monolog that ultimately sets the tone.

As far as being clear and concise, we are in total agreement.

Here is a comic relevant to the conversation.

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/lsOa0Lr

[Anarion]

It’s much easier to misread any tone you are inferring onto the text you are reading than it is to misread tone you are hearing. We are auditory beings, we pickup on what we hear naturally. Reading and writing is a skill, it’s something we learn and study, we don’t study how to pick up on someone’s feelings or the tone of their voice, we develop it as we grow, it's our most natural way of communicating.

Also I would consider it not entirely my fault if someone mis-read something I wrote if I’m not clear and concise and someone misreads my intent, then I would put the blame on them, if I’m not clear and concise than yes, the blame would most likely fall on me.

By concise I mean to the point, direct, frank, on topic.

I’m not assuming that tact and beating around the bush on a topic are the same thing, but they are often times linked and used together to try to say something without actually saying it.

Apologies for picking on you a bit, but you're being forceful in the way you're presenting and I think it's misleading, so it's important that I dissect it.

You actually gave four different words for the meaning of concise there and they don't all mean the same thing.

To the point: can mean both "relevant" or "dispense with introductions and formalities."

Direct: imo, implies a harsher tone and sentence structure than to the point does.

Frank: implies that the speaker is not holding back. Often associated with critical opinions, especially as an adverb. E.g. Frankly, I find that dress unflattering.

On topic: usually just means relevant. It's also vague. Reasonable minds may differ as to the topic.

You're also implying, without saying it, that saying things through implication is bad. This is ironic, but more importantly, incorrect. Implication is easier to misread (we could easily disagree on the implications I'm drawing from your post for example), but you can't pretend it's not present. A big part of what people do in any communication is attempt to under the speaker's opinions and judgments about the topic.

Besides, saying something by saying something else can sometimes be the best way to communicate an idea. Case in point, I'd describe this thread as the process of Goldilocks deciding on baby bear's porridge.

[sktarq]

I would say that Truth and Tact are unrelated and further uncorrelated.
Tact is primarily about showing respect to the person one is talking to. This has several facets that arise on a regular basis.

Firstly it involves separating a judgment, often of an argument or statement, from the value of the person holding it whenever possible.

Avoiding unnecessary emotional turmoil and upset. Notice the "unnecessary" in that? It was there for a reason. Sometimes upsetting ideas need to be communicated and causing people upset without getting the point communicated is also disrespectful, emotionally abusive, or at least a waste of time-and thus untactful.
For example, in the situation of a friend that seems to be damaging their own life an prospects through self destructive behavior. If digging into many examples of how such behavior has caused the person setback, harm, and emotional distress (from say a failed relationship, job loss etc) will help convince them of the seriousness of the problem then that is a "necessary" distress. But if reliving a series of lowpoints in their life is just going to paralyze them with self loathing then is not effective or tactful and the more tactful thing would be focus on solutions rather than the past.
On a related note pushing a conversation to not happen in which honest conflict may be unpleasant for for many and has little chance of gain and would be socially inappropriate would be another type of tact in this category. E.g. Steering a conversation away from a certain person's SO when you know that other find that relationship problematic and have explained to the person that fact and why would be tactful. There is no reason to believe anyone's options will change and full reason to believe that all will enjoy the meeting more without it.

Acknowledges one's own limits. To declare "truths" over another's person's view or more particularly one's own view of another person's view. Understanding that one may have made a mistake in reading a situation, or simply being open to a counter argument with supporting evidence and logic is key.

And understanding where the boarder of fact and truths that one draws from those facts sits. Two people who hold differing opinions on "cousins. (and other non nuclear family) are more important than close friends" can both have internalized their own opinions to such a degree as to see them as truths-and while these are often useful ideas one care in making sure that one is not imposing such, often subconscious options onto others as fact is part of being tactful.

Sadly those who speak poorly or who are unwilling to have an honest conversation in which ideas of the participants conflict use tact as a cover for their actions when really they are not being tactful at all

[Jormengand]

See, I've found that whenever someone tries to be "Tactful" to me, I have to ask them "Yeah, and what do you actually mean" before they give me a straight answer that is what they were actually saying. Saying "I'm concerned about you" when in reality you think that the person is flat-out crazy is not truthful, it's not helpful, but it sure is tactful!

[Icewraith]

This isn't always the case, but I have seen a number of "I'm not rude I'm just honest" types that were indeed using honesty as an excuse to insult people/be rude. There's a difference in attitude that usually gives it away.

[themaque]

See, I've found that whenever someone tries to be "Tactful" to me, I have to ask them "Yeah, and what do you actually mean" before they give me a straight answer that is what they were actually saying. Saying "I'm concerned about you" when in reality you think that the person is flat-out crazy is not truthful, it's not helpful, but it sure is tactful!

Actually, yes it IS honest AND helpful. If someone told me "You are being Nuts" My first response is to be Defensive. If someone says "I'm concerned about you" I wonder what's wrong and start thinking about what could be wrong.

Tactful isn't always expedient, but it can be a lot more effective. You can be honest, effective, AND tactful.

[SiuiS]

I think worrying about fault is a dead end. If you're worried about it being entirely or not entirely your fault because it would make you feel bad or attacked, that is fruitless. It's still a thing; how you feel is how you feel and there is no gettig around that. It's not unimportant! It's just not a good avenue to deal with as a conflict resolution technique in a situation where miscomunication has already happened.

If you are worried about who is at fault strictly because divining where the impasse originates will help you with a strategy to get pasts the impasse, that's useful. But that's a situation where the goal is communication of a concept and personal feelings are suborned toward that goal.

That's how I differentiate worthwhile from worthless Internet (and nowadays, proximal) discussion. If there is a Truth, and all parties are debating to discover that truth. This is okay. If there are parties debating on order to establish the truth – that is, to create it, to win the discussion and be considered Right – then that is a worthless discussion because it tells me nothing about the topic and it only tells me bad things about the other parties.

[Brother Oni]

I think a good example of being truthful and tactful would be delivering death notifications to family, be it as a police officer, military or a doctor.

There's a difference between '***** footing around people's feelings' and breaking it to them gently and a number of police officers I've talked to, consider this the hardest part of the job (they've also received the whole range of reactions, from the expected tears, stoic acceptance, to "Hooray, now we can claim the life insurance!").

I personally would find it very difficult to knock on a stranger's door then tell them what is most likely the worse news they've heard in their lives.

[sktarq]

See, I've found that whenever someone tries to be "Tactful" to me, I have to ask them "Yeah, and what do you actually mean" before they give me a straight answer that is what they were actually saying. Saying "I'm concerned about you" when in reality you think that the person is flat-out crazy is not truthful, it's not helpful, but it sure is tactful!

I'd say the problem here is that when "Tact" is used to muddle etc-or when in trying to balance clarity and making sure that it the message doesn't fail to sink in due to setting off emotional interference is bungled, that is remembered. When tact works it is often invisible and rarely gets the credit it deserves.

Also incompetence in using tact is seen as a lesser offense in most social circles than other issues and is thus used as a false cover for many faults.

EDIT: On the topic of people with autism and other communication issues. Many people with such issues find that other people using tact blur and muddies communication and thus find it an unhelpful thing. But on the other hand also have issues in getting people to listen to them or like them-often for their own lack of tact. Before anyone bashes it be on the other side and see how well communication works.

[Icewraith]

I think a good example of being truthful and tactful would be delivering death notifications to family, be it as a police officer, military or a doctor.

There's a difference between '***** footing around people's feelings' and breaking it to them gently and a number of police officers I've talked to, consider this the hardest part of the job (they've also received the whole range of reactions, from the expected tears, stoic acceptance, to "Hooray, now we can claim the life insurance!").

I personally would find it very difficult to knock on a stranger's door then tell them what is most likely the worse news they've heard in their lives.

"Bet you a dollar you're the Widow Jackson."

(RIP Terry Pratchett)

[Brother Oni]

"Bet you a dollar you're the Widow Jackson."

Which is why Nobby Nobbs isn't allowed to do it anymore, even in a fantasy setting like the Discworld.

[goto124]

How do you nicely ask someone to lose weight, assuming it's a good idea?

[huttj509]

How do you nicely ask someone to lose weight, assuming it's a good idea?

Depends on who, your relationship with the person, your reasons for asking, and the entire context of that person's life experiences as pertains to weight, health, and self-image.

Short answer: you don't. Unless you're their doctor (or coach or something), and they've come to you about health issues.

Or if they've explicitly asked for advice regarding health issues in a non-doctor relationship.

[Anarion]

How do you nicely ask someone to lose weight, assuming it's a good idea?

What's the reason you want them to lose weight? The underlying concern is usually the way to go about this sort of thing. For example, if someone is heavy and you think it's affecting their health, you might have a conversation where you say "hi [name]. Do you have time to talk about something serious?" [wait for affirmative answer] "I'm really worried about your health and I think your weight is affecting it in a bad way. I know that's hard to hear, but I think it's important. Let me know if there's any way I can provide support."

Or similar sentiments with different words. Of course, that only applies if that's actually your reason. Lying about why you're saying something as a way to insult them is pretty horrible.

[Karmea]

Short answer: you don't. Unless you're their doctor (or coach or something), and they've come to you about health issues.

Or if they've explicitly asked for advice regarding health issues in a non-doctor relationship.

This. Unless you're absolutely sure of your relationship with the person, don't. You'll most likely just make things worse.

[Bulldog Psion]

The problem, as I see it, is that the truth is often not involved at all. People often use that "I call it as I see it" stuff to bray a subjective opinion in someone else's face. That isn't "telling the truth," it's being a total jackass.

EXAMPLE 1:

"The cloudless sky of Earth," Fred said, "is yellow with puce polka-dots."
"Man, Fred, that is so stupid," Sam responded. "The frickin' sky is blue. Open your eyes, idiot!"

In this case, Sam provided a tactless answer, which was also objectively true.

EXAMPLE 2:

"The cloudless sky of Earth," Fred said, "is yellow with puce polka-dots."
"Well, Fred, old friend," Sam responded, "I hate to tell you this, but the sky's blue. Always has been, always will be."

In this case, Sam stated an objective truth, but did so in a much more tactful manner.

EXAMPLE 3:

"Hey, look at this new outfit I bought!" Fred exulted. "Pretty sweet, isn't it? Looks like something a movie star would wear."

"Fred, that is the ugliest, stupidest piece of garbage clothing I've ever seen you put on," Sam said. "I wouldn't use that for anything but scrubbing out the toilet."

"Jeez, you jackass!" Fred shouted. "Just had to go and **** on my parade, huh?"

"Hey, don't blame me, Fred," Sam responded sanctimoniously. "I just call it like it is. Truth before tact, you know? That's what a real friend should do."

Problem is that here, Sam is making a subjective judgment and portraying it as an objective truth. I've seen this a LOT among people who claim to be "truth tellers" of the type this thread mentions. The actual truth is that the clothing looks great to Fred, and looks hideous to Sam.

Now, in this case, tact would be recognizing that this is a situation where there is more than one truth. Tactfully replying that the clothing looks great, is technically a lie from Sam's viewpoint, but serves the greater truth that there are different tastes.

While just ripping into his buddy over a subjective opinion may reveal Sam's inner truth, it is not serving any larger truth. It is just Sam's arrogant assumption that his subjective opinion is the objective reality of the universe, whereas something like whether a certain set of clothes looks good or bad is something that has no reality outside the eye of the individual beholder.

It comes across as rude, obnoxious, arrogant, and some kind of power game intended mostly to put the target down and make the speaker feel smugly superior. And it is precisely these people who always fall back instantly on "You just can't handle the truth" or "I can't help it, I call it like I see it," thus managing to portray themselves as superior again because they're such big truth-tellers.

They're really not, though; they're just dominating buffoons with big mouths who think they're right and you're wrong, and don't have the tact to keep their obnoxious subjective opinions to themselves. They are, in fact, trolls, hiding behind a pose of truthfulness.

Tact and truth can often be used together. Tact is just delivery and avoiding using insults when delivering a truth. On the other hand, tact and trolling are deadly enemies, whether it's online or offline.


How do you nicely ask someone to lose weight, assuming it's a good idea?

This pretty much falls under the category of "you don't ask them to lose weight, because it's none of your frickin' business." As noted, there are some exceptions, mostly if you happen to be their doctor. Otherwise, it's no more your part to run their life than it is for them to run yours. Even if it's a "good idea" to lose weight, it's not your call to make or to pressure them about, since they are not a possession of yours.

If they come and ask you for hints on how to lose weight, you can of course give them constructive advice. But just coming up and saying, "Hey, buddy, why don't you lose some of that blubber! It'll help ya get healthier, you know!" is simply not your role.

[Jay R]

How do you nicely ask someone to lose weight, assuming it's a good idea?

Privately, in your office as a physician, if and only if that person is consulting you professionally about health issues.

Always tell the truth - but don't always be telling it.

[McStabbington]

Always tell the truth - but don't always be telling it.

That's a very good way of putting it. Honesty does not require that you blurt out everything that pops into your head. As Bill Waterson once said, the reason our brain works faster than our mouth is so that we can think twice before speaking.

[SiuiS]

How do you nicely ask someone to lose weight, assuming it's a good idea?

You don't ask them to lose weight.


The problem, as I see it, is that the truth is often not involved at all. People often use that "I call it as I see it" stuff to bray a subjective opinion in someone else's face. That isn't "telling the truth," it's being a total jackass.

Ayup.


That's a very good way of putting it. Honesty does not require that you blurt out everything that pops into your head. As Bill Waterson once said, the reason our brain works faster than our mouth is so that we can think twice before speaking.

You know people who think before speaking?

[Aedilred]

You don't ask them to lose weight.

I must confess to some puzzlement on this point. Obviously, the range of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to do so is extremely narrow, but I don't believe it's nonexistent or "professionals only". If someone is unhealthily overweight, I don't really understand why advising them to do something about it is ultimately any different from advising them to stop smoking, or drinking, or see someone about depression, or leave an abusive partner, or any number of pieces of lifestyle advice a partner or close friend might be expected to give if they thought it was really to that person's benefit and they were concerned about the present situation.

Obviously it depends on the precise situation and the motive and so on, as does everything. But in principle I don't see why there should be a red line through it unless we're not supposed to pick our friends or loved ones up on other unhealthy behaviours either.

[SiuiS]

I must confess to some puzzlement on this point. Obviously, the range of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to do so is extremely narrow, but I don't believe it's nonexistent or "professionals only". If someone is unhealthily overweight, I don't really understand why advising them to do something about it is ultimately any different from advising them to stop smoking, or drinking, or see someone about depression, or leave an abusive partner, or any number of pieces of lifestyle advice a partner or close friend might be expected to give if they thought it was really to that person's benefit and they were concerned about the present situation.

Obviously it depends on the precise situation and the motive and so on, as does everything. But in principle I don't see why there should be a red line through it unless we're not supposed to pick our friends or loved ones up on other unhealthy behaviours either.

Advice is not a request. It's telling someone what to do or what you believe they should do, which is much different.

I'm also not going to supply context for the question. The answer to "how do you ask someone to lose weight" is different from the answer to "how do you ask someone to lose weight because [given reason]" because they are different questions.

In general, there is not tactful weight to ask or tell someone to make life choices out of the blue. If it's not out of the blue or it's relevant to current events with that person, then you have context and you simply act within that context to both convey the truth and intend to do so in a respectful manner. But there is no "how do I do something disrespectful, respectfully". You absolutely must have context to make the question possible to ask. And with what we've been given? We don't have that context.

Sometimes tact is knowing when what you want and what is appropriate differ.

E: I also want to stress that I may be wrong, but I am pretty stark in some of these. Like, abusive relationship? That's not somehing I handle with tact. That's something I handle with the continuum of force, because it is violence and aggression against someone I care about.

[Aedilred]

Advice is not a request. It's telling someone what to do or what you believe they should do, which is much different.

Isn't that just a question of tact, though? How does "I think you should consider revisions to your diet, possibly involving professional advice" fundamentally differ from "please lose weight" except in the way it's presented?


I'm also not going to supply context for the question. The answer to "how do you ask someone to lose weight" is different from the answer to "how do you ask someone to lose weight because [given reason]" because they are different questions.

Obviously, context is essential. But dismissing it as a nonstarter in the absence of any context without indicating that's why suggests that there is no context that makes it acceptable; there's no point asking the latter question because it appears to have been answered by the response to the former. The answer given was not "it depends why" or "more information needed", it was to all intents and purposes "no, never".

[SiuiS]

Isn't that just a question of tact, though? How does "I think you should consider revisions to your diet, possibly involving professional advice" fundamentally differ from "please lose weight" except in the way it's presented?


This is a good question. I don't have an answer for it. In fact, I have a complication; I guarantee there are tones of voice or context which make the first one rude and the second one tactful.



Obviously, context is essential. But dismissing it as a nonstarter in the absence of any context without indicating that's why suggests that there is no context that makes it acceptable; there's no point asking the latter question because it appears to have been answered by the response to the former. The answer given was not "it depends why" or "more information needed", it was to all intents and purposes "no, never".

That's a fair assessment. I think you miss the human factor, though. In this situation, I knew that saying "You can't" would elicit a request to know why. The set up and procedure made me very confident. And that's actually a service to the person asking! Because them asking me why it's never good would be buy in, meaning they are invested in my answer, even if only to try and refute it (which gets messy because maybe they disagree and maybe they just don't like that I was so stark and are rationalizing their disagreement).

If they instead just went "oh, okay" then I've given a man a fish, as the saying goes, maybe. If they ignored me completely then I don't think I could have helped them anyway.


Not that I planned this out, at all. It was reflexive and probably not what I would have done if I had stopped to go through all the fallout.

[McStabbington]

Isn't that just a question of tact, though? How does "I think you should consider revisions to your diet, possibly involving professional advice" fundamentally differ from "please lose weight" except in the way it's presented?


Because part of tact is knowing that sometimes nothing you can say about a subject can actually change anything, except to hurt the person to whom you are speaking. Do you really think that any overweight person needs to be told that they depart from our cultural ideal because they don't know what they are? I suppose that is possible; the laws of physics or logic do not prohibit it. But it is far more likely that they are fully aware and have been struggling with the problem.

And you pointing out that they have failed in your eyes? Really isn't going to do anything for them. It's the truth, certainly, but it's a truth they probably don't need to hear from someone close to them.

[Aedilred]

Because part of tact is knowing that sometimes nothing you can say about a subject can actually change anything, except to hurt the person to whom you are speaking. Do you really think that any overweight person needs to be told that they depart from our cultural ideal because they don't know what they are? I suppose that is possible; the laws of physics or logic do not prohibit it. But it is far more likely that they are fully aware and have been struggling with the problem.

And you pointing out that they have failed in your eyes? Really isn't going to do anything for them. It's the truth, certainly, but it's a truth they probably don't need to hear from someone close to them.

Again, though, I don't see why this is substantively any different to any number of other situations where people are advised to make lifestyle adjustments, whether for their own sake or those around them. I'm not suggesting anyone be asked to lose weight simply because they don't conform to societal ideals or anything like that: that would be silly. But how does someone who is on the verge of obesity in this situation really differ from someone on the verge of alcoholism? And yet intervention in the latter case would be applauded.

Being reminded that some issues one has hitherto been coping with (or not coping with) entirely privately and internally have in fact been noticed by, and are cared about by, other people, can be helpful in addressing them. Or not. It's entirely situational, but then so is everything this thread is dealing with.

[SiuiS]

Aedilred, you're making assumptions.

"Hey, can you please lose weight?"

Is he asking a fat person? His mother? Maybe his girlfriend gained a few pounds? Maybe she stopped losing a few? Maybe it's someone who took up bodybuilding? Maybe he cares about their health? Maybe he cares about just their looks? Maybe it's not as fun as have sex with them if they're this big (or this small, but not smaller)?

We don't know. We need context. Without context – that is, a situation where there is no context, either due to lack of genuine concern or due to this being strictly rhetorical – the answer is "don't". Because that's not something you can ask that is tactful.

You're adding in context to make it okay. But then, what's to differentiate that from adding in context to make it very not okay? You don't know the question was being asked of someone at or near obesity. It could be asked of a recovering anorexic out of malice for all you know.

That's why no defense. Because there is no defense. There is context already; long running passive social context which says "don't ask people these kinds of questions until after you have good reason". If what you're asking is really, why does social context make this not okay but makes other interventions okay, that's a good question. But it's beyond the scope of this thread.

[Aedilred]

Aedilred, you're making assumptions.

Well goto did ask us to...


You're adding in context to make it okay. But then, what's to differentiate that from adding in context to make it very not okay? You don't know the question was being asked of someone at or near obesity. It could be asked of a recovering anorexic out of malice for all you know.

In short, I am approaching things in the way I am because I find always assuming the worst, when someone is asking for advice, and answering exclusively on that basis, is unnecessarily obstructive.

You say that answering "no" invites a follow-up query. I would suggest that, without leaving room for further qualification, it does precisely the reverse, and the flatly negative response received to the question from some posters might be part of the reason why goto hasn't followed up that question in the last three days.

All I am actually arguing is that there might be circumstances in which it is appropriate for someone to provide this advice, and therefore that there might be an answer to the question that is not "the question is invalid", depending on the circumstances. I am not assuming that in this instance there are "mitigating circumstances", only asserting that there could be and therefore that there is the wriggle room in the overall question that some of the initial responses - on the assumption that the context was not ok - apparently denied.

The answer given was not "it depends" or "we need to know more before we can answer" or even "this is almost always a bad idea". It was "don't". That doesn't allow room for any reasonable interpretation other than "this is always wrong". That is what I'm disputing, because even you admit that it's not actually true.


"Hey, can you please lose weight?"

Given that it was presumably to avoid phrasing things in such a tactless way that goto asked the question in the first place, I find this a bit cheap.

[huttj509]

Well goto did ask us to...



In short, I am approaching things in the way I am because I find always assuming the worst, when someone is asking for advice, and answering exclusively on that basis, is unnecessarily obstructive.

You say that answering "no" invites a follow-up query. I would suggest that, without leaving room for further qualification, it does precisely the reverse, and the flatly negative response received to the question from some posters might be part of the reason why goto hasn't followed up that question in the last three days.

All I am actually arguing is that there might be circumstances in which it is appropriate for someone to provide this advice, and therefore that there might be an answer to the question that is not "the question is invalid", depending on the circumstances. I am not assuming that in this instance there are "mitigating circumstances", only asserting that there could be and therefore that there is the wriggle room in the overall question that some of the initial responses - on the assumption that the context was not ok - apparently denied.

The answer given was not "it depends" or "we need to know more before we can answer" or even "this is almost always a bad idea". It was "don't". That doesn't allow room for any reasonable interpretation other than "this is always wrong". That is what I'm disputing, because even you admit that it's not actually true.


Given that it was presumably to avoid phrasing things in such a tactless way that goto asked the question in the first place, I find this a bit cheap.

I am large and heavy (I've broken chairs, but only those relatively cheap metal folding chairs).

I've had comments from friends and family about my health, about my eating habits (so much easy little-prep junk readily available), and such. That's been, while a little cringeworthy, well within the bounds of my relationship with the folks who brought it up (especially since the one who mentioned the junk food has been known for "beer in the fridge and nothing else" in the past).

It's not about my weight. They're not asking me to lose weight. They're expressing concern about lifestyle and health habits. There's a significant difference. Weight can be indicative of health, and affected by health, but weight is not the goal, and should not be the goal.

The only thing in a position to ask me to lose weight is my chair, and this ain't Pee-Wee's Playhouse.

[SiuiS]

Well goto did ask us to...


To assume?



In short, I am approaching things in the way I am because I find always assuming the worst, when someone is asking for advice, and answering exclusively on that basis, is unnecessarily obstructive.

Ah, but I'm not assuming the worst. I'm not assuming at all. It's a technical point and normally I hate those. I'm only sticking to it because it feels like you don't understand what I mean, instead of disagreeing – I'm cool with disagreement! I just want to make sure you know what I'm really saying, so you're actually disagreeing, you know?

My stance is the unqualified statement is always bad. You seem to agree; you approach the question by qualifying it so as to gve benefit of the doubt to Goto. That's very good of you, and a nice default. I am framing my answers to address what I can conceive of as meta problems, but that is me borrowing trouble.



You say that answering "no" invites a follow-up query. I would suggest that, without leaving room for further qualification, it does precisely the reverse, and the flatly negative response received to the question from some posters might be part of the reason why goto hasn't followed up that question in the last three days.

This may be.



Given that it was presumably to avoid phrasing things in such a tactless way that goto asked the question in the first place, I find this a bit cheap.

A sloppy execution on my part. The tact of that example isn't important; that it could be a life saving thing or a death-dealing condemnation was. I'm sorry I flubbed that. That whole thing was only to serve to show that the idea needed context, so desperately, that it was unconscionable to give a firm positive or even a soft one, without knowing more.

By way of explanation, mind. Not justifying. :)

[Anarion]

The only way I can see to try and answer the weight question is to provide the contexts where it might be okay. And most of those contexts, you're actually not talking about weight, you're talking about something else that weight impacts. Like huttj509 said about people expressing concerns for his health.

The main context where it's okay to bring up is that you're already very close with somebody that you care about, the person knows that you care about them, and you have a legitimate concern about the person's lifestyle and habits that are leading to that person being overweight and unhealthy.

And...actually, that and being a medical professional are the only ones I can think of.

[huttj509]

The main context where it's okay to bring up is that you're already very close with somebody that you care about, the person knows that you care about them, and you have a legitimate concern about the person's lifestyle and habits that are leading to that person being overweight and unhealthy.


I had a guy approach me on the street asking for money for a tow truck with "Hey, Big Guy!"

As I commented to my brother later, the only folks who know me well enough to call me "big guy" know to not call me "big guy."

[SarahV]

I had a guy approach me on the street asking for money for a tow truck with "Hey, Big Guy!"

I recently had a guy approach me on the street asking for money, addressing me as "Big Girl" which is, I think, even a little creepier with the infantilization aspect (I'm in my late 30s). You gotta wonder where people's heads are at, sometimes...

I was thinking of this thread last night while on another forum... some guy started a thread criticizing Angelina Jolie's doctors for "letting her" have surgery to prevent cancer, assuming that she coerced them/paid them off because she's so rich and famous, etc., because he (not a doctor, of course) thinks this was not the ideal treatment for her. Several people called him out and he responded by saying he is just "expressing his opinion" and bragged about how he "has the balls" to do so without being influenced by or worried about what other people* think. :smallsigh: Poster child for the "Don't get mad at ME, I'm just telling it like it is" stereotype.

*"Other people" in this case apparently including the patient, her family, her doctors, and the medical profession generally...

[SiuiS]

I recently had a guy approach me on the street asking for money, addressing me as "Big Girl" which is, I think, even a little creepier with the infantilization aspect (I'm in my late 30s). You gotta wonder where people's heads are at, sometimes...

I keep forgetting you're not really a composed but elder rock star.


I was thinking of this thread last night while on another forum... some guy started a thread criticizing Angelina Jolie's doctors for "letting her" have surgery to prevent cancer, assuming that she coerced them/paid them off because she's so rich and famous, etc., because he (not a doctor, of course) thinks this was not the ideal treatment for her. Several people called him out and he responded by saying he is just "expressing his opinion" and bragged about how he "has the balls" to do so without being influenced by or worried about what other people* think. :smallsigh: Poster child for the "Don't get mad at ME, I'm just telling it like it is" stereotype.

*"Other people" in this case apparently including the patient, her family, her doctors, and the medical profession generally...

The answer there is simple. "No one cares that you have the balls to be stupid. It's not a good thing and frankly balls everywhere are now ashamed to be associated with you." Followed up by "opinions are not sacred. Stupid opinions are still stupid. They're only valid when educated. Yours is not."

This of course being a moment to dispense with tact because the other party would simply fold tact into supporting their perspective.

[veti]

EXAMPLE 3:

"Hey, look at this new outfit I bought!" Fred exulted. "Pretty sweet, isn't it? Looks like something a movie star would wear."

"Fred, that is the ugliest, stupidest piece of garbage clothing I've ever seen you put on," Sam said. "I wouldn't use that for anything but scrubbing out the toilet."

"Jeez, you jackass!" Fred shouted. "Just had to go and **** on my parade, huh?"

"Hey, don't blame me, Fred," Sam responded sanctimoniously. "I just call it like it is. Truth before tact, you know? That's what a real friend should do."

Problem is that here, Sam is making a subjective judgment and portraying it as an objective truth. I've seen this a LOT among people who claim to be "truth tellers" of the type this thread mentions. The actual truth is that the clothing looks great to Fred, and looks hideous to Sam.

Now, in this case, tact would be recognizing that this is a situation where there is more than one truth. Tactfully replying that the clothing looks great, is technically a lie from Sam's viewpoint, but serves the greater truth that there are different tastes.

Your other examples seemed clear enough, but I don't see this one. "Different tastes exist" - yes, but you're asking Sam to actively deny that. That doesn't "serve the greater truth" at all.

Sam isn't doing her friend any favours by letting him make a fool of himself all unawares that other people might not be as enraptured with his outfit as he is. Better that he should hear it from a friend, and now, rather than in a months' time after he's worn it all over town.

Edit: the tactful version of that answer, which I've heard a few times in my life, is "Well, so long as you like it, that's what matters, right?" Which obviously means "I hate it".

Second edit: actually, the versions I've most appreciated have been those that used (some variant of) "It makes you look like an incontinent badger". In that case I appreciate not just the honesty, but also the good-nature with which it's conveyed.

[SarahV]

I keep forgetting you're not really a composed but elder rock star.
Ha. No, I am neither composed, nor elder, nor a rock star. But by coincidence I did just walk in the door from one of his concerts. :smallsmile:


The answer there is simple. "No one cares that you have the balls to be stupid. It's not a good thing and frankly balls everywhere are now ashamed to be associated with you." Followed up by "opinions are not sacred. Stupid opinions are still stupid. They're only valid when educated. Yours is not."

Yes, he is currently being roundly excoriated by some of the sharper wits on that forum. :smallwink: Sometimes, on the internet, people get what they deserve.

[Scarlet Knight]

I was listening to NPR today, and the speaker was a man whose story basically came down to how he would ruin dates by being too honest. He'd say what he thought before considering whether he should say it or if his date really wanted to hear it.

So he read an etiquette book, which (paraphrasing) basically taught "Lie, lie well, and lie often for the good of others." He tried it and life got better. In the end, he concluded that a "world of total honesty only works in a world where others are without feelings".

[Anarion]

I was listening to NPR today, and the speaker was a man whose story basically came down to how he would ruin dates by being too honest. He'd say what he thought before considering whether he should say it or if his date really wanted to hear it.

So he read an etiquette book, which (paraphrasing) basically taught "Lie, lie well, and lie often for the good of others." He tried it and life got better. In the end, he concluded that a "world of total honesty only works in a world where others are without feelings".

As mentioned earlier in the thread, that's "Liar Liar" honestly. Being honest doesn't mean you say the first thing that pops into your head with no filter. I don't know about the rest of you, but I, for one, think strange things all the time. I do this thing (https://xkcd.com/337/) constantly, for example, and if I'm annoyed I'll often start out by shifting blame onto someone else almost reflexively before mentally going over what happened and rethinking it. I just don't say those things out loud.

There's a large space between "lying constantly" and "blurting out the first thing that comes into your mind all the time" and being too far on either extreme is a bad thing.

[golentan]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, that's "Liar Liar" honestly. Being honest doesn't mean you say the first thing that pops into your head with no filter. I don't know about the rest of you, but I, for one, think strange things all the time. I do this thing (https://xkcd.com/337/) constantly, for example, and if I'm annoyed I'll often start out by shifting blame onto someone else almost reflexively before mentally going over what happened and rethinking it. I just don't say those things out loud.

There's a large space between "lying constantly" and "blurting out the first thing that comes into your mind all the time" and being too far on either extreme is a bad thing.

Speaking of movies, have you watched "The Invention of Lying?" That was an interesting one.

[SiuiS]

Speaking of movies, have you watched "The Invention of Lying?" That was an interesting one.

I found it sort of distasteful. Just in general; like, there's an elaborate series of idiocy or misunderstandings between "lying doesn't exist, people believe everything you say" and "modern English culture would still exist but also this is Gataca(???) and people will do what they don't want to because telling them they should do something(opinion not fact, so can be wrong??) means they are magically bound to". Just... Blah.


As mentioned earlier in the thread, that's "Liar Liar" honestly. Being honest doesn't mean you say the first thing that pops into your head with no filter. I don't know about the rest of you, but I, for one, think strange things all the time. I do this thing (https://xkcd.com/337/) constantly, for example, and if I'm annoyed I'll often start out by shifting blame onto someone else almost reflexively before mentally going over what happened and rethinking it. I just don't say those things out loud.

There's a large space between "lying constantly" and "blurting out the first thing that comes into your mind all the time" and being too far on either extreme is a bad thing.

I thought this was Golentan for a moment. Huh

This is basically it. There is nothing whatsoever in truth telling that says you should not consider the response of the person you will tell. In fact, being honest requires more thought and investment. You need to think about the data, what the response would be, and how to deliver it so that you get your result without issue while remaining true to the point of telling the truth. Truth telling also means being responsible and accountable. If you do your best and someone explodes and gets mad, accept that and work with it. Don't back off an be all "but I only told the truth, geez!". Neither truth nor fiction exonerate you from consequences.

This is because emotional data is also truth. It's not just facts, numbers, logic. You can be honest and forthright and still a jackass, because it's possible to both appreciate your honesty and despise the emotional toll you take.

Long term honesty – not normal people 'I only lie when it's small or convenient' – is about reputation. People will be able to predict your response based on your percieved reaction or action. Being honest is about cultivating a reputation as reliable and trustworthy. If one is not careful, they will instead develop a reputation as a terrible and self centered, emotionally ignorant jerk. As ever, costs and benefits must be weighed.

[sktarq]

Your other examples seemed clear enough, but I don't see this one. "Different tastes exist" - yes, but you're asking Sam to actively deny that. (snippy snippy)
Second edit: actually, the versions I've most appreciated have been those that used (some variant of) "It makes you look like an incontinent badger". In that case I appreciate not just the honesty, but also the good-nature with which it's conveyed.

Well this one is one of the trickier as people tend to be unpredictable with how they respond to anything but a positive response. Being told "it makes you look like an incontinent badger" is actually a statement of "fact" when it is actually describing judgment. There are polite and tactful ways to say you dislike what someone is wearing. Pointing out why you think it doesn't look good is a good start-especially by rolling a light complement of the person into it. For example-it does nothing to flatter your figure, it takes away from your eyes, it looks uncomposed but the rest of you doesn't etc. Yes humour can be another way of softening the blow...your friends badger comment being an example. It is a fine one but generally needs a good personal bond as a prerequisite and not everyone is sure how strong a friendship is required as it varies enormously for each person.

Generally asking "does this make me look good" type questions because it usually is not an honest question. That being the case many have learned to just match the dishonesty. My ex called them "boyfriend trap questions" for good reasons (having been generalized for a potent subset of this type of situation).

[Jormengand]

I keep forgetting you're not really a composed but elder rock star.

I managed to legitimately convince someone that I had grey hair, once, without even trying. Even though they know how young I am.

:smalltongue:

[SiuiS]

Jormengand that is against the spirit of this conversation!

Heaven help them when they find out you aren't truly composed of bees...

[Jormengand]

Jormengand that is against the spirit of this conversation!

Heaven help them when they find out you aren't truly composed of bees...

Those aren't bees. They're bits of shattered rock.

Commander Kayros Vochar, the Lord of Words, is angry could calm down a little. It likes to break things gets a bit prickly when it's angry.

EDIT: Relevance!