Interesting. That very issue of indirect communication versus concise expressions has been central to a stressful tension in my own life in the last week. And it’s been a recurring theme for me over the years.
In this present situation, at a family-owned business meeting, I asked for clarification on some figures on an expense report. The person responsible for the report clearly became defensive, which gave the implication that what I said was taken as a lack of confidence or trust. I felt frustration that undue emotional considerations were required to ask appropriate questions, and that speaking with such around-and-about manners often leaves questions less than clarified. While there were never any contentious words nor tones, it just seemed that what I considered appropriate persistence was very distressing to the other individual. And that became apparent in subsequent emails that, again, to me seemed nothing but objective and clear communication, with no accusatory elements to them, yet seemed to escalate a skewed perspective in the other person.
The whole thing has been distressing. And as mentioned earlier, I have many times found myself in similar situations where I seem to push someone’s buttons when I’m simply trying to articulate something (obviously something of personal significance) in a clear and concise manner. To me, it’s like, isn’t communication better when it’s not ambiguous? I tell myself that I would prefer such even if it was somewhat unpleasant.
Your suggestion that people sometimes want to press others directly while reserving the right to innuendo-speak for themselves is intriguing.
The only sensible response to having your cake and eat it too is: “yes of course, there is no point to cake except to eat it.”
A piece of cake may be shaped like a doorstop, but it doesn’t function as a doorstop, and it may be aesthetically pleasing, but not for long, in a couple days it will be moldy. Cake and eat it too is a misguided way to accuse a person is being greedy or unrealistic.
I like to lecture people on this as a point of order. Generally I find humans sloppy and lazy in their thinking, so for fun I am persnickety with instances of illogic; I play it very straight and I can sense they just just want to get away from me, which is the payoff.
My wife doesn’t particularly care for the behaviour. Oh well, I guess you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I think I’ll re-read your thing on luxury beliefs, it was very interesting.
Pretty subtle intimidation by Bobby, i'm guessing he had stopped thinking about the back thing with Notre Dame long enough to plan out how he would handle that union guy.
The writing for Deadwood was rife with complicated indirect threats and constant deflection of any promises. In general, I like the shows that do a good job navigating the gray area in human interaction. However, in real life, I find it unsatisfying and frustrating to not just say what you mean and mean what you say. I guess in some respects, yes, that is boring. However, I would rather take care of business efficiently and have the time to go do something fun than to be stuck trying to figure out the puzzle of subtle innuendo.
Now, I think often people don't really know what they want... and that can look like they are navigating a gray area, but they are really just ignorant and flailing about hoping something good happens. That also irritates me, but at least I have a bit more empathy and understanding there as many people don't know what they want. In their case you can sometimes lead them to make a damn decision.
As for me, I truly prefer parrhesia. Flattery, innuendo, indirectness, etc. confuse me and verbosity irks me. Even though I am no longer young and know most people lie to some degree, I am still somewhat flummoxed when I find that a friend has deceived me even in a small way.
A question, how would this apply across occupations/cultures? On the occupation front, I work in engineering and what commonly crops up is that many engineers prefer to communicate directly all the time, vs sales/business/marketing. It can be to the point where engineers can be known for being too blunt/direct and get dinged for interpersonal skills etc. (from personal and 3rd person accounts)
On the culture side, not from personal account, but Germans are apparently known for being more direct? I understand their language can also be rather direct too, many compound words that are literal in nature. As compared to maybe American culture that puts more emphasis on putting up a positive front etc.(everything is great/awesome etc.)
This is amazing: “Schelling also points out that it is harder to build a reputation as someone who carries out their threats than someone who keeps their promises.”
I’m wondering how Rob or others might square it with the Machiavelli concept that it is “better to be feared than loved.” (Although both are imperative to portray in leadership that lasts according to him.)
That is a good analogy. The issue I have with that very famous quote is that ignores the very important but perhaps more long winded next paragraph. Someone who goes around threatening constantly in an obvious way could easily cross the line into being hated.
“Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.”
Nice article, Rob. If you haven't heard it already, I would check out Steven Pinker's "The Life of the Mind" podcast. Each episode is only 5-10 minutes. Episodes 11-12 specifically get at this idea of using innuendo and other indirect speech to manipulate ambiguity to your benefit in social contexts.
Interesting. That very issue of indirect communication versus concise expressions has been central to a stressful tension in my own life in the last week. And it’s been a recurring theme for me over the years.
In this present situation, at a family-owned business meeting, I asked for clarification on some figures on an expense report. The person responsible for the report clearly became defensive, which gave the implication that what I said was taken as a lack of confidence or trust. I felt frustration that undue emotional considerations were required to ask appropriate questions, and that speaking with such around-and-about manners often leaves questions less than clarified. While there were never any contentious words nor tones, it just seemed that what I considered appropriate persistence was very distressing to the other individual. And that became apparent in subsequent emails that, again, to me seemed nothing but objective and clear communication, with no accusatory elements to them, yet seemed to escalate a skewed perspective in the other person.
The whole thing has been distressing. And as mentioned earlier, I have many times found myself in similar situations where I seem to push someone’s buttons when I’m simply trying to articulate something (obviously something of personal significance) in a clear and concise manner. To me, it’s like, isn’t communication better when it’s not ambiguous? I tell myself that I would prefer such even if it was somewhat unpleasant.
Your suggestion that people sometimes want to press others directly while reserving the right to innuendo-speak for themselves is intriguing.
Dude. Always knocking it out the park with solid content. 🤘🏼
Agreed.
In preparing this for a lecture -- it really sounds like a chapter in 48 Laws of Power. You’re familiar with this one, Rob!
The only sensible response to having your cake and eat it too is: “yes of course, there is no point to cake except to eat it.”
A piece of cake may be shaped like a doorstop, but it doesn’t function as a doorstop, and it may be aesthetically pleasing, but not for long, in a couple days it will be moldy. Cake and eat it too is a misguided way to accuse a person is being greedy or unrealistic.
I like to lecture people on this as a point of order. Generally I find humans sloppy and lazy in their thinking, so for fun I am persnickety with instances of illogic; I play it very straight and I can sense they just just want to get away from me, which is the payoff.
My wife doesn’t particularly care for the behaviour. Oh well, I guess you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I think I’ll re-read your thing on luxury beliefs, it was very interesting.
Pretty subtle intimidation by Bobby, i'm guessing he had stopped thinking about the back thing with Notre Dame long enough to plan out how he would handle that union guy.
That Soprano’s scene is so freakin good. Great pick.
The writing for Deadwood was rife with complicated indirect threats and constant deflection of any promises. In general, I like the shows that do a good job navigating the gray area in human interaction. However, in real life, I find it unsatisfying and frustrating to not just say what you mean and mean what you say. I guess in some respects, yes, that is boring. However, I would rather take care of business efficiently and have the time to go do something fun than to be stuck trying to figure out the puzzle of subtle innuendo.
Now, I think often people don't really know what they want... and that can look like they are navigating a gray area, but they are really just ignorant and flailing about hoping something good happens. That also irritates me, but at least I have a bit more empathy and understanding there as many people don't know what they want. In their case you can sometimes lead them to make a damn decision.
As for me, I truly prefer parrhesia. Flattery, innuendo, indirectness, etc. confuse me and verbosity irks me. Even though I am no longer young and know most people lie to some degree, I am still somewhat flummoxed when I find that a friend has deceived me even in a small way.
A question, how would this apply across occupations/cultures? On the occupation front, I work in engineering and what commonly crops up is that many engineers prefer to communicate directly all the time, vs sales/business/marketing. It can be to the point where engineers can be known for being too blunt/direct and get dinged for interpersonal skills etc. (from personal and 3rd person accounts)
On the culture side, not from personal account, but Germans are apparently known for being more direct? I understand their language can also be rather direct too, many compound words that are literal in nature. As compared to maybe American culture that puts more emphasis on putting up a positive front etc.(everything is great/awesome etc.)
This is amazing: “Schelling also points out that it is harder to build a reputation as someone who carries out their threats than someone who keeps their promises.”
I’m wondering how Rob or others might square it with the Machiavelli concept that it is “better to be feared than loved.” (Although both are imperative to portray in leadership that lasts according to him.)
That is a good analogy. The issue I have with that very famous quote is that ignores the very important but perhaps more long winded next paragraph. Someone who goes around threatening constantly in an obvious way could easily cross the line into being hated.
“Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.”
Aha thanks. This then takes us back to Rob’s points.
Nice article, Rob. If you haven't heard it already, I would check out Steven Pinker's "The Life of the Mind" podcast. Each episode is only 5-10 minutes. Episodes 11-12 specifically get at this idea of using innuendo and other indirect speech to manipulate ambiguity to your benefit in social contexts.
New word, parrhesia, thank you.