saving one's breath
New icon, which perhaps is a bit topical, what with #OccupyWallStreet, though I kind of hate myself there for succumbing to the "Twitter hashtag in non-Twitter context" syndrome. I don't even use Twitter.
This may come out a bit jumbled, but it's a post that's been inchoate in me for a while.
Sometimes someone says he's going to do something where I think "Hmm, that sounds like it might be a bad idea," or expresses an opinion where I disagree about the facts or think that the idea has unintended consequences, but the ratio of the importance of the issue to how strongly he feels about it (or how defensive he's likely to be) is very low, and so I let it pass without saying anything. This happens in real life, and is generally a case for deft changing of subject, but it's even more prevalent on the internet. In real life, at least, the person is actually looking at you and might be expecting some kind of response and you might not be able to avoid it, but when you read it on Facebook or a blog etc, it's extremely easy to just shake my head and scroll past.
The issue then becomes when the person later mentions some bad result that to me is probably or even certainly connected with the original bad idea, and yet the person seems to show absolutely no awareness of the connection. Then what to do?
I'll make up an example because I'm not sure if I'm being clear. I definitely don't want to use anything from reality, so this is entirely made up. (This blog post is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between this blog post...)
You read a post on a blog from a friend talking about starting a raw paleolithic diet. Specially that he's going to be eating raw meat. And he goes into all this stuff about how much energy he's feeling and so on, and all the research he's done.
And then a few months later the person posts about having contracted some intestinal parasites, and blames a trip abroad.
What should you say? Should you still stay silent?
Sometimes it's more of an opinion/personal example kind of disconnect, like the middle-aged person who says "Sunscreen's a waste of money, I've never used it" and has skin that resembles leather from the discount bin. (Another made-up example.) Or "I think second-hand smoke is a total con, my parents smoked around me all the time and I turned out ok" from someone who you know has asthma. (You might think that no one could say something like that, but I've heard things just as ridiculous, so I wouldn't count out the possibility of someone saying that.)
After thinking a lot about it I've actually come to the decision that in most cases staying silent is probably the wiser choice, because there are pretty much three options about why the person has the disconnect:
1. The person truly doesn't see the connection, and since it's a glaringly obvious one, it's doubtful that he will see it even if it's pointed out.
2. The person does see it, in his heart of hearts, but feels embarrassed or guilty about it, and is either persisting in the classic "throw good money after bad" maneuver, or has quietly backtracked on the true cause and is hoping no one will bring up the past bad choice. (In the meat example, for instance, he might have stopped eating raw meat but isn't saying anything about it.)
3. (Especially for "sunscreen" type cases where nothing can be done to undo the harmful effects.) The person does see the connection, but doesn't want to admit, perhaps even to himself, either that there is damage at all, or (if the damage was his fault) his responsibility in the matter, so he clings all the more to the idea that there is no connection.
So pointing it out is very doubtful to have any actual good effect. And because what you're pointing out is never flattering, the possibility of ill-will or even severance of relationship is there. So the reward to risk ratio is really, really, low.
It's one thing to speak out on a matter that might end a friendship when it's a matter of grave importance or you have a high likelihood of influence. But in these cases it seems like a poor use of relationship capital.
I was thinking about it because I was worried I was being cowardly when failing to speak in these situations. It's possible or even probable that I am often motivated by cowardice or desire to keep myself in the graces of others, but I think not speaking is actually the right decision.
Do you agree?
---
We went out for dinner tonight with The Husband's aunt and her boyfriend, which was a nice surprise after the hard morning (see also: previous post). We went to a Mediterranean restaurant. I had lamb souvlaki and it was excellent. I originally was going to order a pizza but decided at literally the last moment (the waitress turning to me to take my order) to get the lamb instead. Not having to cook dinner was so nice.
The Pipster was a complete angel and charmed everyone. :D The only issue was that she didn't want to stay in the high chair. Most of the time I was holding her. She fell asleep nursing and was asleep through most of the main course, so it's a lucky thing that my dinner was easy to eat one handed.
This may come out a bit jumbled, but it's a post that's been inchoate in me for a while.
Sometimes someone says he's going to do something where I think "Hmm, that sounds like it might be a bad idea," or expresses an opinion where I disagree about the facts or think that the idea has unintended consequences, but the ratio of the importance of the issue to how strongly he feels about it (or how defensive he's likely to be) is very low, and so I let it pass without saying anything. This happens in real life, and is generally a case for deft changing of subject, but it's even more prevalent on the internet. In real life, at least, the person is actually looking at you and might be expecting some kind of response and you might not be able to avoid it, but when you read it on Facebook or a blog etc, it's extremely easy to just shake my head and scroll past.
The issue then becomes when the person later mentions some bad result that to me is probably or even certainly connected with the original bad idea, and yet the person seems to show absolutely no awareness of the connection. Then what to do?
I'll make up an example because I'm not sure if I'm being clear. I definitely don't want to use anything from reality, so this is entirely made up. (This blog post is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between this blog post...)
You read a post on a blog from a friend talking about starting a raw paleolithic diet. Specially that he's going to be eating raw meat. And he goes into all this stuff about how much energy he's feeling and so on, and all the research he's done.
And then a few months later the person posts about having contracted some intestinal parasites, and blames a trip abroad.
What should you say? Should you still stay silent?
Sometimes it's more of an opinion/personal example kind of disconnect, like the middle-aged person who says "Sunscreen's a waste of money, I've never used it" and has skin that resembles leather from the discount bin. (Another made-up example.) Or "I think second-hand smoke is a total con, my parents smoked around me all the time and I turned out ok" from someone who you know has asthma. (You might think that no one could say something like that, but I've heard things just as ridiculous, so I wouldn't count out the possibility of someone saying that.)
After thinking a lot about it I've actually come to the decision that in most cases staying silent is probably the wiser choice, because there are pretty much three options about why the person has the disconnect:
1. The person truly doesn't see the connection, and since it's a glaringly obvious one, it's doubtful that he will see it even if it's pointed out.
2. The person does see it, in his heart of hearts, but feels embarrassed or guilty about it, and is either persisting in the classic "throw good money after bad" maneuver, or has quietly backtracked on the true cause and is hoping no one will bring up the past bad choice. (In the meat example, for instance, he might have stopped eating raw meat but isn't saying anything about it.)
3. (Especially for "sunscreen" type cases where nothing can be done to undo the harmful effects.) The person does see the connection, but doesn't want to admit, perhaps even to himself, either that there is damage at all, or (if the damage was his fault) his responsibility in the matter, so he clings all the more to the idea that there is no connection.
So pointing it out is very doubtful to have any actual good effect. And because what you're pointing out is never flattering, the possibility of ill-will or even severance of relationship is there. So the reward to risk ratio is really, really, low.
It's one thing to speak out on a matter that might end a friendship when it's a matter of grave importance or you have a high likelihood of influence. But in these cases it seems like a poor use of relationship capital.
I was thinking about it because I was worried I was being cowardly when failing to speak in these situations. It's possible or even probable that I am often motivated by cowardice or desire to keep myself in the graces of others, but I think not speaking is actually the right decision.
Do you agree?
---
We went out for dinner tonight with The Husband's aunt and her boyfriend, which was a nice surprise after the hard morning (see also: previous post). We went to a Mediterranean restaurant. I had lamb souvlaki and it was excellent. I originally was going to order a pizza but decided at literally the last moment (the waitress turning to me to take my order) to get the lamb instead. Not having to cook dinner was so nice.
The Pipster was a complete angel and charmed everyone. :D The only issue was that she didn't want to stay in the high chair. Most of the time I was holding her. She fell asleep nursing and was asleep through most of the main course, so it's a lucky thing that my dinner was easy to eat one handed.