Sincerism

[jadine]

I believe in total, absolute openness and honesty in relationships.  I wish this could be applied more broadly, but societal conventions label very direct communication as "rude".  Instead, we're expected to dance around every interaction, watching for subtle cues that may mean very different things to the different people involved, and guessing at

Comments

[pouchedfox]

hmmmm, well the cartoon capture my thoughts and reaction exactly to why this isn't good irl, I saw something like this in an episode of "are you being served" when a customer was discovered to admire being insulted because she respected sincerity and was always sincere herself. In ohio where I lived I knew a few people like that, and they were extremely abrasive

[jadine]

I did say specifically that the comic shows why society doesn't work like this. However, this is significantly different from saying this isn't good irl.

I don't believe this is something people should inflict on others without their consent, which is what you're talking about. It's like the difference between BDSM and domestic abuse. All participants have to be consenting.

That's why I propose a group of people who have specifically said they want to do this. It's why people within such a group should warn others of the context, before unleashing any "rude" opinions.

I believe we need white lies sometimes - for example, at work. I do not believe we need lies in the context of a relationship or close friendship.

This kind of "Sincerism" or whatever is probably something like poly - some people are suited to it and others aren't. I'm looking for people who want to try it. I know that most people are not comfortable with this, and I'm not proposing that anyone force it on them.

[pouchedfox]

oh ok, hmm that could be interesting, I'm thinking about how conversations would go, and it's hard because I'm so used to the polite small talk, things you may think but dont say, that i have to keep rethinking it to see how that would work......

Though seriously there are times where I hate the fact that I can't be sure if the person is lying to be polite and spare my feelings or if their telling the truth - and in those I would have liked knowing the truth, but couldnt be sure.

[bayashi314]

I have this with my ex. This form of truth. We are best friends and it works for us. Its not why we're exes, either. :P

People with Aspergers will get behind this idea. We can't tell when someone is lying or not anyhow, at least not usually. So I tend to ask "Are you being serious?" in many situations where it is apparently obvious to others...

[bayashi314]

I am behind it.

As for a name, I can't think of a super clever one right now.

[pouchedfox]

the dome of truth?

[bayashi314]

I was thinking something from Dune - like the Gom Jabbar - that tests for "humanity"...

Ah, you've passed through the "Veil of Truth" - you are an Imperial Communicator!

[flwyd]

... and all of a sudden it's a Burning Man theme camp!

Before I saw jadine mention an IRC channel, I thought "Sounds like IRC!" I think the public nature helps give courage to sincerism. People will back you up if your claim sounds reasonable and defend the recipient from unwarranted charges. Ideally. Sometimes, the regulars bully the newbies.

Maybe it should be a self-selecting subset of Omegle.

[kareina]

I would enjoy such a place--the most common complaint others uttered about me as I was growing up was that I tend towards "brutal honesty"--I was told this more often than I was told I'm too loud, and since I didn't get hearing aids till my late 20's and always spoke loud enough for *me* to hear easily, I got that one *often* (still do, really, even with the hearing aids, since the vocal patterns were set long ago).

I haven't heard the "brutal honesty" complaint in a few years, perhaps I finally learned when it is best to "keep silent"?

[icedrake]

This isn't just about being sincere and honest, it's also about having little to no thought. How often do you have a reaction to something that, after some consideration, is reversed entirely? It's not about lying, or even phrasing things politely. How useful or interesting would a conversation be if it got interrupted by stream of consciousness statements like "oh, man, look at that ass! I'd totally fuck her/him!"

[jadine]

I think you're missing the point. There's a big difference between direct, honest statements, and totally unfiltered stream of consciousness.

However, I've also had conversations very much like what you described. (In fact, lately I've had a lot of conversations that wander into stream of consciousness, as ADD runs in my family.) I really don't have a problem with this, as long as one can focus a little more for the occasional serious subject.

Different people have different needs in conversations just as in everything else. As I noted in an earlier comment, I think the concept I described is probably not suitable for most people right now - but for some, it would be terrific.

[icedrake]

It's entirely possible that I am -- I'm rarely awake and clear-headed at 6am. (and what on earth are *you* doing up at 4 in the morning?)

But I'd argue the Templar strip you linked to is an example of what I describe, rather than just plain sincerity.

I'm still poking at the overall concept in my head, and the problem is that it *sounds* appealing at first glance, and I can tell you plenty about how society reacts to it. I don't think ADD runs in my family, but it does in me, and spur of the moment, honest reactions have gotten me into no end of trouble over the years.

But here's a question. At any given time, there are many statements you can make about -- well, pretty much anything -- which are true in equal measure. How do you choose which one to make?

[jadine]

Eh, I tend to be up past 4 in the morning.

Everything he says in the Templar strip is *relevant*, not random.

Of course society reacts badly to it, that's my point. It's not socially acceptable. I want to create a space where it is.

You can learn to filter more selectively. Filter for relevancy - but not for social conventions and expectations. For example, expressing my direct feelings about the person I'm talking to is highly relevant, but generally not "polite". Expressing my direct feelings about some other person that pops into my head is usually not relevant.

[ltempt]

It might be an interesting IRC experiment.

The idea is good. Interesting. And it could work, except as soon as the conversation steers towards any number of Issues, people are going to be offended. It's easy to work through the personal stuff, but as soon as someone's buttons are pushed ...

[jadine]

I guess it's a question of self-control. I don't see that someone saying "You know, I find that offensive" is a problem - nor calmly arguing about a controversial subject. It's only a problem if the people involved lose their temper.

This is another reason it works better one-on-one, too. You don't have a group "taking sides", and two people with strong, set views can agree to disagree.

The concept is inherently idealistic. But that doesn't mean it can't work.