I think this oversimplifies and unreasonably quantizes what is a multidimensional spectrum of negotiation (aka micro-alignment transactions). All of these “types” of communication are valid, but only in specific contexts, both explicit and implicit.
Your example of a request/demand to take out the trash is a good one. There’s a LOT to unpack there about the relationship, prior behaviors, and partially-agreed roles that you’re each taking.
This is somewhat reflected in your closing,
Instead of following a rule of never using demands, I propose that the wise thing is to strive to use the ask that’s best in a social context.
But without recognizing the underlying complexity, it’s very hard to use this advice, as “best” is exactly as complicated as the rest of the concepts.
I’m not sure where that comes from. I don’t apply quanities at all in the post.
There’s a LOT to unpack there about the relationship, prior behaviors, and partially-agreed roles that you’re each taking.
I do acknowledge that it requires a certain culture for a request to be take out the trash to be treated as one and not as a demand. You might very well live in a cultural enviroment where that’s not possible.
This post is not about how to change culture but more about the options that exist.
Sorry to be unclear—I meant “quantize” not as just that it tries to make it a scalar quantity, but that it puts interactions into specific levels of force. But maybe I’m over-reacting a bit.
The request to take out the trash, in many contexts, is a mix of request, demand, and reminder. Any of “sorry, would you mind taking it out instead?”, “yup, was just about to”, “jeez! Okay, Mom!”, “I think it’s Joe’s turn”, or hundreds of other reactions can be appropriate. With very different levels AND TYPES of relationship changes as a result.
My main point is that there is value in being able to distinguish the different modes. The fact that there are examples where the modes are mixed up and there’s no common knowledge between the participants of a discussion about what’s meant doesn’t refute the thesis.
I think this oversimplifies and unreasonably quantizes what is a multidimensional spectrum of negotiation (aka micro-alignment transactions). All of these “types” of communication are valid, but only in specific contexts, both explicit and implicit.
Your example of a request/demand to take out the trash is a good one. There’s a LOT to unpack there about the relationship, prior behaviors, and partially-agreed roles that you’re each taking.
This is somewhat reflected in your closing,
But without recognizing the underlying complexity, it’s very hard to use this advice, as “best” is exactly as complicated as the rest of the concepts.
I’m not sure where that comes from. I don’t apply quanities at all in the post.
I do acknowledge that it requires a certain culture for a request to be take out the trash to be treated as one and not as a demand. You might very well live in a cultural enviroment where that’s not possible.
This post is not about how to change culture but more about the options that exist.
Sorry to be unclear—I meant “quantize” not as just that it tries to make it a scalar quantity, but that it puts interactions into specific levels of force. But maybe I’m over-reacting a bit.
The request to take out the trash, in many contexts, is a mix of request, demand, and reminder. Any of “sorry, would you mind taking it out instead?”, “yup, was just about to”, “jeez! Okay, Mom!”, “I think it’s Joe’s turn”, or hundreds of other reactions can be appropriate. With very different levels AND TYPES of relationship changes as a result.
My main point is that there is value in being able to distinguish the different modes. The fact that there are examples where the modes are mixed up and there’s no common knowledge between the participants of a discussion about what’s meant doesn’t refute the thesis.