It had the probably unintended effect, though, of helping to give me a deep cynicism about human nature, a cynicism which persists to this day.
I’ve had similar experiences:
-People refusing to draw conclusions that cast them in a negative light, and directing sadness / anger / annoyance at me for being critical.
-People accepting conclusions that cast them in a negative light, and subsequently reacting with sadness and self-anger.
However, Take Caution—this can lead to the following problem: “Person X has problem A, but what’s the point of telling them so when I know that the result will be negative?” <-- I frequently experience this thought when I am in a particularly bad mood, so I’m going to guess that at least some people on Lesswrong sometimes fall into this mindset.
The thought is wrong because I’ve also had the following experiences:
-I’ve pointed out people’s flaws and they acknowledge it (and then continue to behave exactly as before) - “Yes, I’m sorry, it’s a flaw which is hard for me to change”. For some reason, this response makes me much more understanding...the flaw becomes a common enemy rather than a point of contention.
-I’ve pointed out something I thought did not make sense, and the person changed my mind by giving me information I didn’t have before.
-I’ve pointed out something I didn’t like, and the person apologized and changed their behavior.
-I’ve pointed out that someone’s closely held social opinion is wrong, appealing to shared fundamental values. After a long discussion, they conceded and change the viewpoint. Yes, it takes a long time...but that’s not only because it’s hard to change a person’s mind. It’s also because it legitimately takes a long time to analyze complex topics.
So the reality is that while it’s certainly harder for people to conclude things which cast them in a negative light, it doesn’t always turn out that way. A large part of it is learning how to use body language and verbal cues to steer people away from “argument” and towards ’discussion”...and most importantly reading the other person’s cues to figure out when they are receptive to discussion, and when emotions are flaring and you should just drop it. As you might guess, if you catch someone in a good mood, they are much more capable of engaging in self-criticism without experiencing any emotional flare ups. And, naturally, some people are just better at it than others…
I guess the point of this comment is to clarify the middle ground between “People are all hopelessly narcissistic, why even bother trying to change them” and “Be brutally honest and critical all the time even if it upsets everyone”. While I’ve gotten into my fair share of unpleasant, net-negative arguments due to my tendency to have the discussion rather than just drop it, I think it’s had a net positive on my relationships. If nothing else, having the discussion has made my models of the people in my life more accurate and sometimes causes me to change my mind. I’ve never actually lost anyone forever due to this, though perhaps that’s just my good luck...
Practical tip: I often tell people that if I’m criticizing them, it’s a sign of respect because it means I think they can handle criticism. I find that making sure people understand this makes people more receptive to criticism. It’s also helpful to let other people know that you are a friend and have their best interests at heart, so they don’t perceive your criticism as a form of social attack. For this reason I usually only criticize people in-real-life after we are friends, and not before...unless they’ve given me reason to believe they are unusually good at handling criticism.
Edit: Also, I want to point out that religion, which is used as an example here, is a particularly difficult thing for someone to change their mind about for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with the human tendency towards narcissism....it’s best not to draw broader conclusions about humans being unable to think negative things about themselves in general from looking at religion as a case study.
I’ve had similar experiences:
-People refusing to draw conclusions that cast them in a negative light, and directing sadness / anger / annoyance at me for being critical.
-People accepting conclusions that cast them in a negative light, and subsequently reacting with sadness and self-anger.
However, Take Caution—this can lead to the following problem: “Person X has problem A, but what’s the point of telling them so when I know that the result will be negative?” <-- I frequently experience this thought when I am in a particularly bad mood, so I’m going to guess that at least some people on Lesswrong sometimes fall into this mindset.
The thought is wrong because I’ve also had the following experiences:
-I’ve pointed out people’s flaws and they acknowledge it (and then continue to behave exactly as before) - “Yes, I’m sorry, it’s a flaw which is hard for me to change”. For some reason, this response makes me much more understanding...the flaw becomes a common enemy rather than a point of contention.
-I’ve pointed out something I thought did not make sense, and the person changed my mind by giving me information I didn’t have before.
-I’ve pointed out something I didn’t like, and the person apologized and changed their behavior.
-I’ve pointed out that someone’s closely held social opinion is wrong, appealing to shared fundamental values. After a long discussion, they conceded and change the viewpoint. Yes, it takes a long time...but that’s not only because it’s hard to change a person’s mind. It’s also because it legitimately takes a long time to analyze complex topics.
So the reality is that while it’s certainly harder for people to conclude things which cast them in a negative light, it doesn’t always turn out that way. A large part of it is learning how to use body language and verbal cues to steer people away from “argument” and towards ’discussion”...and most importantly reading the other person’s cues to figure out when they are receptive to discussion, and when emotions are flaring and you should just drop it. As you might guess, if you catch someone in a good mood, they are much more capable of engaging in self-criticism without experiencing any emotional flare ups. And, naturally, some people are just better at it than others…
I guess the point of this comment is to clarify the middle ground between “People are all hopelessly narcissistic, why even bother trying to change them” and “Be brutally honest and critical all the time even if it upsets everyone”. While I’ve gotten into my fair share of unpleasant, net-negative arguments due to my tendency to have the discussion rather than just drop it, I think it’s had a net positive on my relationships. If nothing else, having the discussion has made my models of the people in my life more accurate and sometimes causes me to change my mind. I’ve never actually lost anyone forever due to this, though perhaps that’s just my good luck...
Practical tip: I often tell people that if I’m criticizing them, it’s a sign of respect because it means I think they can handle criticism. I find that making sure people understand this makes people more receptive to criticism. It’s also helpful to let other people know that you are a friend and have their best interests at heart, so they don’t perceive your criticism as a form of social attack. For this reason I usually only criticize people in-real-life after we are friends, and not before...unless they’ve given me reason to believe they are unusually good at handling criticism.
Edit: Also, I want to point out that religion, which is used as an example here, is a particularly difficult thing for someone to change their mind about for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with the human tendency towards narcissism....it’s best not to draw broader conclusions about humans being unable to think negative things about themselves in general from looking at religion as a case study.