Not much to add. In my own experience, I’ve had more strife from using explicit communication (when I should have used implicit) than the other way around. I do (and mostly always did) default to explicit though.
Example 1: there are some people with whom I must get pretend-angry with while in an argument. Being explicit gets interpreted as an attempt to assume a haughty holier-than-thou moral position, which enrages them even more.
Example 2: there are some people where you’re better off letting them second-guessing what you’re thinking, or making your unsatisfaction somewhat implicit, and unstated. Coming up with a constructive moderate discourse tends to make them feel like there is little risk in not heeding it, and they will be given ample further warnings.
Some people (who often intersect with the last category), also shut down when you try to criticize them (no matter how gently you handle “the three conversations”). This hyper-sensitivity makes them more likely to course-correct if the criticism is implied but never explicitly stated.
I have had a similar experience to yours, especially with Example 1. Often, that appears as either “why aren’t you more upset/don’t you even care?” or “why are you being so formal?”, which reads to me as an attack for the benefit of an audience that may or may not be actually be present, rather than engaging with the actual conversation.
Which, to be fair, the actual conversation might not be that important, and they truly are looking for the implicit/emotional reaction, which demonstrates investment on (y)our part.
Example 2 is a classic example of mistaking kindness for weakness, assuming you can back up your criticism with boundary-setting or other consequences.
Not much to add. In my own experience, I’ve had more strife from using explicit communication (when I should have used implicit) than the other way around. I do (and mostly always did) default to explicit though.
Example 1: there are some people with whom I must get pretend-angry with while in an argument. Being explicit gets interpreted as an attempt to assume a haughty holier-than-thou moral position, which enrages them even more.
Example 2: there are some people where you’re better off letting them second-guessing what you’re thinking, or making your unsatisfaction somewhat implicit, and unstated. Coming up with a constructive moderate discourse tends to make them feel like there is little risk in not heeding it, and they will be given ample further warnings.
Some people (who often intersect with the last category), also shut down when you try to criticize them (no matter how gently you handle “the three conversations”). This hyper-sensitivity makes them more likely to course-correct if the criticism is implied but never explicitly stated.
I have had a similar experience to yours, especially with Example 1. Often, that appears as either “why aren’t you more upset/don’t you even care?” or “why are you being so formal?”, which reads to me as an attack for the benefit of an audience that may or may not be actually be present, rather than engaging with the actual conversation.
Which, to be fair, the actual conversation might not be that important, and they truly are looking for the implicit/emotional reaction, which demonstrates investment on (y)our part.
Example 2 is a classic example of mistaking kindness for weakness, assuming you can back up your criticism with boundary-setting or other consequences.