As a general rule, say sorry when you make mistake. Apologize for your mistakes. Don’t say sorry when you aren’t making mistakes.
I figured this out at some point, but I really wish I had figured it out fifteen years earlier.
I would add an exception to the rule: I recall someone around here (I think quoting HPMoR) distinguishing between apology as regret and apology as submission. Some people only hear the latter. The rule does not work with them. They can usually be identified by explicitly demanding apologies or at least angling for them. Someone you have actually wronged probably doesn’t want an apology; they either want you to go away, or they want you to suffer.
Someone you have actually wronged probably doesn’t want an apology; they either want you to go away, or they want you to suffer.
If I have an appointment with you and I’m 20 minutes late then I have wronged you. That usually doesn’t mean that you want me to go away or want me to suffer. On the other hand an apology makes it clear that I admit that I made a mistake, so they don’t have to chide me for affair and we can move on and put our energy somewhere more productive.
I think that open communication and sharing information is a good default strategy even when there are cases where it doesn’t work. Sometimes it means you cooperate in prisoner dilemmas where the other person defects but it’s still a good default.
Unfortunately I’m still a bit underread on the topic of how to best apologize, but I think they are important.
Focusing on sharing information like apologies for mistakes and genuine compliments is a white hat social strategy. It believe it’s a lot more useful than thinking in terms of game theory and status competitions.
They can usually be identified by explicitly demanding apologies or at least angling for them.
Grammatically, this sentence means “If you demand apologies, that is a way for you to identify these people”, but I think that you meant “They can usually be identified by their habit of explicitly demanding apologies”. Passive voice can be tricky.
I figured this out at some point, but I really wish I had figured it out fifteen years earlier.
I would add an exception to the rule: I recall someone around here (I think quoting HPMoR) distinguishing between apology as regret and apology as submission. Some people only hear the latter. The rule does not work with them. They can usually be identified by explicitly demanding apologies or at least angling for them. Someone you have actually wronged probably doesn’t want an apology; they either want you to go away, or they want you to suffer.
If I have an appointment with you and I’m 20 minutes late then I have wronged you. That usually doesn’t mean that you want me to go away or want me to suffer. On the other hand an apology makes it clear that I admit that I made a mistake, so they don’t have to chide me for affair and we can move on and put our energy somewhere more productive.
I think that open communication and sharing information is a good default strategy even when there are cases where it doesn’t work. Sometimes it means you cooperate in prisoner dilemmas where the other person defects but it’s still a good default.
Unfortunately I’m still a bit underread on the topic of how to best apologize, but I think they are important. Focusing on sharing information like apologies for mistakes and genuine compliments is a white hat social strategy. It believe it’s a lot more useful than thinking in terms of game theory and status competitions.
Grammatically, this sentence means “If you demand apologies, that is a way for you to identify these people”, but I think that you meant “They can usually be identified by their habit of explicitly demanding apologies”. Passive voice can be tricky.