The many gifts of awkward silence(jessicahagy.substack.com)
jessicahagy.substack.com
The many gifts of awkward silence
https://jessicahagy.substack.com/p/the-many-gifts-of-awkward-silence
86 comments
Yep. Everything powerful can be weaponized - by other people, by ourselves, or by the scared parts in ourselves which are afraid of feeling powerless.
Silence. Analysis. Strong emotion. Withdrawal. Violent outbursts. Love. Sacrifice. All of it.
Daniel Schmachtenburger talks about this a lot, with lots of examples:
https://youtu.be/9QGrffjOFko
Silence. Analysis. Strong emotion. Withdrawal. Violent outbursts. Love. Sacrifice. All of it.
Daniel Schmachtenburger talks about this a lot, with lots of examples:
https://youtu.be/9QGrffjOFko
And let’s remember that in business, like in war, the one with less empathy wins.
The one with the most power ( highest numbers, best weapons) wins. Empathy is lost when war starts.
Not all business is zero sum.
Not all business is zero sum.
Maybe I'm very lucky, but that's not my experience in the corporate world. I think there's a lot of 2nd effects and feedback loops that favor cooperative behaviors and strongly penalize jerks, at least in the medium/long term.
True. Even if we don’t say a word, we still communicate non-verbally.
Also, cultural differences have a big impact on how we experience silence. For example, in Finland 'active silence' can be a sign of respect and showing interest by concentrating quietly, but some cultures might experience the silence differently than Finns.
Also, cultural differences have a big impact on how we experience silence. For example, in Finland 'active silence' can be a sign of respect and showing interest by concentrating quietly, but some cultures might experience the silence differently than Finns.
I really agree with the "words you use to explain vs words that can be used against you" one.
So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you explain what you mean by..." or trying to break your concern down further. At face value it seems like a good question, but among political types, it almost certainly is a device to either try and reduce your concern to a bunch of little things so small they don't matter, or to tell you you don't understand or have defined something wrong. If you want to stand your ground, its usually better to give nothing, even if you feel like you haven't explained well, or in an online discussion, if you feel like your counterpart has "won" by getting the last comment in.
So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you explain what you mean by..." or trying to break your concern down further. At face value it seems like a good question, but among political types, it almost certainly is a device to either try and reduce your concern to a bunch of little things so small they don't matter, or to tell you you don't understand or have defined something wrong. If you want to stand your ground, its usually better to give nothing, even if you feel like you haven't explained well, or in an online discussion, if you feel like your counterpart has "won" by getting the last comment in.
> So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you explain what you mean by..." or trying to break your concern down further.
...I mean, I do this all the time out of a genuine desire to understand the other person's thinking; it's not some ploy to "win" an argument or feel somehow superior.
...I mean, I do this all the time out of a genuine desire to understand the other person's thinking; it's not some ploy to "win" an argument or feel somehow superior.
Thus my caveat of "among political types". In a good faith conversation it doesn't matter (and presumably staying silent and staring down your conversation partner happens less often generally). But as the other reply mentioned, there are lots of people - not friends, I've encountered it at work and online- that are basically trying to get you to talk more so they can trap you. The real trick is to recognize when it's happening with minimal false positives so you don't just look like a defensive jerk (been there also)
Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?
> Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?
I'm not the poster, but here's what I envision they're suggesting. The "political type" is somebody who approaches a conversation not out of a good faith desire to come to a mutual understanding, or to better communicate things the conversant may not be aware of, but simply as a transaction that they can use to further some agenda (or, alternately, they view the conversation as a trap they must successfully navigate to avoid having their agenda impeded).
This is either somebody who is already convinced they are right or somebody who doesn't care about what is right. The latter is particularly dangerous - these people are only interested in increasing their esteem within a group and in reducing their "opponent's" esteem. The outcome of the conversation is totally irrelevant to them, except insomuch as it furthers those objectives by scoring "points."
I'm not the poster, but here's what I envision they're suggesting. The "political type" is somebody who approaches a conversation not out of a good faith desire to come to a mutual understanding, or to better communicate things the conversant may not be aware of, but simply as a transaction that they can use to further some agenda (or, alternately, they view the conversation as a trap they must successfully navigate to avoid having their agenda impeded).
This is either somebody who is already convinced they are right or somebody who doesn't care about what is right. The latter is particularly dangerous - these people are only interested in increasing their esteem within a group and in reducing their "opponent's" esteem. The outcome of the conversation is totally irrelevant to them, except insomuch as it furthers those objectives by scoring "points."
That seems to set up every conversation to fail as people assume past each other rather than double check their interpretation. Good example: the other repliers who assumed ill intent.
Well, I think it's incontrovertible that some people will engage in bad faith conversations with the intent to only further their own agendas.
Sadly, there's no simple heuristic to detect this, and once participants are so far down the road of distrust that this question is on the table, it's unlikely to result in a healthy dialogue. Personally, I assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise - repeatedly.
What did the Supreme Court say about pornography [0] - "I know it when I see it."
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-4558
Sadly, there's no simple heuristic to detect this, and once participants are so far down the road of distrust that this question is on the table, it's unlikely to result in a healthy dialogue. Personally, I assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise - repeatedly.
What did the Supreme Court say about pornography [0] - "I know it when I see it."
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-4558
[deleted]
Unfortunately, it has been weaponized (especially on-line) for a long enough period that many people will not give the benefit of doubt. And frankly, unless they really want your compassion or understanding they have no incentive or any obligation to. Except for very well moderated forums and positive company cultures, it seems like that's where we are. One on one things stil seem much better.
[deleted]
> If you want to stand your ground, its usually better to give nothing, even if you feel like you haven't explained well, or in an online discussion, if you feel like your counterpart has "won" by getting the last comment in.
Why would you want to stand your ground? Isn’t the point of a discussion to learn new information and reach new conclusions?
I don’t think that seeing discussions as a battle to be won is typically a good framework. Even if you reach the point that you consider winning, it is unlikely that much has been accomplished.
Why would you want to stand your ground? Isn’t the point of a discussion to learn new information and reach new conclusions?
I don’t think that seeing discussions as a battle to be won is typically a good framework. Even if you reach the point that you consider winning, it is unlikely that much has been accomplished.
Depends on the discussion. Some types of discussions, like salary or business negotiations, are battles to be won, even though etiquette demands we pretend otherwise.
For example, if you're asking for a pay raise of $10k and your boss counters by asking why you need more money, it's not in your interest to go down that track.
For example, if you're asking for a pay raise of $10k and your boss counters by asking why you need more money, it's not in your interest to go down that track.
If you feel like their question is trying to drag you into their field, you might want to also return a question instead. If none of you answers it stays as it is, if they were asking in good faith you get a better framing that isn't just a trap.
This method is called the Socratic method, and it was found so annoying when invented that excuses were found to execute the inventor.
Asking clarifying questions seems different from the Socratic method. Clarifying questions are a practical tool to make sure you understand someone.
No, it is exactly the Socratic method. Keep asking for clarification until you find a contradiction. Lead the target to trap themself.
That must be a difficult way to see the world. The answers to these questions often reveal how plausible it is that a discussion can go anywhere. I've avoided so many hell threads with them. That's time you don't get back. I'm just not going to persuade some people, and questions help me determine the viability of continuing.
The problem with the silence technique is when people apply it for normal conversations. Every business conversation does not need to be adversarial, and silence is a control technique used to assert dominance.
When people pull this shit on my teams where inappropriate, they are in the cold as far as I’m concerned. Peers need to collaborate, not conduct themselves like apes.
In a natural adversarial context (procurement, legal, audit) that’s a different story.
When people pull this shit on my teams where inappropriate, they are in the cold as far as I’m concerned. Peers need to collaborate, not conduct themselves like apes.
In a natural adversarial context (procurement, legal, audit) that’s a different story.
I've had a superior barrage me with questions, faster than I could possibly answer them. It was incredibly adversarial. I was kinda stunned, to be honest, and i took a beat to collect my thoughts. Gave him a brief, mostly involuntary wide-eyed stare, took an audible breath, and set about deliberately answering his questions in an order that made sense. The rest of our meeting went smoothly.
When a coworker is acting like an ape, a moment of silence can inject some calm into the situation.
When a coworker is acting like an ape, a moment of silence can inject some calm into the situation.
I agree, and I feel the article implicitly focuses on workplace discussions. But it is good to make it explicit -- if you do this with your friends, you may "win" in the short term but you won't have many friends in the long term.
Exactly, as with any technique it takes experience and an understanding of the immediate social situation. People whipping out dominance-inducing tools makes them, well, seem like the tool with a complete disregard for the greater aim.
The quickest ~$40k I ever made was by introducing 5s of awkward silence during a salary negotiation.
It felt like 5 minutes though.
It felt like 5 minutes though.
At what time do you remain silent?
Salary negotiation is one of those things I suck at and don't get the chance to practice a lot either. I wish there were more opportunities to practise
Salary negotiation is one of those things I suck at and don't get the chance to practice a lot either. I wish there were more opportunities to practise
A good moment is in the offer/counter-offer phase. If you're talking numbers, when the person across the table says, "We'd like to offer you $x to join our team", don't instantly reply, but sit and mull it over.
(If this is happening over email, turn a few seconds into an hour or so. Similar practice.)
If you immediately say "no" it could give the impression you aren't interested or even considering them.
By giving a few seconds of silence, it telegraphs, "I'm interested in this job. I'm considering this carefully."
Then, give a counter-offer*. After your initial silence, you can say something like, "That is an interesting offer. I really like $Company, and I want to work here. Could we (don't use I/you, use "we") consider $x+n? I think that reflects my skills and experience well."
And don't say anything else, wait for the other party to break silence. Don't elaborate on your skills, no "What I mean is..." -- they've seen your resume, your code challenge, etc.
It is hard to do, but it can be very effective. Just make sure you keep a polite but firm stance. If they won't move on base pay, move to looking at signing bonuses, equity, etc.
---
* You almost always should do this, by the way. If you are at the point where a job offer is extended, any place worth working at is not going to instantly rescind the offer because you had the audacity to ask. Its letting the sunk cost fallacy work in your favor.
(If this is happening over email, turn a few seconds into an hour or so. Similar practice.)
If you immediately say "no" it could give the impression you aren't interested or even considering them.
By giving a few seconds of silence, it telegraphs, "I'm interested in this job. I'm considering this carefully."
Then, give a counter-offer*. After your initial silence, you can say something like, "That is an interesting offer. I really like $Company, and I want to work here. Could we (don't use I/you, use "we") consider $x+n? I think that reflects my skills and experience well."
And don't say anything else, wait for the other party to break silence. Don't elaborate on your skills, no "What I mean is..." -- they've seen your resume, your code challenge, etc.
It is hard to do, but it can be very effective. Just make sure you keep a polite but firm stance. If they won't move on base pay, move to looking at signing bonuses, equity, etc.
---
* You almost always should do this, by the way. If you are at the point where a job offer is extended, any place worth working at is not going to instantly rescind the offer because you had the audacity to ask. Its letting the sunk cost fallacy work in your favor.
Thanks - This is some great advice :)
Another thing to note - This would also require research to come up with some numbers.
Stay silent, take time to think, show excitement but not too much
Stay silent, take time to think, show excitement but not too much
A colleague of mine once made fun of me because of the tools I used. I got so angry because of the comment that I was ready to berate him. Considering his influence, reputation and being working there for much longer than me, acting furiously could cost my job. I simply silenced took a deep breath, stopped what I was typing and kept looking at my monitor. He went away.
Now, I see that the situation may have fallen in the case listed in the article: "You make the situation even weirder—but in your favor. You harnessed the attack and deflected it, simply by letting it linger in the air, like the emotional fart it is."
Now, I see that the situation may have fallen in the case listed in the article: "You make the situation even weirder—but in your favor. You harnessed the attack and deflected it, simply by letting it linger in the air, like the emotional fart it is."
The reverse is to keep talking when someone is trying to cut you. If they’re really trying to cut you then you’ll both be speaking out loud which will get really awkward. It is then a test of strength to see who will endure the most cringe and stop speaking last.
I've tried this with a serial-interrupter. The danger of this approach is that most other people in the room won't remember who was speaking first. You'll get responses of "you were both talking at the same time. I couldn't understand either of you", and you'll both look like idiots.
I see you've met my mother.
But on a more serious note: I tried that too. Doesn't work with certain people. Some get even angry, give you a "Let me finish talking!" lecture and continue talking for literal hours. What i started doing, was to just leave. Like, physically leave. Now that probably won't work if you're in a meeting or talking to the boss, so use with care.
But on a more serious note: I tried that too. Doesn't work with certain people. Some get even angry, give you a "Let me finish talking!" lecture and continue talking for literal hours. What i started doing, was to just leave. Like, physically leave. Now that probably won't work if you're in a meeting or talking to the boss, so use with care.
Then there is the class of people that just don't stop talking even if you physically leave the room. I know two of those, so statistically speaking either I am an extreme outlier there or there are a lot of those out there.
Currently living with the type
Leaving might work with people who are intentionally being rude.
Most of the time, people aren't aware they're being rude, but will be offended if you try a passive-aggressive way of implying this is the case.
Most of the time, people aren't aware they're being rude, but will be offended if you try a passive-aggressive way of implying this is the case.
not to mention "the other person was a serial interrupter" is often a case of "you spoke non stop via a single run-on sentence for 20 minutes and monopolized the conversation"
I understand that's sometimes the case, as I've been known to interrupt people myself. But in this particular instance I don't think I ever spoke more than 15 seconds without them speaking over the top of me. I later got them to speak about it in a more candid setting, and they confessed that they find most people to be too boring to listen to.
That sounds like ADHD
Apologies, I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. Well, I mean, I did, but I didn't mean to be mean :p
However, despite the risk of still appearing to be continuing the 'attack', it's really not about how "long" one speaks. It's mostly about speaking in a way that enables exchange in conversation, by allowing counterpoints to enter, vs not doing so, and making multiple unrebuttable statements in a row, completely monopolizing and derailing the conversation.
E.g. (Good:) "I think the government should stay off the gold standard, so that the pound can reach a level that can keep our exports competitive. [Pause]"
vs
(Bad:) "I think the government should stay off the gold standard, partly because our exports, well, you know how women are always underpaid compared to men, 70c on the dollar, which by the way would have been stronger than the pound, had only the government not treated the whole case with the federal reserve so shabilly, almost as shabbily as cryptocurrencies, which by the way are the future, only a fool would not invest, filecoin in particular; have you shared drive space to the IPFS yet?"
There. 10 seconds max. But good luck discussing the gold standard after this. Or the pay gap. Or the Federal reserve. I wanted to interrupt myself like 5 times during that sentence.
Obviously the commonest example is people speaking in run-on sentences like in the example above, but this is not the only way to make yourself uninterruptible. An equally annoying variant of this is where sometimes people actually pause at a natural point for counterpoint, but when you attempt to 'reply' or offer your counterpoint, they continue as if to say "the pause was not an invitation", effectively transforming the counterpoint into an interruption. This is one of those cases where person A then claims they were interrupted, but in fact person B could validly claim the same. This is often a display of power, as it has the effect that A 'paces' the conversation, painting a bad picture about B 'the interruptor' in the room, and causes B (and all others) to vastly delay or completely bury any further attempts at counterpoint when the opportunity naturally arises.
E.g.
However, despite the risk of still appearing to be continuing the 'attack', it's really not about how "long" one speaks. It's mostly about speaking in a way that enables exchange in conversation, by allowing counterpoints to enter, vs not doing so, and making multiple unrebuttable statements in a row, completely monopolizing and derailing the conversation.
E.g. (Good:) "I think the government should stay off the gold standard, so that the pound can reach a level that can keep our exports competitive. [Pause]"
vs
(Bad:) "I think the government should stay off the gold standard, partly because our exports, well, you know how women are always underpaid compared to men, 70c on the dollar, which by the way would have been stronger than the pound, had only the government not treated the whole case with the federal reserve so shabilly, almost as shabbily as cryptocurrencies, which by the way are the future, only a fool would not invest, filecoin in particular; have you shared drive space to the IPFS yet?"
There. 10 seconds max. But good luck discussing the gold standard after this. Or the pay gap. Or the Federal reserve. I wanted to interrupt myself like 5 times during that sentence.
Obviously the commonest example is people speaking in run-on sentences like in the example above, but this is not the only way to make yourself uninterruptible. An equally annoying variant of this is where sometimes people actually pause at a natural point for counterpoint, but when you attempt to 'reply' or offer your counterpoint, they continue as if to say "the pause was not an invitation", effectively transforming the counterpoint into an interruption. This is one of those cases where person A then claims they were interrupted, but in fact person B could validly claim the same. This is often a display of power, as it has the effect that A 'paces' the conversation, painting a bad picture about B 'the interruptor' in the room, and causes B (and all others) to vastly delay or completely bury any further attempts at counterpoint when the opportunity naturally arises.
E.g.
A: The report needs to be ready by Monday [Pause].
B: Of course, but we still need to consider--
A: ... since any later than Monday -- excuse me, B -- will delay the whole project by a Month. [Pause].
B: Yes. Of course. But before we submit we really should--
A: ... and if the project is delayed -- excuse me again, B-- by a month, we'll be REALLY late then [long thoughtful pause].
B: ... y ... yes. I do think however that it we really ought--
A: ... and good heavens -- B, please let me finish-- if we delay, what will I tell Bob? So, we're all agreed? Good. We'd better press on too, we're running out of time. B, you wanted to say something?
B: ... no, no. All good. Let's move on.It sounds like you're trying to make me aware that I might be the one to blame, here. That maybe this "serial interrupter" was just trying to get a word in while I railroaded the conversation. And that's fair. I didn't give you a lot of information to go on, so I appreciate you trying to make me at least consider the possibility that I might be the one at fault. Your points are valid -- I'm not going to argue with any of them -- but I don't think they apply to me in this particular scenario.
Also, not that it's very important, but if you can read out that passage of yours in under 10 seconds I'll give you a prize!
Also, not that it's very important, but if you can read out that passage of yours in under 10 seconds I'll give you a prize!
It's good when talking one on one. I talk "through" them when they attempt to cut me off. It happened once that the other person got angry, and told me I interrupted them. When I recounted the conversation and how I had actually started first, they were stunned. It was a wonderful feeling
But this is worse because the interrupter may be doing it in good faith, as in, "I already predicted the rest of your paragraph, let's save 50 seconds of our lives."
edit: unless they're a "serial interrupter" as in sibling comment, we have one of those
edit: unless they're a "serial interrupter" as in sibling comment, we have one of those
The problem with this is that when they fail to predict you usually end up having to repeat the whole argument, to explain it to them the subtle difference between what you where trying to say and what they thought you where trying to say. Usually wasting more time and infuriating you.
It's better to identify those kinds of mispredictions and correct them as early as possible, otherwise the communication barrier will grow until everyone gets infuriated anyway.
I've learned to let them cut me, and then remain completely silent until specifically asked to talk again. The second time it happens, they figure it out. The third time rarely comes.
What if they just keep talking, using up all the available time, and you’re never asked to continue?
Then my point was not going to be considered anyway. That is typically the case only with exes.
Whenever I bring my axes into the conversation people seem to not want to make a point anymore.
Yes, an axe should be a blade, not a point!
It seems a good trick. It works on kids, it also works on aggressors. Just the other day girls at work discussed self defense and apparently they've been taught to throw a reflex slap to anybody trying to jump them just to send confusion. There's a weird thing about humans and their behavior where a lot of intense ones seems like semi-programmed feedback loops.
What you're describing is responding to an insult/attack by ignoring it. And I agree that it is often a good tactic.
I think the article is kind of strange though. It's framed in the context of negotiation and how to respond to questions.
> ...SILENCE. It's the best reply to questions you wish you weren't asked.
And yet, as you quoted, it mentions being attacked.
I think silence is often a good response to insults/attacks, but not in response to questions. The latter is rude and disrespectful.
I think the article is kind of strange though. It's framed in the context of negotiation and how to respond to questions.
> ...SILENCE. It's the best reply to questions you wish you weren't asked.
And yet, as you quoted, it mentions being attacked.
I think silence is often a good response to insults/attacks, but not in response to questions. The latter is rude and disrespectful.
Sometimes if you try this you enrage the person on the other end so much that they LITERALLY stop what they're doing to SCREAM at the top of their lungs. After their voice is hoarse they go right back to the vicious attacks. I'm not sure this advice works when used on people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder.
I was being berated unfairly, verbally abused, accused of things that didn't happen, and gaslit. Instead of defending myself I actually tried the approach laid out in this article: "SHUT UP when you aren’t sure what to say". I wasn't about to defend myself when everything I do is suddenly on trial for some reason.
I was being berated unfairly, verbally abused, accused of things that didn't happen, and gaslit. Instead of defending myself I actually tried the approach laid out in this article: "SHUT UP when you aren’t sure what to say". I wasn't about to defend myself when everything I do is suddenly on trial for some reason.
When you deal with people like this, the screaming crazy is victory.
There is a modified response for these types of situations called “grey rock.”
Can you elaborate on what grey rock entails?
https://www.e-counseling.com/mental-health/what-is-the-grey-...
>The grey rock method is a practice where an individual becomes emotionally non-responsive, boring, and virtually acts like a rock. Emotional detachment serves to undermine a narcissist’s attempts to lure and manipulate, causing them to grow uninterested and bored. The grey rock method takes away what the narcissist needs and desires most–attention.
>The grey rock method is a practice where an individual becomes emotionally non-responsive, boring, and virtually acts like a rock. Emotional detachment serves to undermine a narcissist’s attempts to lure and manipulate, causing them to grow uninterested and bored. The grey rock method takes away what the narcissist needs and desires most–attention.
Incredibly useful tactic when someone is selling you a high-ticket item. When they pause and say something like “so, are you ready to invest [they always use this term when you’re spending a lot]?” just wait a couple of beats. Amazing how often they talk themselves into dropping the price… so you go a notch further down.
I've seen this formalized as a strategy (probably here on Hacker News):
1. Express disbelief at the offer. You might just repeat the offer with appropriate inflection and body language, like it's hard to believe they are asking that much.
2. Don't say anything, no matter how uncomfortable it gets. Wait until the other party makes a concession.
I suspect professional sales people will be wise to this, but they probably already have a concession they are willing to make to close the deal.
1. Express disbelief at the offer. You might just repeat the offer with appropriate inflection and body language, like it's hard to believe they are asking that much.
2. Don't say anything, no matter how uncomfortable it gets. Wait until the other party makes a concession.
I suspect professional sales people will be wise to this, but they probably already have a concession they are willing to make to close the deal.
> SHUT UP when you aren’t sure what to say.
> Just don’t say anything. Just don’t. Nothing. No. Not a syllable. SILENCE.
So if a person asks you a question you don't like you just don't answer? Totally ignore them?
Am I missing something or does this seem rude and disrespectful?
I mean, if I'm not sure if the answer, why not, you know, just say so? e.g. "Hmmm... I'm not sure, can I get back to you on that?"
Or in the case of one of their example questions. "Can you work for free?" Instead of ignoring them, how about "No, I can't do that. My policy is not to work for free"?
What am I missing here?
So if a person asks you a question you don't like you just don't answer? Totally ignore them?
Am I missing something or does this seem rude and disrespectful?
I mean, if I'm not sure if the answer, why not, you know, just say so? e.g. "Hmmm... I'm not sure, can I get back to you on that?"
Or in the case of one of their example questions. "Can you work for free?" Instead of ignoring them, how about "No, I can't do that. My policy is not to work for free"?
What am I missing here?
> So if a person asks you a question you don't like you just don't answer? Totally ignore them?
Not ignore, per se. To ignore someone might involve continuing on about something else, for example, which is a much different thing than shutting up. Shutting up might involve making eye contact, raising an eyebrow. Perhaps a pained expression. Nonverbal communication.
> Am I missing something or does this seem rude and disrespectful?
It can be. Some of the questions are rude and disrespectful in their fundamental construction, so responding some in kind might be warranted. Hell, silence might be a hell of a lot more polite than called for.
But silence is not always rude and disrespectful. Consider for a moment a fool who's made an unreasonable ask or put their foot in their mouth. It might take them a moment for their brain to catch up with their mouth - perhaps after wondering a moment why you aren't asnwering, before they put themselves in your shoes and realize what they've done.
You might pause a moment to let them realize this for themselves, without having them suffer the added injury and injustice of you explaining, spelling out, and spoonfeeding their error to them as if they were incapable of realizing it for themselves, if only you'd be so decent as to just give them a moment. Or two. Letting them do their own self-critique may lessen their guard and defensiveness, as you won't come across as wanting to tear them down. Of course, this won't work well unless you can respect and trust the person to actually do such things.
In this case, if you squint hard enough, saying nothing could be seen as an extremely simplified version of the socratic method - the implicit question being perhaps "do you realize what you've just said/asked?" or "and what do you think I think about that?"
Not ignore, per se. To ignore someone might involve continuing on about something else, for example, which is a much different thing than shutting up. Shutting up might involve making eye contact, raising an eyebrow. Perhaps a pained expression. Nonverbal communication.
> Am I missing something or does this seem rude and disrespectful?
It can be. Some of the questions are rude and disrespectful in their fundamental construction, so responding some in kind might be warranted. Hell, silence might be a hell of a lot more polite than called for.
But silence is not always rude and disrespectful. Consider for a moment a fool who's made an unreasonable ask or put their foot in their mouth. It might take them a moment for their brain to catch up with their mouth - perhaps after wondering a moment why you aren't asnwering, before they put themselves in your shoes and realize what they've done.
You might pause a moment to let them realize this for themselves, without having them suffer the added injury and injustice of you explaining, spelling out, and spoonfeeding their error to them as if they were incapable of realizing it for themselves, if only you'd be so decent as to just give them a moment. Or two. Letting them do their own self-critique may lessen their guard and defensiveness, as you won't come across as wanting to tear them down. Of course, this won't work well unless you can respect and trust the person to actually do such things.
In this case, if you squint hard enough, saying nothing could be seen as an extremely simplified version of the socratic method - the implicit question being perhaps "do you realize what you've just said/asked?" or "and what do you think I think about that?"
> In the case of one of their example questions. "Can you work for free?" Instead of ignoring them, how about "No, I can't do that. My policy is not to work for free"?
What the blog is suggesting only really works when communicating face to face, in person. But if someone asks me if I can work for free, and I simply stare at them, I think the most likely outcome is that they realize they've made a mistake by asking it and back peddle, or say something stupid.
What the blog is suggesting only really works when communicating face to face, in person. But if someone asks me if I can work for free, and I simply stare at them, I think the most likely outcome is that they realize they've made a mistake by asking it and back peddle, or say something stupid.
My comment applies in most person to person contexts, face to face or otherwise.
> But if someone asks me if I can work for free, and I simply stare at them
Again, I think a better solution is to politely decline. It shows respect for the other person and I think it increases the likelihood of reciprocated respect. I don't see how ignoring them is better.
> But if someone asks me if I can work for free, and I simply stare at them
Again, I think a better solution is to politely decline. It shows respect for the other person and I think it increases the likelihood of reciprocated respect. I don't see how ignoring them is better.
If somebody thinks they're better than you, their disrespecting you while you respect them is exactly what they expect. Staring silence shows that their expectation was wrong and they should reconsider.
It's a little confrontational, but when you do this in person you would usually do it while retaining eye contact. That is, you don't ignore them by staring out the window, you pay attention to them. Effectively asking them to either say something else or reconsider what they just said.
Disagreement/conflict is not necessarily rudeness. And "respect" has to go two ways; the silent non-response is often a good way to say "what you just said was vaguely insulting" (e.g. can you work for free) so I'm not going to dignify it with a response.
Disagreement/conflict is not necessarily rudeness. And "respect" has to go two ways; the silent non-response is often a good way to say "what you just said was vaguely insulting" (e.g. can you work for free) so I'm not going to dignify it with a response.
Definitely some overlap with the advice to not talk to police. Granted, it's probably better to calmly explain to police that you won't be speaking on the topic at hand, but similar power move.
[deleted]
When there is nothing you can say which will improve the situation, don't say.
When someone doesn't want to discuss an issue to mutual conclusion (if only agreeing to disagree), don't discuss.
When someone's statement/question speaks for itself, don't speak for it.
When someone doesn't want to discuss an issue to mutual conclusion (if only agreeing to disagree), don't discuss.
When someone's statement/question speaks for itself, don't speak for it.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was notorious for using this to great effect.
Can be weaponised. Therefore, not totally lawful-neutral.
c/f gaslighting as others have said. If you chose to be only passive in all conversations, you aren't sharing knowledge: you may be acquiring it, but across the specifics of a relationship this is in effect weaponised information asymmetry.
c/f gaslighting as others have said. If you chose to be only passive in all conversations, you aren't sharing knowledge: you may be acquiring it, but across the specifics of a relationship this is in effect weaponised information asymmetry.
Can this principle of silence be applied to emails/txts?
Seems like in the context of emails, silence is just ghosting, and is unprofessional. (Hope I’m wrong)
Seems like in the context of emails, silence is just ghosting, and is unprofessional. (Hope I’m wrong)
Emails and texts also have a rhythm. Perhaps the outlined strategy can be modified here, by taking more time to respond than your previous replies.
Seems to me this can be filed under "How being a jerk can sometimes yield benefits".
Being a jerk can yield benefits. See Psalm 37.
Being a jerk can yield benefits. See Psalm 37.
I've only used this a few times when someone asked me something egregious or made a ridiculous demand and they surprisingly caved.
I am also including a very extreme example of silence being used for manipulation purposes by You Know Who, just before a speech before a hostile crowd. The Mexican artist Diego Rivera describes this in his autobiography, My Life My Art:
A few days later I saw Adolf Hitler address a mass meeting in Berlin, [...] As he prepared to speak, Hitler drew himself rigidly erect, as if he expected to swell out and fill his oversized English officer's raincoat and look like a giant. Then he made a motion for silence. Some Communist workers booed him, but after a few minutes the entire crowd became perfectly silent. As he warmed up, Hitler began screaming and waving his arms like an epileptic. Something about him must have stirred the deepest centers of his fellow Germans, for after awhile I sensed a weird magnetic current flowing between him and the crowd. So profound was it that, when he finished, after two hours of speaking, there was a second of complete silence. Not even the Communist youth groups, instructed to do so, whistled at him. Then the silence gave way to tremendous, ear-shattering applause from all over the square. As he left, Hitler's followers closed ranks around him with every sign of devoted loyalty. [...] [Muenzenberg] had been watching Hitler, then nearly at the other end of the square. He had noticed that the crowd was still applauding. Before leaving the square, Hitler turned and gave the Nazi salute. Instead of boos, the applause swelled. It was clear that Hitler had won many followers among these left-wing workers.
So you know, it CAN be a dick move.
I am also including a very extreme example of silence being used for manipulation purposes by You Know Who, just before a speech before a hostile crowd. The Mexican artist Diego Rivera describes this in his autobiography, My Life My Art:
A few days later I saw Adolf Hitler address a mass meeting in Berlin, [...] As he prepared to speak, Hitler drew himself rigidly erect, as if he expected to swell out and fill his oversized English officer's raincoat and look like a giant. Then he made a motion for silence. Some Communist workers booed him, but after a few minutes the entire crowd became perfectly silent. As he warmed up, Hitler began screaming and waving his arms like an epileptic. Something about him must have stirred the deepest centers of his fellow Germans, for after awhile I sensed a weird magnetic current flowing between him and the crowd. So profound was it that, when he finished, after two hours of speaking, there was a second of complete silence. Not even the Communist youth groups, instructed to do so, whistled at him. Then the silence gave way to tremendous, ear-shattering applause from all over the square. As he left, Hitler's followers closed ranks around him with every sign of devoted loyalty. [...] [Muenzenberg] had been watching Hitler, then nearly at the other end of the square. He had noticed that the crowd was still applauding. Before leaving the square, Hitler turned and gave the Nazi salute. Instead of boos, the applause swelled. It was clear that Hitler had won many followers among these left-wing workers.
So you know, it CAN be a dick move.
[deleted]
This is excellent advice.
If the silence is focused on getting yourself to the place where you have the best compassionate, win-for-all decision about how to engage, that's great. If the silence is basically a refusal to have a relationship based in candor, that can sabotage a relationship.
Lots of dysfunctional relationships have a dynamic where one person withholds and withdraws and the other person gets more and more anxious and aggressive because they are desperate for the other person to engage.
Taken thoughtfully and critically, the idea of allowing silence is excellent. We should certainly not fill silence just because we can't accept it.