People prefer self-image over truth

Post Reply New Topic

I just notice that I cannot be frank with some people, because they will get too emotional.
Therefore I tip-toe around them.
It seems to me that people just need to be told what action to take, not so much to be told the truth as to why to take such action (or be given incentives).
Infact, it is my current view (possibly subject to change -- or not) that if you know that you're "in the right", then you don't need to directly tell the other person 'all the truth', but just enough to prompt them to take action --
otherwise the whole truth would overwhelm them and make them feel threathened and possibly lead to the opposite effect (key words from psychology: "reactance", "self-serving bias", "cognitive dissonance"), possibly at your expense.

Personally, I can, for the most part, deal with truth.
If you tell me I'm wrong, I will accept it. What is true is true.
But darn, I notice myself tip-toing around other people, because I just feel that being too candid would overwhelm them.
I notice myself doing that when I am in some way dependent upon that person.

I just noticed that all my life.
When I was honest with people, they suddenly felt threathened and thought that it was something personal, but for me it was always just about finding the solutions, not about judging them in any way.
It just leads me to think that people prefer to maintain their self-image instead of looking at things as they are.
Oh well,...
=)

All the best

Maybe some people do, but you generally won't know to whom this applies unless you are only giving advice to people you know well.



Given that this involves other people, its validity is situational—it depends on the person you are dealing with. Often people will not take what you say seriously unless you provide rationale, make them understand why you are right.

Furthermore, lots of people think they are in the right when they are wrong; explaining the whole situation helps all parties to figure what is truly right.

Personally, I like knowing the truth because only a fool is happy in a fool's paradise. I mean, nobody is a fool (I don't believe in levels of literal intelligence), but some people are just focused on certain things. But they NEED to focus on some things. That was what I meant.

I'd be really insulted if someone thought I was the way you described and treated me like the way you described.

Yeah , there's a few people like that in my life and I hate the fact that people tread on eggshells around these people ( including me , I feel weak because I do this ) otherwise they erupt as if it's a personal attack

"there is no better way to guard yourself against flattery than by making men understand that telling you the truth will not offend you"...

I have had that problem because I used to assume everyone would logically look past or beyond personal opinions and such in order to get to the truth or the best solution or whatever.

I don't think any good can come from presenting facts contrary to someone's belief without either amazing luck or careful pre-investigation of the best circumstances and approach. NTs are hard-wired for such calculations far better than we are.

Thanks to all for your valuable replies, I really was happy to read.

Hi, I'm not sure if I understand what you meant by that. Maybe you can elaborate?


Thanks, I see I made it sound too general.
What I was speaking about is indeed only applicable to a certain class of situations like you said.
It's really hard to speak generally, that's why my posts sound awkward, since only I have the "metadata" about what I was thinking about when wrote it.

What I meant to propose is this:
If "telling the truth" is the only means of "getting benefit" from some person (who is possibly superordinate), and if the truth is comprised of a set of "sub-truths" (truth statements, or your arguments For "getting benefit"), and if additionally some of these sub-truths (depending on the order, pace, and manner of presentation [and whatnot]) may invoke emotional states within the other person (in other words, I assume that "they can't handle the [full] truth"), then I propose that it is NOT advisable (if you want to "get benefit") to go for the most straightforward strategy where you would simply present unembellished sub-truth statements in whichever (sensible) order, as I propose that this approach would be errorneously percieved as an "ego threat".
Instead, in such a case I would advise to make mental simulations, and presenting ego-threathening sub-truth statements in a decorated manner (if this doing is something you would find acceptable of yourself (if you can handle the trade-off)), if they need to be presented at all.
Additionally I advised that -- as long as it's not necessary, or as long as it's not your last resort -- "you don't need to directly tell the other person 'all the truth', but just enough to prompt them to take action (i.e. give you benefit)".

I hope this at least makes _some_ sense.. I don't know if it's true, but I know there is _some_ truth in the proposal (by that I mean that I believe that it is conditionally valid in many social encounters).

In a way it's an attempt to put into words some of my frustrations and trying to make the strategies more explicit/conscious.
But obviously every one of us is not perfect, I mean I definitely am not perfect and it's SO EASY to be mistaken.
Being 'too logical' or basing decisions too much on logic is not always the way to go.
Making wrong assumptions is super easy, but I think every one has their own way of approaching situations...

Everybody prefers "sweetened" opinions over honesty. Even Aspies. Whenever I've tried being blunt on WP (without being rude) people have got upset. So it must be a human thing.