RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Honesty versus Brutal Frankness

Thursday
July 20, 2006

Honesty versus Brutal Frankness by G. Stolyarov II

A popular misconception of honesty equates the virtue with always “telling it like it is” and not holding back any of one’s thoughts about a person, idea, or situation—no matter what the consequences of those thoughts. This view and its real-world applications are antithetical to genuine honesty. Mr. Stolyarov describes genuine honesty as being true to oneself above all and always striving to act on one’s best understanding of reality and one’s genuine self-interest. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (16 messages)

Post 0

Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 11:24am

Link

Edit

Mr. Stolyarov,

I read your article with much interest.

You said:

“Honesty—viewed from a rational, individualistic context—is identical with being true to oneself.”

I would say that honesty, from a personal perspective, is being true to the objective reality.

When you say that

“Honesty…means

Always striving to accurately understand reality and one’s genuine self-interest; etc”

Do you imply that there could be conflict between “accurately understand reality” and “one’s genuine self-interest”? Because I believe that an undistorted and unflinched assessment of reality – that is Honesty in my book - is crucial for one’s genuine self-interest. To me, there is no inconsistency between the two.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with the rest of your article and especially this:

“Note that honesty does not begin with communication with other people; it begins with the self. A person can be perfectly honest with himself and not say a word to another person in a given situation.”

My own philosophy is that with rational people, one behaves rationally; with irrational people, one does what one can.

I have been accused of being “brutal” and even “cruel” because I was “telling it like it is” without sugar-coating things up and without pampering other people's "feelings". Frankly, I quite enjoy doing that because it is unrestrained, uninhibited, and thus often very exhilarating. But, alas, you are quite right that in our day-to-day dealings with various people, brutal honesty is often a luxury that we can’t afford.

Regards,

Hong Zhang

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 7/20, 11:47am)

Post 1

Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 11:43am

Link

Edit

It's often been said that "90% of communication is non-verbal." Some even say that the number is higher.

I am convinced that you can say anything to anyone if the receiver likes your non-verbal communication. If people don't like your non-verbal communication, it really doesn't matter what you say to them.

Chris

Post 2

Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 5:19pm

Link

Edit

I never found in my life a perfect honest person, unless s/he is totally a coward.
CD

Great article, Mr. Stolyarov.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/20, 5:22pm)

Post 3

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 3:18pm

Link

Edit

     If we're all actually talking within the O'ist framework here...

     "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud..."(AS) --- with almost hubris, I'd like to add "especially beliefs" (one can be fraudulent to one's self, via wishful thinking). Granted, in AR's def of 'honesty' here, she was defining it in terms of personal ethics, but, within the framework of 'social-ethics'; honesty pertaining to others. What I consider a 'personal' aspect of O-ist honesty is actually covered under...

      "Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence...that [you] may permit no breach between action and thought, between [your] life and  [your] convictions...that courage and confidence are practical necessities..."(AS)

     My point is, 'honesty' is 1st and foremost a 'personal' ethics, even were one on a desert isle. Any implications for a 'social-ethics' (other than the specified negatives pertaining to one's relations to others) are interpretations, including what should be recognized as 'rights' of others under varied circumstances. --- Rand was primarily talking about 'honesty to one's self'; she was not talking about honesty-to-others. THAT subject is probably too broad to delineate within any ethical philosophy, with all the lawyeresque ifs/ands/buts and exceptions to the exceptions (--- think of a Law Library.)

      Which 'others' deserve what degree of respect and recognition of honesty granted to them depends on them...and...primarily, the grantor. The grantor may be arbitrary, or even 'rational' but incorrect. One treats such grantors (as Hong implies) as one sees them.

      Given my view, I'm perplexed by so many O'ist-oriented ones debating what 'honesty' really means.

      'Brutal frankness' is usually evaluational-honesty in a social-context where one is making a point to advertise that one couldn't care less about the 'feelings' of some other. If one doesn't, fine; let 'em have it. But...think twice, non? Even Roark didn't 'go out of his way' to make some insultingly-put point regarding this...style...of 'honesty.'

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 7/21, 3:23pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 7/21, 3:53pm)

Post 4

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 2:59pm

Link

Edit

Ms. Zhang, Mr. Baker, Mr. D'Agostino, Mr. Dailey,

Thank you for your comments. They have been read with great interest and are being duly considered. Responses are forthcoming.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 5

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 6:56pm

Link

Edit

Ms. Zhang,

"I would say that honesty, from a personal perspective, is being true to the objective reality."

Agreed.

"Do you imply that there could be conflict between 'accurately understand reality' and 'one’s genuine self-interest'? Because I believe that an undistorted and unflinched assessment of reality – that is Honesty in my book - is crucial for one’s genuine self-interest. To me, there is no inconsistency between the two."

There is no conflict; reality and one's self-interest are always compatible-- especially so because one's self is a part of reality. What my essay criticizes is the mindset that holds that there can be a contradiction between the two-- a mindset that results in either dishonesty or self-sacrifice.

"But, alas, you are quite right that in our day-to-day dealings with various people, brutal honesty is often a luxury that we can’t afford."

I would say that the decision to "tell it like it is" should depend on a fully honest, rational evaluation of the situation and consequences. One should always ask oneself, "Can 'telling it like it is' in this situation harm me or deprive me of a potential benefit?" If the answer is "Yes," then one can remain silent and honest -- thinking what one pleases but recognizing that one does not owe the unsolicited truth to other people.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 6

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 10:39pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Baker,

You wrote: "I am convinced that you can say anything to anyone if the receiver likes your non-verbal communication. If people don't like your non-verbal communication, it really doesn't matter what you say to them."

This is interesting. If true, it can offer a good way to tell the truth to those who would otherwise have been unreceptive to it. Proposing an idea to someone who dislikes it using non-verbal techniques that such a person finds appealing might be useful in getting the person to accept the idea or at least tolerate it.

On the other hand, this could also serve as a drawback, especially if the speaker's non-verbal communication is inadvertently offensive to the listener. That is, the speaker might mean well and deliberately intend to treat the listener with the utmost politeness and consideration-- and yet the listener might respond with hostility due to factors that the speaker had not even considered.

It is an interesting subject to consider.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 7

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 1:54pm

Link

Edit

This is another axample of the difference between the individualist worldview and the tribalist worldview - it is in how the issue is approached. Properly, as we each are individuals, the issue is indeed personal, from which then it is entered into a social construct - but to many if not most, the issue is framed from the tribalist standpoint, with the consequences as you've noted.

Post 8

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:55pm

Link

Edit

Mr. D'Agostino,

Thank you for your kind words. Indeed, the "perfect honest person" by the conventional understanding-- i.e., someone who always tells what he thinks to everybody, no matter what the situation-- is a coward; he lacks the courage to discover and consistently adhere to his genuine self-interest.

Mr. Dailey,

"Which 'others' deserve what degree of respect and recognition of honesty granted to them depends on them...and...primarily, the grantor."

This is true; what one tells others of one's understanding of the truth depends on one's relationship with those others. One does not reveal the deepest, most personal contents of one's mind-- however true they may be-- to any passing stranger. This is not dishonest; it is only rational. One's close friends and loved ones merit greater sharing of ideas than casual acquaintances, business associates, or relatively unknown others. This type of prioritizing of relationships is what the blanket "You must tell everything you think to everybody" idea ignores.

"'Brutal frankness' is usually evaluational-honesty in a social-context where one is making a point to advertise that one couldn't care less about the 'feelings' of some other. If one doesn't, fine; let 'em have it. But...think twice, non?"

Agreed in full. If one seeks no values from another person, then one might be absolutely free with one's words to that person. Of course, there are always indirect consequences to consider as well; a given act of "brutally frank" expression might have hidden results that one did not anticipate at the time. For example, the person one originally did not value might turn out to be a more respectable individual than one thought at first, or might be associated with someone else whose company or services one values. It is always best to be polite and considerate-- even when nothing is apparently at stake-- just to avoid potential future mishaps where one's past "brutal frankness" might hinder one's goals.

Also, if one wishes to frankly pass negative judgment on another, one had better make sure that one has ample evidence to do so; otherwise, the judgment-passing is irrational.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 9

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 9:46am

Link

Edit

quote On the other hand, this could also serve as a drawback, especially if the speaker's non-verbal communication is inadvertently offensive to the listener. That is, the speaker might mean well and deliberately intend to treat the listener with the utmost politeness and consideration-- and yet the listener might respond with hostility due to factors that the speaker had not even considered.

Bullseye! You got it right.

This is something that I have done, and so do many Objectivists. They have good things to say, but it is their non-verbal communication that is offending people. I myself have sometimes said: "Non-verbal communication is for animals."

The trouble is that our awareness of non-verbal communication develops before our awareness of verbal communication. The non-verbal often connects with the mind on a deeper, subconscious level than the verbal does. Little babies are aware of non-verbal communication differences. We do non-verbal things without being aware of what we do, and we notice non-verbal things on a subconscious level without even consciously knowing that we notice them.

I think of non-verbal communication as a different type of language that communicates with the subconscious. If you really want to connect with people, you have to connect with them on a subconscious level.

For example, when I was working at Liberty magazine, some of my colleagues said to me: "You stand too close to people when you talk to them." I had never considered this in all my life. But once I noticed it, it was pretty self-evident.

If you want to learn, study neuro-linguistic programming. I got into it last year and love it. It is as if I was blind before, but now I see.

Chris

Post 10

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:48am

Link

Edit

Here are two good books:

Instant Rapport by Michael Brooks
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0446391336&itm=1

Persuasion Engineering by Richard Bandler and John LaValle
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0916990362&itm=1

The Brooks book has a story on how he got a woman he was dating to quit smoking. That makes it worth reading.

I have just started the other one.

Chris

Post 11

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 11:05am

Link

Edit

If one seeks no values from another person, then one might be absolutely free with one's words to that person.

Or if one seeks the best value from another person whose moral character, intellect and judgement he values very much, then one would want that person to be absolutely honest with him without holding anything back. It takes maturity and unusual savvy to be able to face any brutal truth. I'd consider anyone who has somebody in his life to share such brutal honesty with really lucky.

Post 12

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:55pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Malcom,

Thank you for pointing out the excellent connection between different perceptions of honesty and the differences between the individualist and tribalist worldviews. I think that you are right on target; the view that honesty begins with other people is essentially tribalistic.

Mr. Baker,

I agree with you that it would be useful for Objectivists (or for anyone else, for that matter) to work on non-verbal communication or at least to notice its effects-- especially so as to bring to the forefront of consciousness conduct that had hitherto been unnoticed but presumed or inadvertently demonstrated.

Thank you for recommending the two books you cited; they should definitely be added to my reading list.

Ms. Zhang,

"It takes maturity and unusual savvy to be able to face any brutal truth. I'd consider anyone who has somebody in his life to share such brutal honesty with really lucky."

This is true. Thank you for pointing it out.

It is indeed fortunate when two people have a relationship in which one person's sharing of any truth with the other person will not lead to harmful consequences for the teller of truth. It seems that "brutal frankness" works best at the poles of relationship proximity: with people about whom one could not care less and with people about whom one cares most. "Brutal frankness" seems to fail to work when applied to the whole intermediate range of relationships-- from business associates to decently good (but not intimately close) friends.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 13

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 8:58am

Link

Edit

GS2,

Where are you, by the way? I'm in Texas.

Chris

Post 14

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:40am

Link

Edit

Chris,

I agree with you that NLP is an interesting aggregation of modalities, especially timeline (past, present future awareness and balance) issues and sensory input awareness. I have barely touched on NLP, but consider it a worthwhile exploration.

Jim

Post 15

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:00am

Link

Edit

NLP was one of the most fortunate and important discoveries I have made in my life. I immediately felt a sense of "I was blind, but now I see."

And you can use it for a lot of fun things, too. There are also applications of it to control allergies, etc. I love it.

The stuff on rapport is excellent as well. It explains a lot of things--things that may come naturally for other people.

I only discovered NLP in 2005, but can think of a few Objectivists that I would now call "rapport masters." That's based on my memory of them.

Chris

(Edited by Chris Baker on 7/26, 11:36am)