Introduction.
When we were kids we were instructed to be assertive: to show the facts, to lead people into the right direction and to balance fairly our and the counterpart desires. In theory this is no better way to communicate that being assertive but in the real life being that direct does not only have a great deal of exceptions but it can also work against you in many others.
As humanity we have a tendency to believe and rationalize our behavior into its ideal: a godlike representation on what is right and how other should be. While we may not communicate it explicitly we often believe that what we are doing is best.
What happens when you are doing the best? That anything else is by definition worse.
I believe that this is false. We are a complex being that has complex ways of communicating. I don’t think using a master key to solve all our problems is rational nor possible. I rather believe that there is a place for different techniques to be used in different circumstances.
Being indirect is an art. It has many facets that need careful observation, practice and reflection. Nonetheless I know for personal experience that if you fear or feel repulsion for an activity it is nearly impossible to master it, no matter how skilled you might be.
Is for this reason that I want to explore the depths of being indirect by tackling what was the question that stopped me from beginning: being indirect is right or wrong?
Morality.
Being indirect is one of the hardest conundrums I have faced. This process, as common, natural and well-accepted as is in society always seems very distant from what is right. From the moment we are kids we are instructed to always tell the truth.
As our default is to accept ideas simultaneously to their comprehension it makes sense that honesty has developed as one of the universal values of humanity.
As I explained in “our enslaving lies” a lie can truly corrupt human perception and create no end of catastrophes, both in the group and in the individual. Nonetheless we are very kin to communicating in nuanced meanings and double entendre that is difficult to find the line that separates a lie and a deceptive truth.
Jordan Peterson, author of 12 rules for life dedicated a complete chapter —rule 10 – BE PRECISE IN YOUR SPEECH— to emphasize the role of accurateness in your communication.
But, as Jordan shows explicitly in his book and his public appearances he does not claim to know the truth nor that he is delivering it with exactly as it is but rather he uses the power of histories —personal, from Disney or from the bible— to communicate fundational principles in a way that maximizes both your attention and your acquisition of knowledge.
It appears that humanity both explicitly and implicitly understands and promotes the undirect, articulated and streamlined delivery of information. We have known for centuries that we are storytellers and that we yearn to be seduced by highly developed forms of this ancient art.
Nonetheless we also are very stubborn and can build really tall walls to prevent people for reaching our mind once we realize their intentions. We don’t want to be influenced without our consent to it at the rational —a political candidate, a ideology, a religion or an economic system— but we love to be overwhelmed at the emotional —love, friendship, death, doubt and mystery.
When someone uses the power of the later (our emotions) to influence the decisions of the former (our rationality) we feel greatly disgusted. The only distinction between manipulation and influence can, and often is, just a difference of how subtle and undirect the messengers were at their communication.
This barrier, however, is often forgotten by convenience. We have clear and vast evidence of many sites that observe our behavior on social media —just as Twitter or Facebook— and sell our data to corporations.
Andrew Pole, a statistician that worked at Target realized this when he was analyzing data to figure out how to increase sales: “I guess outsiders could say this is a little bit like Big Brother, that makes some people uncomfortable.”
But Charles Duhigg, author of the power of habit said it best: “He [Andrew Pole] would learn, for example, that hiding what you know is sometimes as important as knowing it…”
While the scale of influence and the recollection of data are completely different when you compare big companies with your interpersonal relationships the underlying principle is the same: people liked to have the commodities that are possible only through an extensive and ruthless acquisition and inference of their personal data at the same time they condemn any uninvited intrusion of others into their mind.
In other words, we crave the attention and care that are product of careful observation but we also fear and reject the vulnerability of leaving our important personal data available.
Therefore we can conclude that generally we do not want to know how we are being influenced, in fact the mystery behind it all can increase the lure and strength of the message being communicated.
Then the questions arises: how can I —or anyone else— deduce if this process is good or wrong?
Being undirect is currently the most amoral thing I have ever seen. Its consequences depend on many different factors that are even beyond our control and comprehension.
For example: a person can have white, grey or black intentions. The consequences of his acts also depend of the response —grey, black or white— of the other person but also they depend of luck —as our interpretation of good or bad decisions are extremely linked to their results.
The intersection of what is considered morally acceptable is constrained not only for these factors, but also for culture and mood.
While I know that there are much more precise and formal measurements to judge if a behavior is moral or amoral, people often do not have the interest, time or knowledge to use them properly.
And even if we did use these formal methods we would be neglecting our direct experience and knowledge, making us more vulnerable and less competent.
“How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation”.
Maybe a pragmatic response does not even exist; maybe we are so used to living under the influence of this style of communication that we simply ignored the need for a simple and general response.
And while the morality of being indirect escapes my comprehension its benefits and ways of working do not. They surround ourselves everywhere. I believe they are a natural characteristic of how our minds function and how we socially behave.
Conclusion.
Just like the archetypical fish who does not know what water is —because he is always surrounded by it— the definite answer to if we should communicate in this way is very elusive.
How can we judge something that we can’t even experience? To judge fairly the cause and consequences of being indirect is something that pertains to be analyzed after the acquistion of data.
Just like Ed Crooke, world champion of memory and psychologist, said “a system’s optimal performance can tell you something about its design.”
Maybe the lack of answers is a defining trait. Maybe the only way to know if being indirect is right or wrong under moral scrutiny is by trying it yourself and see which things can be add or cut to develop an optimal system.
I am not the kind of person that likes to leave the questions open answered, but in this case I believe that the complexity is that big that it would be delusional to provide a general answer to if you should —or must— communicate indirectly.
What I know is that I will do, as the benefits are much and the art is ironically underdeveloped.
I trust my answer and I encourage you to trust yours.
“Dare only to believe in yourselves- in yourselves and in your inward parts! He who does not believe in himself always lies.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Without anything more to say, goodbye!
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash