I don’t think being genuinely nonjudgemental is lying. If I’m having an intellectual argument it’s also not lying to agree for the sake of having a good argument with the opposing side on some points.
If I disagree with someone about A, B, C and D it’s completely fine to assume for the sake of the discussion that A, B and C are true to convince them that D is right.
If specifically asked you might say that you don’t believe A, B or C but you don’t have to be open about everything that you disagree with by default. That just leads to confusion and no effective intellectual exchange.
Any good therapist learns that he doesn’t tell his client everything that the therapist thinks but that he tells the client what’s helpful for the client. A good therapist will still honestly answer direct questions about the beliefs of the therapist.
I put much more trust into the people who have a strong core and are judgmental so that they can morph into whatever they need to connect on a deep level with another person.
All the people who I would trust to jump from a bridge if they would tell me to jump from a bridge have that quality. My first reaction would be to ask: “Do you really think that’s a great idea?” but to the extend that I know they come from a warm and pure place and are in strong empathy with me that’s why I would follow them.
I wouldn’t extend that kind of trust to someone at a lesswrong meetup who has the reputation of always telling the truth but who sometimes says things from a judgemental state and sometimes says things from a warm place.
Over the last year I developed a stronger personal identity and got more clear about what I value. On the other hand in a game of Werewolf people who could read my emotions to sometimes find out whether I’m lying can’t anymore. Knowing who I am allows me to be a lot more socially flexible to do whatever I want in the game of Werewolf in a way that’s not readable by the people I’m playing with.
I don’t think being genuinely nonjudgemental is lying. If I’m having an intellectual argument it’s also not lying to agree for the sake of having a good argument with the opposing side on some points.
If I disagree with someone about A, B, C and D it’s completely fine to assume for the sake of the discussion that A, B and C are true to convince them that D is right.
If specifically asked you might say that you don’t believe A, B or C but you don’t have to be open about everything that you disagree with by default. That just leads to confusion and no effective intellectual exchange.
Any good therapist learns that he doesn’t tell his client everything that the therapist thinks but that he tells the client what’s helpful for the client. A good therapist will still honestly answer direct questions about the beliefs of the therapist.
I put much more trust into the people who have a strong core and are judgmental so that they can morph into whatever they need to connect on a deep level with another person.
All the people who I would trust to jump from a bridge if they would tell me to jump from a bridge have that quality. My first reaction would be to ask: “Do you really think that’s a great idea?” but to the extend that I know they come from a warm and pure place and are in strong empathy with me that’s why I would follow them.
I wouldn’t extend that kind of trust to someone at a lesswrong meetup who has the reputation of always telling the truth but who sometimes says things from a judgemental state and sometimes says things from a warm place.
Over the last year I developed a stronger personal identity and got more clear about what I value. On the other hand in a game of Werewolf people who could read my emotions to sometimes find out whether I’m lying can’t anymore. Knowing who I am allows me to be a lot more socially flexible to do whatever I want in the game of Werewolf in a way that’s not readable by the people I’m playing with.