+1 for this pattern when it works. Be aware that there is no single policy that’s universally applicable. Even with the same person, there can be different situations where a declined offer is going to sting regardless of how it’s phrased. Compassion demands that you do so with the minimum of pain. Rationality (usually) demands that you do so with the maximum potential for future interactions. These are mostly in agreement: communicate using whatever conventions make the other person most comfortable.
For some, you can gently lead them down the path of direct, simple statements of preference. But for a lot of people, that causes more pain than help.
I’ve long been a fan of (and participant in) Crocker’s Rules for social interaction, but I’m well aware that it doesn’t work among people who don’t already feel pretty comfortable with the idea, or who don’t feel emotionally safe in the interaction.
I want to touch on the question of efficiency. Are Crocker’s Rules optimally efficient as a communication paradigm? On an information level, theoretically yes, as it tautologically eschews adding extra information. On a meta-information level it is very efficient as well, as the act of declaring Crocker’s Rules is a very succinct way to communicate to someone else that you want to be efficient in this way.
However, there’s more to communication than information, especially when it comes to interpersonal dynamics. I talked about this in my post on feedback a few months ago. Sometimes the feedback you most need isn’t efficient. Sometimes it’s vague and hard to express clearly in just a few words, and would become garbled in the process. Sometimes the feedback is a feeling. It’s saying “when I experience you doing X, it makes me feel Y.” And this requires vulnerability on the part of the person giving the feedback, which can’t be caused by any amount of you self-declaring Crocker’s Rules. For that, you need trust.
In the short-term, trust-based communication can be incredibly slow. I thought of using an adverb like “excruciating”, but I actually find it very pleasurable. It’s just frustrating if you’re in a rush. In the long-term, however, building trust allows for even more efficient/optimal interactions than Crocker’s Rules, because you have a higher-bandwidth channel.
It’s also frustrating if we’re not actually interested in building mutually trusting relationships and just want to reap the communication benefits of them somehow.
+1 for this pattern when it works. Be aware that there is no single policy that’s universally applicable. Even with the same person, there can be different situations where a declined offer is going to sting regardless of how it’s phrased. Compassion demands that you do so with the minimum of pain. Rationality (usually) demands that you do so with the maximum potential for future interactions. These are mostly in agreement: communicate using whatever conventions make the other person most comfortable.
For some, you can gently lead them down the path of direct, simple statements of preference. But for a lot of people, that causes more pain than help.
I’ve long been a fan of (and participant in) Crocker’s Rules for social interaction, but I’m well aware that it doesn’t work among people who don’t already feel pretty comfortable with the idea, or who don’t feel emotionally safe in the interaction.
edit: fixed link
I wrote a blog post a few months ago exploring the relationship between trust and Crocker’s Rules. An excerpt:
Yes.
It’s also frustrating if we’re not actually interested in building mutually trusting relationships and just want to reap the communication benefits of them somehow.
links work with wiki markup, see help button below comment.
You mean “Markdown syntax”...